Skip to content

Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016 published on No Comments on Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

The full audio:

The Story via Politico:

Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.

But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.

“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.

Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.

The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.

“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:

Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.

Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”

Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”

As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.

Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job.  You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.

This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.

Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum

On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration

On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration published on No Comments on On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration

Here’s the statement in its entirety:

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

Here is the problem with this idea. It is, in fact, a total violation of our First Amendment. Not to mention it is straight up discrimination.

If trump was elected and he tried to do this, the ACLU would have a field day with it and lawsuits would fly like crazy. The reason I say that it is a First Amendment, is because if the Federal Government gets in the business of telling which religions can enter the Country, we put the First Amendment in jeopardy.  There is also this thought from the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore:

The United States government should fight, and fight hard, against radical Islamic jihadism. The government should close the borders to anyone suspected of even a passing involvement with any radical cell or terrorist network. But the government should not penalize law-abiding people, especially those who are American citizens, for holding their religious convictions.

Muslims are an unpopular group these days. And I would argue that non-violent Muslim leaders have a responsibility to call out terror and violence and jihad. At the same time, those of us who are Christians ought to stand up for religious liberty not just when our rights are violated but on behalf of others too.

Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians. A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.

I may have disagreements with the SBC on many things, mostly because they’re evangelical and I happen to be an old Fundamentalist Baptist. However, on this issue here, he is right. We simply do NOT want the United States Government getting involved in religion at all.

What should happen is this: There should be a 10 year moratorium on ALL immigration in this Country or at least until this Country figures out a way to screen every last person coming into this Country and figures out a way to share information with other Countries as to the background of all persons coming into this Country. Furthermore, the United States of America should be going after the Muslims that are suspected of having ties to extremists, who are living here already.

Furthermore, we should be stepping up to the fullest extent possible, the surveillance of Mosques here in America that are suspected of preaching radical jihad; and the Imams who are preaching this sort of thing, should be arrested, tried and deported out of the Country, never again allowed to return to America. If they are from the United States, they should be tried with promoting hate speech. Also, their connections and money trails should be fully investigated as well.  If the Imams are found to be taking money from radicals, they should tried for that as well.

The point is this: We already have the means and the ability to track these things and put a stop to them. The problem is that political correctness stopped it and now, we are paying the price. The blood of all those killed in London, San Bernardino and everywhere else, so far; is on the hands of the political correct and civil rights people. Protection of the Republic of the United States, and its people come first. This President has failed horrible on this issue, because he wishes to placate the liberal wing of his Party. Because of this, people have been killed and if President Obama is not real careful, that will end up being his legacy.

Others: Talking Points Memo, New York Times, BuzzFeed, USA Today, Salon,FiveThirtyEight, Breitbart, NBC News, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, Vox, Press Enterprise, RH Reality Check, The Hinterland Gazette, Power Line, Slate, The Week,Bloomberg Business, The Gateway Pundit, Political Wire, Gothamist, Taylor Marsh,Hot Air, Guns.com, Scared Monkeys, SaintPetersBlog, Political Insider blog, BizPac Review, Mashable, TowleroadImmigrationProf Blog, Daily Kos, The Hill, KRQE-TV, Mother Jones, TalkLeft, Fox News Insider, The American Conservative, Center for Security Policy, The Moderate Voice, Independent Journal,Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, PoliticusUSA, Althouse, No More Mister Nice Blog and Politico (Via Memeorandum)

 

Mini-Movie: The frame job against Bashar al-Assad

Mini-Movie: The frame job against Bashar al-Assad published on No Comments on Mini-Movie: The frame job against Bashar al-Assad

This comes via Conservative-Headlines.com, and I know some people might not like it that I linked to these guys. Well, you know what? Tough! This video is a eye-opener; and I really do not even like Alex Jones for some very good reasons.

Just like Al-Qaeda, ISIS was created by the United States. Our biggest threat as Americans, is not terrorism; it is our own Government.

Customs and Immigration Officer shoots suspect in Detroit; Suspect had a hammer

Customs and Immigration Officer shoots suspect in Detroit; Suspect had a hammer published on 1 Comment on Customs and Immigration Officer shoots suspect in Detroit; Suspect had a hammer

Of course, you know, the left is going to play this one for all it is worth. Considering what’s happening elsewhere.

