The Blaze:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks.
Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” found in the 9/11 commission report to the number found in several of the Obama administration’s intelligence and counterterrorism materials.
“The word ‘jihad’ appears in that report 126 times, the world ‘Muslim’ appears in that report 145 times, the world ‘Islam’ appears in that report 322 times,” he said sternly. “And yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. And as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration.”
Johnson told Cruz repeatedly that he has no knowledge efforts to “purge” DHS material of references to radical Islam. The DHS chief went on to claim that conceding the Islamic State is connected to Islam only gives the terrorist group what it wants.
Cruz ultimately cut off Johnson to reclaim his speaking time.
“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”
Cruz also pushed back against Johnson’s assertion that removing references to radical Islam is merely a “semantic difference.”
“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.
The Texas senator suggested the Fort Hood shooting may have been one of those instances. When bluntly asked by Cruz if it was a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” in regards to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Johnson accused Cruz of citing incorrect information.
“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” he said.
“Pick anything,” Cruz shot back. “Pick one thing, sir.”
“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.
That’s when Cruz got specific.
“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.
“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.
“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.
“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz retorted.
Cruz went on to cite “red flags” missed in the Boston bombings and San Bernardino attack.
This PC nonsense it liable to get innocents killed and the blood will be of the hands of Obama and Clinton
The revision of wording has absolutely no effect on the effectiveness of anti-terrorist activities. Law enforcement knows perfectly well who is being talked about. On the other hand, continuously saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” to please small-minded nitwits can have a negative effect on anti-terrorist efforts, alienating law-abiding members of the Muslim community whose help is essential in addressing the problem.
Is this difficult to understand? If Cruz needs a political issue, he should find a real one. What would he be saying if the issue had to do with unnecessary negative references to people of Hispanic descent? Should we start saying “Hispanic drug cartels” instead of “Mexican drug cartels?”
@Greg:
So, if you are not allowed to search for terms like “jihad”, “Islamic”, “ISIS” or “Muslim”, you don’t think it would be a bit more difficult to detect a radical Islamic jihadist inspired by ISIS plotting an attack? Really? You actually believe that?
It isn’t political speculation, Greg… these restrictions prevented your beloved gun restrictions from keeping Mateen from purchasing weapons he eventually used in a mass murder. It wasn’t that some manufacture assembled a gun… it was that the PC protection of the VERY PEOPLE that commit 99.9% of the acts of terror made the commission of that attack easy and inevitable. God DAMN, you liberals are STUPID!!!
I wonder, Greg, how you feel about the most common defense used by people Obama has appointed (and Obama himself) is stupidity? They never know the answers to any questions, they never knew about any events until they saw it on television and they are never aware of what is actually going on in the agencies they are supposed to be directing. When absolutely cornered with no deniability, they plead the 5th and no liberal raises an eyebrow.
@Greg: That would be more likely to ring true if it were not for the targeting by the Obama Administration as potential terrorists for merely being veterans.
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on this link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
*7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
*8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of theenvironment and/or animals”
*10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
*14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
*22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
*30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
*33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
*36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
*37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
*38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
*51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
*52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
*53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
*55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
*56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
*71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
*All of these MIGHT include Moslims in some people’s eyes.
Did the Obama Admin include Moslems?
Good question.
There’s no indication they did.
@Nanny G: #38… How does one “gradually” acquire a weapon so as not to trip the red flag of “suddenly” acquiring one?
Also #41, are “left wing extremists” ignored? Who has been committing the mass violence of late?
No liberal can ever understand why people that value their liberties do not want random people randomly putting other random people on a random list that DENIES them a freedom.
Can those who favor Trump begin to now see why some of us much preferred Sen Cruz, as Trump is back peddling on his deportation of all illegals and stopping Refugees from flooding in before they are vetted, Cruz is forging on, no back peddling no “change of direction”. He is sorting out the highest dangers of PC, Shariah pro Muslim, anti American infection in the Administration and doing his best to sanitize the germs of Obama.
How much more effective he could be as President.
Keep you eye on these hearings Cruz is has just begun.
@kitt: I voted for Cruz but, alas, it was not to be. However, I will do ANYTHING to keep that corrupt scumbag Hollary fro completing the destruction Obama started.
@Greg:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2614/obama-administration-bans-knowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_R
Yes language is a vital part of proper communication, If sent to the hospital for muscular issues would you want the emergency room to know which muscle is the issue? heart or calf. Eliminate the word heart from an emergency medical training manual.
Do you mean you would lie about her? Or declare her guilty of crimes without citing the specific laws broken and the specific evidence that establishes guilt? Do you mean you would vote for a clueless egotist instead, who impulsively spouts angry, inflammatory rhetoric without considering the consequences, and who has never once acknowledged the error of doing so? Or do you mean that law enforcement should be aware of you?
If we think words matter, maybe we should pay more attention to them. That would include being alert to possibility of unintended messages. We don’t call Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill, Scott Roeder, or Michael F. Griffin “Christian terrorists” every time we make reference to them. Should all non-minority murderers and rapists be referred to as “white murderers” or “white rapists?” If so, we’d be hearing those phrases almost constantly.
Sometimes I don’t know if people are deliberately being obtuse to further their arguments, or if they really can’t figure things out. There’s a good reason why the words “Muslim” or “Islamic” aren’t used every time terrorist extremists are discussed. It has to do with an unintended message that is counter-productive in the context of counter-terrorism. It doesn’t keep anyone from knowing who’s under discussion. In fact, it keeps the focus tighter, by not expanding it to cover an entire population of over a billion people.
@Bill: I as well Bill, I just hope the conservatives here who back Trump will be willing to vote Cruz 4 years from now after Trump screws this election up and loses by going all liberal whishy washy chasing Bernie snowflake voters.
The debates are going to do him in, undecided voters dont care how great he is, and will want a few clues as to, whats the plan.
If the election were today and the choices Hillary and a gigantic planet killing asteroid striking the earth…..I know I vote the asteroid.
Have a great weekend I am headed North.
@Greg: Her being fired from the Watergate investigation for lying and unethical behavior is enough and that was just the beginning of her career of like behavior, so WORMWOOD.
Except for the fact that the story isn’t true. It’s based on a discredited story that originated with a writer named Jerry Zeifman, which was later propagated on a viral chain email. The story first appeared in a book he wrote titled “Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon.” As reviewers pointed out at the time (third title down from the top) there wasn’t a shred of evidence for anything he said. As Snopes has pointed out much more recently, Zeifman’s story also involved critical factual errors. Zeifman has repeatedly claimed to have fired Hillery Rodham in response to her misdeeds. In fact, he had no authority to do so. She wasn’t even part of his staff. Nor was she fired by anybody else. She remained employed until the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded upon Nixon’s resignation. In other words, Zeifman was making things up. He was doing so to sell a certain sort of book. Defaming public figures and celebrities in print for profit is a reliable way of making a buck. The entire tabloid newspaper industry is based on it.
One fundamental problem is that many people don’t fact-check this sort of crap, either because:
(A) They don’t know how to fact check; or
(B) They don’t actually give a rat’s ass about what the truth is.
@Greg:
Oh… I forgot. You are not familiar with truth, facts and honesty. You’re a liberal.
See, Greg, it’s like this. If Hillary were not a dishonest, lying, corrupt criminal, it would not be such a desperate situation to make sure she stays out of the White House. However, she is. She is guilty of selling US influence for her own enrichment. She is guilty of improperly handling national security and making it available to our enemies. She is guilty of gross incompetence which has resulted in death of Americans and foreign policy disasters.
With all that to work with, why bother lying? No, all that is necessary is to make every human effort to expose the truth. The truth is damning. Sure, there are a lot of people so blind to the dangers someone so incompetent and corrupt poses to the survival of the nation and will support her… even LIE in her behalf… just for an ideology.
See, Greg, YOU are who has to lie. YOU have to change the facts, not me. I have the truth and facts on MY side.
@Bill, #13:
I don’t believe there are enough sufficiently gullible voters in the country yet to allow a bozo like Trump to be elected president. If I’m proven wrong on that point, the days of the Idiocracy will truly be upon us. Stupidity has consequences. Really bad decisions can have far more dramatic consequences than those that are at least moderately reasonable. They aren’t imaginary or hypothetical bad consequences. They’re the sort that leave people wondering WTF were we thinking?
You keep talking about facts, but I very seldom see you cite anything but opinions—most often without any verifiable facts or evidence to back them up. I see absolutely no facts or evidence demonstrating that Donald Trump has clue about the enormous complexity of geopolitics, or the global economy, or about what a president actually has to deal with. Electing Trump would be like putting a reality TV host at the controls of a 747 in flight, or in charge of an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. This is not a good idea. It’s one of the worst ideas to have come along in a very long time. Reality TV isn’t reality. An ability to boost approval ratings among your target audience is not a measure of fitness for the job.
@Greg:
That’s rich coming from one of the gullible minions that voted for Obama…. twice. TWICE!! How gullible is THAT?
Trump at least offers the promise of business and work related experience. He has created jobs and he knows what a job is. Obama never had a job and lived off the largess of the taxpayers, as has Hillary, even as she got wealthy selling US influence.
Trump is a chance, but Hillary is a known disaster. Give me Trump. I love and respect my country far too much to hand it over to such a corrupt criminal as Hillary. It’s that simple.
I’m proud of the current President of the United States. He’s widely respected both here and overseas. Trump has won the admiration of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, which should give anyone pause for thought. Elsewhere, not so much.
If you don’t want Clinton, why nominate someone that will make so many voters decide she’s the only reasonable choice?
@Greg: Obama is a failed jackass. No amount of propaganda will cover that up. The Obamacare failure is his, the economic failure is his, ISIS is his and the global foreign policy failure is his.
You are proud of nothing but a propaganda success.
@Greg:
Tell me what on his “deep” resume made you vote for him in 2008?
Are you proud of 20 trillion in debt?
Poverty rate up?
Food stamp use up?
Middle east a bigger mess?
Much more racial unrest?
Millions wasted on failed green energy programs?
Oh just one more thing. Just how many hours should this administration have waited before BEGINNING to send any kind of help to those fighting for their lives in Benghazi Sept 11 2011? Would it be 20 hours, 50, 80, a week? What’s the number had the fighting kept going on, would make you proud?
@Greg: The President is leaving a complete sh!t fest of problems for the next CIC. He, Hillary and the rest of his cronies have effectively started WW3. Just because he wont see it and the lamestream media isn’t reporting it does not mean it isn’t happening.
He can’t erase all of his tremendous failure as the first black president by scrubbing language. No one was cheering for his failure, aside from clinically insane.
Pointing out his failure is not being happy about it.
Happy that it will soon be over, that I am.
I wonder how happy you’d be with the consequences of putting Donald Trump in the White House? We’ve presently got the most dysfunctional Congress in living memory—and my memory goes back to the decade immediately following World War 2. To that disaster, you’re hoping to add a Chief Executive who’s a former reality TV host, who has been publicly commended by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, and whose tax plan multiple independent experts warn would quickly add another 10 trillion dollars to the national debt. On top of which, you can’t really know this guy’s true position on anything, or even if he actually has such a thing, because he’s reversed them all so often.
The only thing we know with certainty about Donald Trump is that he has a very high opinion concerning the powers and importance of Donald Trump. His behavior and speech sometimes are a bit odd. No one who listens closely should be missing that. Some people have publicly wondered about the possible significance of such things. He’s 70. There’s a family history. It’s actually a legitimate question, and one that should be addressed with any candidate—but nothing about Mr. Trump is being given as much consideration as it should be getting. Why is that? You’ve put Hillary Clinton under a microscope. With this guy, you seem to have stuck your fingers in your ears and put on a blindfold.
@Greg: The other option is putting someone that, when faced with tough decisions, made the WRONG decisions, failed, caused disaster and then lied about it. Meanwhile, she peddled State Department influence to make herself rich. I have NO problem pulling the lever for Trump with enthusiasm to keep that trash out of the White House. Obama has done enough damage; it’s time to begin the repairs.
How can promoting a Donald Trump presidency somehow have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifying or disqualifying characteristics of Donald Trump? It makes no sense. And it’s not like it’s a trivial matter.
Voters should be looking at him every bit as closely and critically as they’re looking at Hillary Clinton. They’re not doing it. Even Trump has noticed he’s been handed a carte blanche pass. He has publicly commented on it:
Seriously… Does that sound like something a presidential candidate would normally say?
@Greg: Good Lord; none of you liberals look at anything concerning Hillary beyond what free stuff is she going to give away. She is a liar, incompetent and corrupt, with a record to verify it and all you want to talk about is how rude Trump is (by they way, hillarynis prettybrude, treating people that work for her like dirt).
All you care about is liberalism and how high the debt can be driven up.
Clinton was not my first choice for the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee. She was actually 2nd or 3rd. But when it comes down to her or Donald Trump, there’s no question which of the two is better qualified.
That little problem is not the doing of the Democratic Party. Republicans seem intent on making the only alternative to Hillary Clinton a guy who is a catastrophe looking for an opportunity to happen. And many of them actually recognize this. Witness the fact that their entire strategy has come down to attacking Hillary Clinton rather than promoting the virtues of their own candidate. They can’t find all that much about him to promote.
Many of them, in fact, seem to be constantly on the verge of renouncing him completely. They know they should, they know the guy is a dangerous loose cannon, but they’re afraid to take the risk. They’re afraid to alienate the Red Hat Brigade, so they’re trying to balance on a very narrow fence.
@Greg: What exactly is Hillary’s qualification? That she can lie? That she can cut a deal financially beneficial to herself? That she can leave Americans isolated in a terror attack and blatantly lie about the entire situation? That she has an audacious disregard for the law?
She has NOT ONE success as Senator or Secretary of State. Nothing. Her entire resume’ is titles she has held.
As many more qualified people there are than Trump, he is SUPREMELY more qualified than Hillary.
Unlike Donald Trump, she isn’t totally nuts.
Also, I do know what her political positions and priorities are, and I’m in general agreement with most of them.
@Greg:
This is totally biased, bigoted and uninformed speculation on your part. You have nothing to factually base your accusation upon. However, the fact (FACT) that Hillary is a pathological liar, corrupt and incompetent is documented. She has been establishing those facts her entire public career.
Nope. Donald Trump is totally nuts. Everyone can see that, with the exception of other people who are also totally nuts. This is true. It’s VERY VERY true. It’s totally proven, using geometric logic.
@Greg: Show me. Give me some proof besides him saying what almost every AMERICAN is thinking.
What I do see is a lot of liberal sycophants scrambling about to justify voting for THE most corrupt, incompetent liar US politics has ever seen.
He’s pitching to Americans who don’t know how to think, or who have for some reason decided to stop doing so. That’s why he sticks to a fourth grade level vocabulary, punches emotional buttons rather than advancing rational arguments, and relies heavily on the endless repetition of simplistic media memes and slogans padded out with lots of repeated intensifying adjectives. Transcripts of his speeches are nearly incoherent. As for any detailed statements of positions, policies, or intentions—they’re almost totally absent. There’s almost nothing there detailed enough to evaluate or analyze. What is there—his tax scheme, for instance—doesn’t hold water. Expert opinions from multiple independent sources indicate its the quick route to another $10 trillion in debt.
Then there’s his volatile personality, his impulsiveness, and his tendency to launch into inflammatory rhetoric without considering the consequences. I really do have questions about whether the man is sufficiently stable. We would be handing this guy the keys to the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet. There’s the fact that you can find a documented list of his recent lies—or inaccurate statements, if you prefer—over 100 items long. There’s the fact that he has ZERO experience in government. If you’re focusing on his business acumen, there’s the string of failed businesses he’s ejected from one step ahead of the crash. The passengers most often don’t get parachutes.
How does this add up to “Qualified to be President?” People never say. They simply dodge the question, and launch another load of manure toward Hillary Clinton.
I’d like to see a rational, non-emotional, point-by-point explanation of why putting Trump in the White House makes good sense. Presumably somebody has given that some thought. “Because Hillary Clinton is the daughter of Satan” is not an actually a rational argument.
@Greg:
How so? You mean the people who refused to vote for a community organizer with no work history, no legislative history and, basically, no history at all, simply because he was a) a novelty and b) repeated “Hope and Change” repeatedly can’t think? Those who see Hillary as a criminal liar with no success in her career don’t know how to think, as opposed to those who deny facts and parrot talking points they pick up via emails? People that support Trump can’t think, yet they did NOT vote for Obama in 2012 after his first 4 years of lies and failure. I don’t know, Greg… sounds like you have that a bit backwards.
Hmmm… Hillary verbally attacks people that are charged with protecting her life. She berates people who are there to serve her. She verbally abuses the mentally infirm. She attacks people for their religion or their race. Impulsive? Taking the Libyan government off at the knees was not very well thought through. Kind of impulsive. Of course, Blumenthal was pumping Hillary full of projected profits from opening up a new business frontier. This proved inflammatory for ISIS, who now has a firm foothold in Libya. I don’t think Trump has gotten any consulates sacked or ambassadors killed.
How does HILLARY qualify? She broke laws, jeopardized national security, got Americans killed, lied about it, peddled US influence and natural resources. How is that qualification? She was a Senator… she did nothing. She was a Secretary of State… she did nothing. All she has done is personally profit from her failures to serve the people.
Trump has been a successful businessman. True, he has had failures, but he has had far more successes. He has created jobs. More jobs than Hillary ever has. More than Obama. Trump builds things; Hillary and Obama instigate people to tear things down… destroy, ruin, steal.
You’ve laid out a lot of reasons why you don’t like Trump, though you are more than happy to accept far worse in your idols. But, you have not made a case for mental health issues. Apparently, the mental issues are your own; you are embarrassed by your support of failures, criminals, liars and incompetents and you have to lash out at others to make your own selections not look quite so disastrous.
@Bill:
I feel sorry for you, because your next four years are going to be just as bad as your last eight. Greg will be happy for the same reason.
With any luck, Republicans will hold on to the House, and that will insure the congressional gridlock that George Will and I prefer. What you and Mr. Will DON’T want and I do is that the Senate will break Democratic and confirm whomever Hillary nominates, insuring a decidedly liberal judicial climate for the rest of MY life.
I would suggest that you look into emigrating to somewhere less liberal and/or progressive, but such places are usually Muslim or Communist and you wouldn’t be happy there, either. Best bet would be for you to join the secessionist movement in Texas. Y’all can then shoot all the gays and Blacks with your assault rifles at will, cut your income tax to zero and go back to living in caves. Texas’ secession would insure the predominance of the Democratic Party in the remaining 49 states, and maybe (hopefully) Louisiana, Alabama and Oklahoma would join you, doing a fine job of removing the stupidity factor from the American gene pool.
Tell you what: I’ll PERSONALLY chip in to the fund to build a wall around YOU, since you are so dead certain that a wall will prevent people from crossing borders. Then we’ll ALL be happy!
@George Wells: You should feel sorry for your country.
@Bill: You can tell they have run out of ideas for a conversation when they go so far into unicorn land fear as post #32.
Should his dream ever happen and democrat liberals run everything unfettered, he wouldn’t have money to chip in on our fence, all taxed away.
He would be shocked when no one except corrupt politicians were shot with assault rifles, people were working and keeping their earnings, and we took care of our disabled and elderly. And no more death by liberal policies. We would want the red states out west.
I notice Donald Trump, Man of the People, has always adhered to conservative values and has always preferred living in red states.
@Greg: He lives in blue states to enrich himself on the moron liberal gov officials that grant him ridiculous tax breaks.
@Bill #33:
Feel sorry for the country?
Hardly. It will get exactly what it wants most. If more people want to be lead by a clown than those who will follow a crook, Trump will be the next president and you, PRESUMABLY, will be happy along with the majority.
If, on the other hand, things happen as I expect, Hillary will end up winning and will stay in office until Paul Ryan unseats her in 2020. Either way, the MAJORITY of Americans will be happy.
@kitt #34:
You evidently missed my PREDICTION that Republicans would hold on to the HOUSE, preventing the Democrats from increasing taxes at will. That’s why George Will and I PREFER a gridlocked Congress – it CAN’T screw things up.
And how would you do THAT, Kitt? After you cut taxes to zero, you’d have nothing left with which to fund the DEMOCRATIC-INITIATED social safety-net programs REPUBLICANS want to dismantle. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. How would you “take care” of your elderly and disabled, give them guns so they can use them to commit suicide?
My #32 post isn’t a “unicorn-land fear.” It’s a PREDICTION.
Not an advocacy. A PREDICTION.
You think that prediction is wrong, say so and offer your reasons if you care to. But simply insulting it without offering your OWN prediction is a coward’s gambit, and you’re better than that, aren’t you?
@George Wells:Read your post again George , We would need a wall to keep out the liberals, not blacks or gays or anyone that would work to support themselves. The country you want is Venezuela an unarmed citizenry, liberal socialists running everything into the ground til there is no energy or food.
We would take care of our own having all our money to donate by free will to charities. Worker bees are more likely to roll up our sleeves and solve any problems than those that look to an inept government to take care of it.
Best thing is we would have our weapons to protect and preserve it.
You stay away from my well stocked comfortable cave, ask your government for a can of beans and band-aids if there is anything left after the riots and looting.
You began the insults with your bigoted attitude saying we would shoot all gays and blacks, Yes I am better than that, but reading your post I doubt you are.
@kitt:
And gay “rights” that override all others.
@Bill: I dont know if that is what George wants, they would like to punish everyone for past sins even if everyone did not commit them. Like Bigots blame an entire demographic for a few crazy bastids that do not represent anyone but themselves. We too are guilty of human nature and knee jerk reactions, but dont want punishment just corrections.
I would rather rely on myself to choose what is right for me, be responsible for any crappy decisions I would make and alter the plan, than have someone who knows nothing of me make crappy decisions, fail then double down and blame someone else.
@kitt #41:
Of COURSE it isn’t what I want. I ALREADY got what I want. Didn’t I STRESS that what I wrote was A PREDICTION? (Yes.)
I don’t WANT Texas et. al. to secede, but I suspect that the WHOLE country would be happier if it DID. And IF it did, MAYBE its citizens WOULD voluntarily make all those nice charitable donations you THINK they’d make, but I doubt it. The question is, of course, moot, because it ISN’T going to happen… ever.
That SURE sounds like Trump.
Republicans are in the process of nominating a ridiculous buffoon, and for that, win or lose, they deserve what they’ll get.
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump because he campaigned on a coherent platform that the Republican electorate agreed with, they voted for him because they are angry with their OWN party. Voting to punish your own party isn’t a plan, it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s lunacy.
And instead of finding a BETTER candidate, you ELECT to rhetorically assassinate Hillary Clinton in the hopes that your venom might dissuade Democrats from voting for her. Democrats ALREADY know that she’s mightily flawed, and against a reasonable opponent she wouldn’t stand a chance. We KNOW that. But you couldn’t come up with a reasonable candidate, could you? You had to nominate a joke, a mockery, a travesty. Does the Republican Party have a pathological fear of success or what?
On the morning after the election, there’ll be a WHOLE lot of blaming going around, calls to IMPEACH Hillary over Benghazi AND over her email server, and MORE threats for Texas to secede from the Union.
(YAWN)
@George Wells:You must know I did not vote Trump, neither did most of my State. It was the more liberal eastern States that have us in this horrible situation. The delegate count needs to be reformed by, you get only as many delegates as people that vote in your state, for the general election. NY 936,527 votes for republican total votes cast 89 delegates. Wisconsin 1,105,944 votes cast 42 delegates
population NY 19,378,102 population WI 5,686,986, if NY doesnt give a crap who represents them maybe the delegate count should be altered, to better represent voters. You can check the democrat vote cast as well.
Hillary with her careless attitude for handling government documents should have her security clearance revoked for life and that would forbid her from holding any office if no example is made or law upheld why should any of us obey the laws or rules?
Calls to impeach Hillary that would be the second lying Clinton impeached.
@kitt:
I think that how Republicans nominate their presidential candidate is up to the Republican Party to decide. The system they picked may have screwed them this time. Oh, well…
Can’t blame that one on Obama or Hillary. There’s a “first” for everything!
Take this to the bank: NOTHING’S PERFECT!
I saw that one of the Republican senators who met with Trump today characterized the up-coming election as stinking like a “dumpster fire.”
I can’t agree with him more.
@George Wells: Looking at both presumptives all most of us can say on both sides is WTF. Neither side can really point and laugh, its all to ugly.
@kitt:
Agreed.
I’m just not willing to contribute a vote to Trump’s election. I have no idea what he’d try to do as president, and I suspect that Republicans in Congress would be too afraid of him to oppose anything he DID try to do. That would create a dangerously unpredictable opportunity for Trump to royally FK UP things, and I don’t want to give him that chance.
Hillary, on the other hand, wouldn’t try anything that we don’t already anticipate, and while I think Trump’s candidacy will drag the Senate back to the Democrats, I expect that the House will remain in Republican hands. That will leave a split government, with the House Republicans in the position to do what they do best: Keeping the Democratic president’s mischievous hands tied. Then, if Hillary DOES actually muck things up badly, it will be the House Republicans’ fault as much as it is hers. I trust the House Republicans won’t let that happen. I can live with that risk.
@George Wells: Ducking Don would be much easier to control than Crooked Hill, this investigation by the FBI should tell you that. She willfully placed Classified documents in the hands of her Lawyers who did not have proper clearance, and skates. Not many would stand in the way if they decide to impeach Donny. Hillary has so much dirt on everyone as Nan said in another post there would be loads of willing cover from both sides of the fence. If the republicans would protect the constitution as vehemently as they go after Hillary.
My heart aches with the families of the Officers that were slaughtered by the BLM terrorists, The worst thing those officers should have faced last night was the Pigs in a Blanket chant.
And of course the President takes this opportunity to attack the 2nd amendment, again breaking his oath of office.
@kitt #47:
That is an unfair assessment.
You might have noticed that recently, one of the Flopping Aces posters said that the Second Amendment UNEQUIVOCALLY granted the right of ANYONE to buy WHATEVER arms he WANTED and could AFFORD. I asked if that included nuclear weapons, but received no response. I think that both Obama and I have a problem with that interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment specifies “a well-regulated militia,” and I take that to mean that REGULATION of gun ownership and use is reasonable and prudent. WITHOUT that interpretation of the Constitution holding you back, you COULD stock a few tactical nuclear bombs in your basement, or brew up some other chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction for your recreational use. I think that Obama’s comments speak to this part of the issue, NOT the inflammatory suggestion that he is for banning all guns.
If YOU think that Obama is seeking confiscation of ALL privately-owned guns, show me where he has advocated that. And don’t spring that tired “slippery-slope” smokescreen of an argument that once weapons of mass destruction are formally banned, everything right down to BB guns will come next. That’s a logical fallacy and you know it. The sky doesn’t fall every time a pillar of conservatism falls. Assault rifles don’t NEED to be in private hands.
@George Wells: But, being in Poland, just hours after the shootings, before the shooter was identified, before his weapon was known, before any motive had been established, before even the number of shooters was known, why designate the problem was “high powered weapons”? He didn’t even seem convinced of his own BS, almost embarrassed to be trying that again, politicizing yet another tragedy.
We now know left wing rhetoric created the shooter, but Obama is not likely to mention that.
@Bill #49:
Thanks for NOT addressing anything I said. I’ll return you the favor.