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.  

Unlimited Surveillance is carrying surveillance too far and not working

If Washington was really interested in reforming NSA why would they appoint Senator Dianne Feinstein to oversee primary oversight of NSA? She has long been a supporter of the U.S. national security industry. This is one area where she often voted against her fellow Democrat Representatives and Senators. Does she not have a conflict of interest when much of her husband’s income is derived from military contracts?  Senator Feinstein in my opinion is like putting the fox in charge of hen house.

Dianne Feinstein has argued in USA Today that metadata collection of all Americans’ telephone records is not surveillance at all because the actual conversations are not recorded. I think when the U.S. government knows when you called, who you called, who called you, length of each call and frequency of calls that is surveillance and an invasion of privacy.  When they can do the same with your emails that is surveillance and invasion of privacy. It gives the government a clear picture of your associations, activities and a general picture of your daily routine when pieced together. Why should the government have the right to know if you are using a dating service, contacting a gay or lesbian organization, seeking help from an addiction clinic or HIV clinic, etc.?

An August 2010 document that Snowden released to the public revealed that the U.S. spied on members of the United Nation so they would have a heads-up on how they intended to vote on upcoming votes. Edward Snowden’s revelations for the first time allowed people to know the true extent of the surveillance capabilities of the U.S. Government and the dangers it posed to a democratic governance. Privacy is at the very core of our being free people.

NSA does not have to listen to every call we make or read every email we send just the thought that they can is enough to cause people to fear and fall in line. That is really the intent of state surveillance. The threat of government surveillance psychologically inhibits our freedom of speech. If the surveillance worked you may could concede we need it, but it does not work we have seen that over and over just recently in Orlando, Florida.

We all have secrets. We all have personal information that we do not want to share with the public and that does not mean the information is wrong or illegal. I did not as a child want people to know my father was an alcoholic. It took many years in ministry before I would share that I had a sister who had been married five times and divorced. That is not something Catholics, especially Catholic priest want to make public. Washington is quite aware that the mere existence of government surveillance stifles the ability for one to dissent that is why it is so important to them.

NSA databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your relationships and they tell us we have nothing to worry about. I do not trust human nature enough not to be concerned. I certainly do not trust the hypocrites in Washington that have no real convictions except a thirst for more power.  The IRS has conveniently leak private information in the past, especially when an administration is trying to defeat a particular candidate and so will the NSA.

The true measure of a society’s freedom is how it treats dissident and marginalized groups not how it treats good loyalist. Even the worst tyrants protect their loyalist from abuse. In a democracy we should not have to be loyalist to the present administration to feel safe. Some of the richest people in the Philippines today were loyalist of Marcos and had their futures protected regardless if Marcos remained in power or not.

In 2013 the Pew Research Center revealed 70%  of U.S. citizens surveyed thought the U.S. government uses information gathered from surveillance for things other than terrorism. It was even more revealing that the majority now feel Americans should be more concerned about government surveillance than terrorism. Forty-seven percent said they knew the government had taken surveillance too far and abused it.

The indifference or support for unlimited surveillance by government is generally held by those who think themselves exempt from abusive government power. That kind of complacency by the people always leads to abuse. The Japanese Americans never thought that they would be hauled off and put in camps, but during World War II they were. Most of us never thought government surveillance would be used against anyone in the U.S. except Muslims, but it is.

The communication of the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras or spying on negotiation sessions at an economic summit or targeting the democratically elected leaders of allied nations or collecting all Americans communications records has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a pretext to allow unlimited surveillance of our citizens. Did it stop the 2012 Boston Marathon bombing, did it stop the San Bernardino slayings, did it stop the attempted bombing of an airline over Detroit, did it stop the plans to blow up Times Square or the plans to attack the New York Subway?  Did it stop the major international attacks from London to Mumbai to Madrid?

CBS News host Bob Schieffer denounce Snowden as a “narcissistic young man who thinks he is smarter than the rest of us.”  Politico’s Roger Simon called Snowden a loser because he dropped out of high school. Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called Snowden a coward. Congressman Mike Rogers  switched from calling him a spy for China to a spy for Russia without any proof whatsoever. The truth is Edward Snowden was going to Latin America via Russia and when the plane arrived in Russia he was forced to stay there because the U.S. government had cancel his passport. He is not in Russia by choice.  

I NOW believe Edward Snowden has done more for America and freedom than Schieffer, Simon, Schultz, Rogers and all the other Snowden detractors put together. Pardon Edward Snowden and let him come home if he still wants to come home - I do not know if I would or not!

Not everything happens for a reason!

God has given human beings “dominion” on earth.  We have the capacity to make our own decisions. The biblical story is in many ways the story of us misusing our freedom, turning away from God, practicing the very things God has told us not to and then God working to redeem, restore and heal the mess we’ve made of things.

If everything happens for a reason as some Christian leaders teach and a lot of Christians believe then we must assume that God is responsible for Muslim Islamic Terrorism in order to accomplish some purpose.  The terrorist certainly believe they have God’s blessings.  But our attempts to defeat them make it clear that we believe they are evil and must be stopped. We certainly do not believe God has blessed them or is using them for His purpose.

When we make God responsible for every bad decision, every act of wrongdoing, every disease, every inhumane thing we humans do to one another we remove the responsibility from ourselves and put it on God. If you believe everything that happens has a reason then you must believe God is responsible for every bad thing that happens on earth. You have removed the possibility of our ‘free will’ which scripture makes clear God gave us.

I have not only heard Christians tell others, but I have had them tell me, God must have a reason for inflicting suffering on you. I did not find that very comforting and I am sure other suffering people did either. If that is true then how are we supposed to pray to a God for help if you believe the same God caused your problem?

I do not think God is the originator of pain and problems. I really think God is saddened by the wrong decision we make and when we choose to hurt others.

On April 15, 2013, James Costello was cheering on a friend near the finish line at the Boston Marathon when the bombs exploded, severely burning his arms and legs and sending shrapnel into his flesh. During the months of surgery and rehabilitation that followed, Mr. Costello developed a relationship with one of his nurses, Krista D’Agostino, and they soon became engaged. Mr. Costello posted a picture of the ring on Facebook. “I now realize why I was involved in the tragedy,” he wrote. “It was to meet my best friend, and the love of my life.” What about those that lost their lives and their families that only felt grieve after? I think they would have a hard time accepting God had a reason for inflicting such pain on them and their loved one. The only reason for the Boston bombing was evil men made evil decisions. It is wonderful if something great came as the result of it to some people, but God did not have a hand in the bombing.

I guess we associate God having a purpose for all things because we believe in a God that plans for us, sends us messages, rewards the good and punishes the bad. Christians may be surprised that atheists also believe things happen for a reason because they believe in ‘fate’.  They believe there is an order to life that determines how events turn out.

I think people in general have a need to find meaning in life, particular bad things that happen to them. Some people find it reassuring to think that there really are no accidents to the things that happen to us, including the most terrible of events.  We have a need to make sense of events and situations. It helps us figure out why people behave as they do and respond appropriately. But it can lead us into error when we try to find purpose to everything that happens to us. Things on earth just don’t naturally work out so that all people get what they deserve. Some things just happen. There’s no rhyme or reason to them. They just happen.

But, wait a minute somethings do happen for a reason! When you got that new job you were hoping for, that happened for a reason — you applied for it, you interviewed well, and the company thought you were the best candidate for the job. When you failed that test you needed to pass in order to maintain your G.P.A. and keep your scholarship, that too happened for a reason — you spent too much time on Facebook, going out with friends and catching up on your favorite shows when you should have been studying. The time that house on the news got hit by lightning and burned to the ground that happened for a reason — the roof of the house was the closest contact point for the bolt of lightning, and the massive charge of electricity caused the wood the house was built with to catch on fire. When that young mother and her child were hit by a drunk driver and died tragically in a car accident, that also happened for a reason — someone had too much to drink, and without concern for anyone else’s well-being, they got behind the wheel of their car, wherein their impaired judgment and slowed response time resulted in them running a red light and taking the life of a mother and her child. They happened, and there was a reason but that reason was not God.

If you think everything happens for a reason and it is divine then you must believe God delights in causing our suffering. You are saying that God is the sort of god who sends drunk drivers to kill, who burns down people’s homes and afflicts random people with horrendous diseases, like cancer. If God had a hand in intentionally causing these things to occur, then God is not the God of the Gospels.

God does enact judgment, but God is not to be blame for every terrible thing that happens in life. The truth is we live in a broken world and terrible, meaningless things happen. Not because God wants them to happen, but because our decisions have consequences and because nature cannot be tamed. God is not a villain.

Stop putting your friends through hell every time they suffer by tormenting them with the words “Everything happens for a reason.” there will come a day when every tear will be wiped away and there will be no more death or crying or mourning or pain. But it is not going to happen on this earth before Christ comes again.

But until that day comes, our testimony to that future reality is not found in trying to attach meaning to the meaningless. Our testimony, and our gift of grace to those to suffer, will be found in our willingness to suffer with them, to walk with them through the valley of the shadow of death so that they know they are not alone. 

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.

Should we give up our culture/tradition to appease Muslims?

Some politically correct politicians in Italy made a decision to cover up nude statues from Roman antiquity during a visit by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. Some of Italy’s political leaders were willing to ignore their national identity in order not to offend Rouhani, Iran and the Muslim world.  Many of the citizens of Italy are rightly upset. They also hid the wine! Once again a non-Islamic government gave in to Islam. This is not the first time Italy has done this. During an official Saudi Arabia visit to Italy they covered up all the nude modern art.

The statues, in a corridor leading to a grand hall in Rome’s renowned Capitoline Museums, were covered in tall white boxes ahead of a news conference that Mr. Rouhani held on Monday with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. Rouhani and Renzi say they did not ask for it to be done. The director of the museum says Prime Minister Renzi did request they be covered so as not to offend Rouhani. Some media reports suggested the Iranian delegation had asked Italian officials to hide the statues to avoid Mr. Rouhani any potential embarrassment in Iran.  Maybe they should have held the news conference at McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken – no pork and no nude statues.

One Italian newspaper reported that in the grand hall at the Capitoline where the two leaders spoke, the lectern was moved to the side — not the front — of an equestrian statue of the emperor Marcus Aurelius to avoid having images of the horse’s genitals appear in news photographs.

One of the statues was the “Capitoline Venus,” a Roman copy of a legendary fourth century B.C. work by Praxiteles; some of the other sculptures were of ancient Greek and Roman gods, dressed minimally, if at all. I understand an austere Islamic government that promotes chastity and piety was visiting a country with a largely secular culture that has a reputation for embracing life’s pleasures, but I believe St. Ambrose said in 387 A.D., “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”

On May 13, 2015 a group of Islamic youth bullied, threaten and insulted a Catholic group in Northern Italy. The young Muslim’s were immigrants, not citizens of Italy, and they certainly did not care if Catholics were offended when they interrupted a Catholic procession in honor of the Virgin Mary. No charges were ever filed against the young men. It seems Obama and Prime Minister Renzi is more concerned about not offending Muslims than they are the citizens of their own countries.

Mr. Rouhani, 67, comes from a religious family, but he has a Ph.D. in law from Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland, and is not known as a religious hard-liner. Iran’s politics are extremely complex and religious matters are carefully policed by the theocratic regime that exercises ultimate power in Tehran. The supreme leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Public depictions of nudity are forbidden in Iran, but Mr. Rouhani was not in Iran he was in Rome, Italy. I do not know about you, but it frightens me that some world leaders expect their citizens to adopt Islamic customs, traditions and beliefs while ignoring our own in order not to upset Muslims.

It seems obvious to me some Italian political leaders put economic interests (18 billion dollars in new contracts) ahead of cultural legacy, just as Obama put his presidential legacy ahead of the safety of the American people when he negotiated his secret deal with Iran.

The covered statues were icons of classicism and models of humanism and are the foundation of European and Mediterranean culture and civilization. To cover them in order to satisfy Iran and not offend the Iranian citizens they offended their own Italian citizens. I think they offended most of the world tourist that went to Rome to see the statues and just happen to have made the mistake of traveling to Rome when Mr. Rouhani was there.  

Thank God Pope Francis did not cover the crucifixes when he greeted Rouhani at the Vatican.  I am not ashamed of Western culture. I do not want to bow to Iran’s demand or any other countries demands. If I went to Iran I would follow theirs laws, culture and traditions as long as I did not have to deny my Christian faith. I expect the Iranians not to demand or request I ignore the laws, culture and traditions of my own country when they are guest in my country. Respect for others cultures should not mean denying our own.

The French experienced some awkwardness in hosting Mr. Rouhani. In November, during a visit by the Iranian president and Iranian government officials when they refused to attend an official luncheon at the Élysée Palace, reportedly after the Iranians learned wine was to be served to the guest that requested it. Wine with meals is expected in France. The French officials refused to give in to Iran’s demand and served wine.

Italy’s Prime Ministers accommodation to the Iranians should be as embarrassing to the Italians as it was to Americans when Obama bowed to the Saudi King when he first took office. It seems Obama and other world leaders are more concerned over offending Muslims than they are in protecting their own citizens from a repeat of 9/11 or any other attack that these murderous thugs are planning. And yes they are still planning attacks against our country and other countries.

I do not believe what the Prime Minister of Italy did was for accommodation purposes I believe it was an act of submission! It makes no difference if you face reality and utter the politically incorrect words “radical Islamic Muslims” or not the fact is on 9/11 those who killed and destroyed were Muslims and killed in the name of Islam. Yet, the fact that the killers were Muslim and killed in the name of Islam is not only at the center of why we were attacked, but it is the ONLY explanation for the reason we were attacked.

It has become so ingrained in world leaders psyche to not offend Muslims that we cannot mention anything bad about radical Islamic Muslims even if it is true. They are now using it as a weapon against us so called infidels. The fear of offending radical Islamic Muslims has given the terrorists who killed so many in terrorist attacks a victory over our people, our country and the non-Islamic nations of the world. The fear of offending Muslims has in some respects almost crippled our country and as a result has given terrorism a victory over us and our nation.

I will never condone the burning of the Koran, damaging mosque, discriminating against all Muslims or denying them their Constitutional rights.  But, I do not believe our Founders ever intended for the Constitution to be used as a weapon of the politically correct. Those Constitutional rights were never intended to be used as a weapon to condone wrong.

We are so concerned about offending Muslims that we will not call the Islamic radicals who killed on 9/11 “radical Islamic Muslims”, we will cover valuable and beautiful art work that is nude or partially nude, we will not serve wine at meals and we will forgo our own culture and traditions all for the sake of not offending Muslims, but they do not care how much they offend Christianity, Judaism or other religions.  We will either defend our people and our nation against radical Islamic terrorist or we will bend over and let them do whatever they want to us and one day we will live in constant FEAR!  We cannot allow fear of being attack to allow wrong to take over the world.

Fear and intimidation is the tool of terrorism and whether it is done with planes, guns or words or demanding accommodation it has the same affect. It forces those who kowtow to that fear and intimidation into submission and allows the perpetrators of terror to have their way no matter what the consequences are.

Americans know the difference between the Muslim radicals and the moderates. We know the difference between those who follow Islam as a religion and those who use it as a weapon to kill. We do not need to be reminded on a daily basis on how to be tolerant of Muslims. We do not need to be reminded daily that there are Muslims who live in the United States as good citizens and do not follow the ideas of the radicals. We as a nation do not need to bend over and ,”tolerate,” Muslims to the point that we are afraid to even mention the word Muslim or the religion of Islam without fear of offending someone or being accused of being racist.

We are told by Obama that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslim. WHAT ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE FAMILIES AND AMERICANS WHO STILL REMEMBER 9/11 and that in 2014 there were 2999 radical Muslim Islamic attacks in 55 countries, in which 32262 people were killed and 27522 injured?

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.

Obama ignores U.S. Immigration Laws!

Do you remember Obama saying on March 28, 2011, "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed and I have to enforce them? Congress passes the law not me. The executive branch’s job is to implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system and for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President".

Maybe you recall Obama saying on September 28, 2011, "I just have to continue to say, this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true because we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. And nobody will be a stronger advocate for making that happen than me."

On November 25, 2013 Obama said, “If, in fact, I could solve all these (immigration) problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.”

Obama knows the Constitution, he knows what his rightful role in government is, but his pride, arrogance and stubbornness gets in the way of him doing the right thing.

In politically correct terms Obama is good at giving ‘lip service’ to doing the right thing, but to truly be accurate in describing Obama you must call him a liar. Lying is the one area Obama is extremely proficient in and has proven it to the people of the world over and over again.

In a statement announcing his executive amnesty, President Obama reassured the American public that formerly illegal aliens would not qualify for “the same benefits that citizens receive.” How can that be because federal agencies are issuing Social Security numbers to millions of new residents? It’s only a matter of time before it becomes clear that the president’s words were misleading.

Formerly illegal aliens may not qualify for “the same benefits that citizens receive,” but they will likely qualify for tens of billions of dollars’ worth of generous benefits available to U.S. citizens. How much they will receive will soon be made clear.

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit will certainly be available to them. This is a benefit designed to help low income 'American' wage earners. The average EITC payment to a family with children is $2,905, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Additional Child Tax Credit works in much the same way is paying an average of $1,800 to qualifying households.

These programs are administered by the Internal Revenue Service as part of the tax code, not as social-welfare programs. The IRS asks only one question as it processes an EITC: Does the credit-seeker have a Social Security number? For the ACTC, the standard is even laxer: Does the credit-seeker have a Social Security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number? The ITIN is the substitute for a Social Security number widely used by illegal aliens. There is nothing standing in the way of illegal aliens abusing the programs.

ACTC already pays huge amounts to illegal aliens holding only ITINs—$4.2 billion in 2010, this figure was released by the Treasury Department’s own inspector general. Once those ITIN holders gain Social Security numbers, it will become even harder to distinguish between authorized resident aliens and illegal aliens.

Obama will not stop illegal aliens from participating in these programs. He wants them to be able to participate in them. The only thing that may slow the growth of these programs is illegal aliens may hesitate to apply for benefits fearing being identified and penalized in some way. If those anxieties are overcome, more than 40 percent of Mexican and Guatemalan born illegal immigrants will qualify for the ACTC, and about one-third of illegal immigrants from El Salvador and Honduras will qualify.

U.S. immigration law still forbids the president to grant residency to aliens likely to become “a public charge.” In other words the aliens allowed into the United States must be able to support themselves. Do you think Obama is enforcing that law, of course not?

If you support refugees being brought to the U.S. believing Obama when he says they will be fully vetted consider this: In April 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services admitted that an illegal alien named Jesus Rangel-Hernandez, a gang member who was slated for deportation until he applied for DACA and was allowed to stay in the U.S., even though he had been charged with four counts of first-degree murder in North Carolina. Hernandez was supposed to have been fully vetted.

Obama promised Americans that those who qualify for his executive orders would meet a set of guidelines meant to keep criminals out of our country. We now know that isn’t true and that the agency tasked with implementing the President’s edict cannot effectively carry out the rules without compromising the safety of Americans. This is one more reason why the president’s habit of governing by edict is a poor replacement for actual law making.

When outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is of Mexican heritage, formally stepped down from his post in early February 2013, Obama suggested that the Hispanic Cabinet member was more authentically American than the Pilgrims of New England, Obama said, "Salazar’s ancestors were here before the Mayflower set sail. His family did not cross the border, the border crossed them. And that's why, when I needed somebody to lead the Interior Department, I didn't have to look very far." How many more times is Obama going to apologize for Europeans coming to the shores of the U.S. and making it a great country? Obama honestly thinks we should be ashamed of what we have accomplished.

 In February 2014, the Obama administration eased restrictions on asylum seekers who had loose ties to terrorist and insurgent groups. Specifically, the new policy allowed some individuals who had provided "limited material support" to terror groups to be considered for entry into the United States. Can anyone explain why anyone with any ties to terrorist or had given any support to terrorist would be allowed to enter the U.S.?

On March 10, 2014 Top administration officials directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.

The following instructions were issued March 7, 2014, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol,   “Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves.”

Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by. Agents can’t use guns against “a moving vehicle fleeing from agents,” according to the instructions. The new rules were issued at the direction of Jeh Johnston, the then head of the Department of Homeland Security. It appears Obama approaches the drug smuggler and illegal alien problems the same way he approached the terrorist problem – like a coward.

In March 2014, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that in 2013, U.S. immigration & Customs Enforcement had 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of who came to ICE's attention after they had been jailed in connection with a local arrest. ICE officials released 530,000 plus back to the streets of the U.S.  Because of current Obama policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement of immigration laws. Some of the illegal aliens released back to the streets had previous convictions for homicide, sexual offenses, kidnapping, aggravated assault, stolen vehicles, drugs, drunk or drugged while driving and  flight to escape conviction.

Studies have shown that less than a quarter of illegal aliens who are released from custody while awaiting the outcome of immigration proceedings will show up for immigration court to finish their case. Those who do not show up are put on a meaningless list for trying to escape conviction. They will never be apprehended unless they commit a more horrendous crime and are caught by local authorities.

I see no justification for the release of convicted criminals back into the U.S. communities, when they could have been removed to their home countries. It is a blatant abuse of authority by Obama that leads to public harm. There is no legal justification, for failing to deport tens of thousands of aliens with criminal convictions who have been encountered by an ICE officer.

Please do not forget Kate Steinle a young woman who was walking on a busy pier in San Francisco with her father when there was a single popping sound in the air. She fell to the ground, struck by a bullet, dead. Her accused killer was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien with seven prior felony convictions. Obama took no action on his own to console the grieving family. I suppose he knew his ignoring our immigration laws made him in some ways responsible for her death.

On May 13, 2014, President Obama told a gathering of law-enforcement officials that they should be pursuing major criminals, and not illegal immigrants (aliens) who were living quietly and peacefully in their districts. Obama said, "You’ve got to stop spending time dealing with somebody who is not causing any trouble other than the fact that they are trying to make a living for their families. That’s just not a good use of our resources. It’s not smart. It doesn’t make sense...." 

In my opinion what does not make sense is Obama skirting the laws our legislator pass and he swore to uphold.

Obama is forcing Immigration Judges to tell deportable illegal aliens that the final deportation order they are issuing isn’t actually an impediment to receiving the President’s grants of deferred action. Even though the illegal aliens violated our immigration laws, they are now being advised by the sentencing judge, by Obama’s orders, that they can receive work permits, a social security card, tax benefits, parole, travel documents, and, if the illegal alien is from Central America, the opportunity to bring qualifying family members to the United States at taxpayer expense. And if they are not eligible for deferred action at the time the deportation orders are issued, they should simply sit tight because DHS may issue more policy memorandums expanding eligibility for deferred action and additional benefits.

There are an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens who have received final orders of deportation and have exhausted all appeals, but they are still in the United Sates. Nearly 175,000 of these aliens with final orders are convicted criminals and 167,000 of these criminal aliens remain at large.

We can all sleep well tonight knowing our president is looking after our safety and we know he knows what is best for us. If you believe Emperor Obama has made you safer then you should vote for Queen Hillary. Her administration will be more of the same.

The U.S. has two land borders - what about our northern border?

We constantly are bombarded with news about the southern border with Mexico. When are our political geniuses in Washington D.C. going to start doing something about our northern border with Canada?

The new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s is welcoming refugees to Canada. How long do you think it will take for some of them to try and escape the cold weather and move on into the United States?   We have two border problem and we had better start focusing on both and not ignore our northern border’s security.

Trudeau is another ultra-liberal - Obama.  He was a community organizer, fund raiser, advocate for liberal causes, climate control freak, who thinks he can solve all of Canada’s problems by taking money from the rich and giving it to welfare recipients. He opposes any type of bombing in the Middle East.  President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau have not directly addressed anti-Semitic incitement in Palestinian society and the stabbing and car-ramming terror attacks. They are more concerned with Syrian refugees than the security of Israel. Neither seems interested in protecting their borders from illegal aliens or stopping an influx of terrorist that have infiltrate the refugee movement. I know now why the two, Obama and Trudeau, were inseparable recently while in the Philippines and appeared to be best 'buds' at all casual functions.

Communities in Minnesota and New York, which are adjacent to Ontario and Quebec have recently, experienced apprehensions of individuals on terrorist charges. Trudeau, opening up his border to refugees is only going to increases our risk.

Our nation’s southern border continues to serve as an entry point for terrorists. refugees have already begun to come across our southern border into the United States from Mexico. Everyday Border Control Agents encounter the problem and with them facing a shortage of agents and being limited by the Obama Administration as to what they can and cannot do with illegals the problem grows worse by the hour.

Earlier this month, it was reported that immigration officials apprehended five young Middle Eastern men carrying stainless steel cylinders in backpacks in an Arizona town about 30 miles away from the southern border. Just days earlier, Border Patrol apprehended five Pakistani nationals and one Afghan national who had entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico.
 
How many are entering through our northern border where one only has to walk across at non-manned border crossings? Government figures (Homeland Security) reveals the following: in the year 2014 there were 3328 illegals apprehended trying to cross from Canada to the United States. I do not think people know that more trucks and trains cross our northern border from Canada to the United States than trucks and trains cross our southern border.

Another little known fact is many who are apprehended crossing from Canada into the United States have previously been caught and turned back at our Southern border with Mexico.

According to the Justice Department the northern U.S. border still has just one Border Patrol agent for every 16 miles. The border with Mexico, by comparison, has enough agents to assign one about every 1,100 feet and they are still understaffed. There is only 400 agent’s station on the U.S. northern border. They cover nine states bordering Canada: Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, New York, Vermont and Washington. Alaska has nearly 1,600 miles of border with Canada and does not have one border agent assigned directly to the area.

There are significant security concerns on the northern border, but little has changed in the distribution of Border Patrol agents since Sept. 11. This in spite of the fact President Bush stated before leaving office that, “The northern border has become an attractive gateway for potential terrorists.”

Perhaps one of the reasons more action is not taken on our Northern border is because the Canadians complain about any aggressive or increase attention by U.S. Border Patrol along our northern border. It seems that it interferes with their business and economy. It also seems to be inconvenient for Canadian citizens living along the border that want to shop and seek medical treatment in the United States to cross.

The 4,000 mile long U.S. / Canadian border has been described as the longest undefended border in the world. Anyone familiar with Canadian immigration policy will tell you that Canada is an immigrant haven and one especially desirable for those seeking some form of asylum. Permanent resident status in Canada is easy to obtain even for individuals from countries strongly suspected of supporting organized terrorism.

The Detroit Sector for instance, is responsible for 804 miles of total wilderness between Michigan and Canada. The Detroit Sector is home not just to wilderness, but to the city of Detroit which has the largest Muslim population anywhere outside of the Middle East. With a Muslim population exceeding 150,000, Detroit’s City Fathers are amending the city noise ordinance to allow mosques to use loudspeakers for the call to prayer and Obama last Sunday accused Americans of discriminating against Muslims. There are 76 suspected terrorist cells in that area.

If Montreal resident Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian-born Al-Qaida operative who was caught in 1999 by vigilant U.S. border inspectors, had simply walked across the Canadian border through the woods near Detroit, his bombs would have brought untold death and destruction to his planned target, LAX, and possibly killed more people than were killed on 9/11. His stupidity by trying to cross at a Port of Entry was his downfall.

The U.S. and Canada do not share information about people placed on their respective “no-fly” lists. As a result, individuals deemed a threat that flies into one country may then cross the land border into the other.

Congress and the President have both been advised repeatedly that in terms of a terrorist threat, the northern border is significantly more of a threat than the southern border. I guess our elected officials in Washington D.C. are waiting for another big terrorist attack to happen before they address the issue, but 9/11 was not a wakeup call, so I do not know what it would take to wake them up.

More Hillary Clinton B.S. to win an election!

In an interview Sunday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton (of course she is the front-runner she has no Democrat competition) defended herself against critics of her words against radical Islamists and her actions immediately after the Benghazi attacks. Only Obama and Clinton could find a way to defend incompetency and blame someone else.

Clinton was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, a former staffer to her husband, President Bill Clinton, a close friend to both Bill and Hillary, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and served on the board of the Clinton Foundation until he embarrassed himself and thought it was in his best interest to resign if he wanted to continue to have a media career.

Stephanopoulos pressed Clinton on a common Republican criticism, that she refuses to say the United States is fighting "radical Islam." He pressed her as much as any best friend who wants to see her elected would press.

Clinton claimed she says radical Islamists all the time. Really! I do not think I have heard her or Obama make those types of comments.

She did add, “Using the term "radical Islam sounds like the United States is going after an entire religion, ignoring the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Also, she said, it helps create the notion of a "class of civilizations" that actually aids Islamic State (ISIS) recruiting.” According to her and Obama they do not call it what it is in order not to aid the terrorist.

No one denies that there are more Muslims not waging terrorist attacks than Muslims that are. I think she is trying to buy Muslim and Liberal votes by being politically correct. I do not think we are fighting Islam the religion or all Muslims if I did I would not have a Muslim caregiver. We are fighting “RADICAL ISLAM MUSLIMS”. How can you fix a problem if you cannot or will name it?

When asked if the United States is winning the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, "I can say today that we have a new set of threats.” You had better watch your back Obama, Mama is turning against you to win an election! It was interesting to me that she in no way implied that we were losing the fight against ISIS – which we are.

Clinton attacked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for suggesting we should "carpet bomb" ISIS, She mocked him by saying; "He's never had any responsibility for trying to figure out who the bad guys are and who innocent civilians are." As if she has! Civilian casualties are the cost of war and quite frankly I prefer civilian casualties in Syria and Iraq than in the United States. If we are not willing to risk causing civilian casualties abroad we should get out and bring our people and equipment home and wait until we are fighting on our own soil, risking the lives of American citizens.

She said current and retired military leaders should come together to rebuild the Sunnis and Kurds to fight on the ground in Iraq against ISIS. I am all for that, but it was Obama and Mama Clinton that prior to her campaigning were not willing to take the advice of military leaders to do just that. What a difference how ones greed to be President can alter their thinking.

She said people are within their rights to buy and carry guns after the San Bernardino attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton the Constitution gave us that right before and after the San Bernardino attack. It is a shame it took San Bernardino to make you realize that.

She addressed charges she lied to family members of the four Americans killed in Benghazi by blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video: she said, "I understand the continuing of the grief of the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. … This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war." She does not and cannot understand what the parents are going through because she has never experienced that kind of loss. She did lie to not only the parents of those murdered she lied to the world. Fast moving – if she would have misspoken within hours of the event and corrected herself the next morning I could cut her some slack, but she, Obama and all the rest of his administration continued to lie for WEEKS after the event.

She talked about how Americans see her as untrustworthy: "Obviously, I don't like hearing that, George, but I think people who have worked with me, people who voted for me twice in New York, people I've had a very long relationship with and working on their behalf, are going to know what I do and when I say I'll do it, I'll move everything I can to get it done." The people that work with her are as dishonest as she is or they could not work with her. As far as her winning elections - that is the result of her being a good politician capable of saying what the people want to hear in order to get votes. Americans all know she lies and covers up and the majority may elect her President in 2016 even knowing those facts.

She said the U.S. should not declare war on ISIS because it is a "legal term" and only Congress has the authority to declare war. CONGRESS should declare war or not risk the lives of American soldiers. Anytime we send our troops to foreign soil to fight or advise we should be willing to do whatever is needed to WIN!!!!!

I am sorry Mrs. Clinton I am one that did not buy your campaign spill.

 

 

More gun control laws are not the answer to the terrorist and crime problems in the U.S.

The shooting Wednesday in San Bernardino, California gave Obama, Democrats and Liberals another opportunity to call for stricter gun control. I am for laws regulating the purchase and use of guns and we have laws in the United States for that purpose such as: people are prohibited from purchasing a gun if they are under indictment for a felony, or any crime which could result in more than a year in prison; if they have been convicted of a felony, or any other crime for which they could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison; if they are a fugitive from justice; if they are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, controlled substances, including marijuana; if they have been adjudicated mentally defective; if they have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; if they have renounced their United States citizenship, etc.

It seems to me that we do not need more laws we need to enforce the laws we have. If the government cannot enforce present laws how are they going to enforce new laws?

One problem with gun control in the United States may be the carrying of weapons, either openly or concealed, is primarily regulated by the States. Perhaps there should be uniform Federal laws governing ownership, use and types of guns. I know many would fear putting this control in the hands of Washington politicians. But, removing guns from being available to law abiding United States citizens violates the Constitution and solves nothing. 

Obama and his follower’s claim they are calling for, "common sense gun control," as though that would have prevented the tragedy. What exactly do they mean by “common sense gun control”? The articles I have read pertaining to last Wednesdays killings by TERRORIST said some of the weapons were not even purchased by the two terrorist. They were purchased legally by a friend. Perhaps a law regulating or prohibiting transferring or loaning weapons by unlicensed dealers would have help?

No assault weapons ban, no gun violence restraining order, no ammunition magazine capacity law would have prevented the San Bernardino slaughter. The French terrorist attacks proved, gun control laws written by people like Obama do not work they simply leave the innocent unprotected.

Murders and TERRORIST view gun control laws with the same contempt that they view laws against murder and terrorism. California already has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, but their laws did not stop the San Bernardino attack. California has an “assault weapons” ban. However, the shooters used AR-15-style semi-auto rifles, which are quite illegal ANYWHERE in California. California has Universal Background checks that Obama is proposing to put in force nationwide it did not stop the shooting last Wednesday. California also has strict magazine limits, but yet the terrorist ignored those laws. The simple fact is criminals and terrorist break the law and only law abiding citizen’s keep the law.

I do not think people who claim the Paris terrorist attack was caused by climate control and that the most serious problem the world faces is climate control is capable of writing “common sense gun control” laws.

It has been said many times, “guns are not the problem - people are the problem, guns do not kill - people kill” and I find that to be very true. Anyone that is determined to commit a crime using a gun will get one.  In the Philippines those bent on committing a crime with a gun and cannot afford one, make one. They are called a sumpak. They are made from materials like nails, steel pipes, wooden pieces, bits of string, etc. They kill and injure just like those guns made by a gunsmiths and major gun manufacturers. How are control laws going to prevent people from making homemade guns?

 Obama following the TERRORST shooting in California urged Congress to pass a law banning firearms purchases for people on the Transportation Security Administration’s unaccountable, unconstitutional no- fly list. What would that have done to prevent the slaughter last Wednesday? The two terrorist were not on the no-fly list. In fact Obama’s Immigration program welcomed one of them to the United States with open arms in a matter of weeks after she applied for a visa to the United States - that says volumes for Obama’s immigration vetting programs.

The New York Times is using space on its front page to call for greater gun regulation in the wake of recent deadly mass shootings. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says the newspaper is running its first Page 1 editorial since 1920 on Saturday to "deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country's inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."

Obama, Democrats and Liberals are never going to let a tragedy go to waste, not when it can be used to weaken the U.S. Constitution. President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made it clear what Obama’s political strategy is when he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” This is the same Rahm Emanuel that is Mayor of Chicago the killing capital of the United States.