Detroit — The 20-year-old armed robbery suspect who was fatally shot by a federal agent on Monday was “armed with a hammer,” Detroit’s police chief said Tuesday.The shooting, on the city’s west side, angered residents who had to be placated by the city’s police chief.The Detroit Fugitive Apprehension Team, a task force that included officers from the Detroit Police Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Marshals, were serving an armed robbery warrant in the 9500 block of Evergreen at the time of the shooting around 1:13 p.m., Detroit Police Chief James Craig said.The officers were allowed into the home to conduct their search, Craig said.The incident comes at a time of heightened tension between police and black communities in some U.S. cities, spurring a national debate about race and police tactics.In the Detroit incident, the suspect was black, as was the federal agent who shot him.

Source: Federal officer shoots, kills Detroit man one east side

The man was armed with a hammer, he tried to attack a federal officer, and he got shot. Just another day in the big city. But, as you know, because he is black, as was the agent that shot him; because of the stuff happening everywhere now, the left and their media lap-dogs are going to exploit this, in hopes that there is another riot in Detroit.

Because that, is what marxists do. Marxists exploit stuff like this to disrupt the system. You watch and see, summer is coming and Detroit has a white mayor. You watch, another uprising is coming and the marxists will be in the middle of it.

Related:  WXYZ-TVImmigration and Customs Enforcement officer shoots, kills suspect on Detroit’s west side

Others –YMMV:  ThinkProgress, Fusion, Detroit Free Press, Raw Story, ABC News and CBS Detroit

I have a bad feeling about Iraq, that we are going back there, again…..

I have a bad feeling about Iraq, that we are going back there, again….. published on No Comments on I have a bad feeling about Iraq, that we are going back there, again…..

This is sad and I have a bad feeling as to what is coming…:

The Story:

Iraq’s government is investigating reports that the ancient archaeological site of Khorsabad in northern Iraq is the latest to be attacked by the Islamic State militant group.

Adel Shirshab, the country’s tourism and antiquities minister, told The Associated Press there are concerns the militants will remove artifacts and damage the site, located 15 kilometers (9 miles) northeast of Mosul. Saeed Mamuzini, a Kurdish official from Mosul, told the AP that the militants had already begun demolishing the Khorsabad site on Sunday, citing multiple witnesses.

On Friday, the group razed 3,000-year old Nimrod and on Saturday, they bulldozed 2,000-year old Hatra — both UNESCO world heritage sites. The move was described by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon as a “war crime.”

via Associated Press.

I hate to say it; but, I have sinking feeling that the United States is going to have to end up going back into Iraq again. This time to destroy ISIS in Iraq and maybe even Libya too; and possibly the entire Arab peninsula. I hope like heck that I am wrong about it; but I have a bad feeling. We, of course, will not be doing it alone. But, we and the coalition allies will be going into the middle east again.

Of course, this will be used as a recruitment tool for the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Not to mention all of the rest of the things that go with war. It is a sad thing; but, at this point, I do believe that it is inevitable. I just hope that this Presidential administration  manages things this time better than the last one did. The last one was a disaster. I have my doubts about that too. Because the track record is just not that good. Normally, I would just pray for peace; but in this case, with this ISIS group — that is just not possible. If anything at all, I pray that the Nations that ISIS are in and are conducting terrorist actions, would rise up and attack these terrorists, so that the United States would not have to do it. However, if I know things like I do; they will not do it and will rely on the United States to bring its military in to deal with the problem.

There are people who will want to blame Bush for this mess. I think that would be foolish, at this point. Because President Bush had a plan in place, that would have insured Iraq’s safety for many years to come. However, President Obama came in and changed the plan and pulled out the troops before the plan could even be implemented. Because he was under pressure from the anti-war faction of his party.

Now, because of that idiotic move; we now have ISIS and it is a bigger problem than Al-Qaeda ever was and are much crazier. So, it is back to the war game. Hopefully, the Republic will survive.

(Cross-posted to Beforeitsnews.com)

Did Obama threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iran?

Did Obama threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iran? published on 19 Comments on Did Obama threaten to shoot down Israeli jets if they attacked Iran?

Update: Roger Simon over at PJ Media says don’t bet the farm on this story; because you might lose your cow. 😉 (Thanks to Felix in the comments section.)

This doesn’t sound right….

Via israelnationalnews.com:

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed” sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.”

Sorry, but I don’t buy this one at all. For one, this news service is not really that trustworthy. As they are not above reporting false information to further propaganda. Furthermore, the report is too anonymous. Not only that; if Obama had actually threatened Israel in this manner, do you really think that Bibi would have remained silent about it? I think not. :roll:

I really think that someone somewhere is really itching for a military fight between Israel and the United States; and they are not above planting silly stories like this one here for the sole purpose of stoking anti-Obama rage in Israel. It is a cynical, sick and disgusting thing; and it shows you the state of politics here and in Israel as well.

Others: The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs and Ed Driscoll

Primary Sidebar

%d bloggers like this: