Dog Brothers Public Forum
February 14, 2016, 02:20:13 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Topic: Newt Gingrich (Read 49934 times)
Newt Gingrich: The Cost of Rejecting Reality
Reply #250 on:
August 06, 2014, 07:29:54 PM »
Obama, Buchanan, and Baldwin: The Cost of Rejecting Reality
President Obama is in serious danger of joining a select group of disastrous leaders who put their people and their country in desperate circumstances that cost lives and risked ruinous defeat.
Almost everywhere you look around the world, the situation is worse for the United States and worse for freedom than when President Obama took office—in many cases catastrophically so. There isn’t much sign that he recognizes this or is particularly concerned.
Iraq is the most obvious (and potentially most dangerous) example. The Washington Post clarified the stakes there in a report quoting Janine Davidson at the Council of Foreign Relations. Davidson noted that ISIS, the terrorist group that has taken over much of the Iraq, “now controls resources and territory unmatched in history of extremist organizations.”
The Post went on to quote the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for Iraq and Iran, describing ISIS:
It’s “worse than al-Qaeda,” Brett McGurk…told lawmakers last month. It “is no longer simply a terrorist organization. It is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.”
Just this past January, President Obama dismissed this new threat "worse than al-Qaeda" with the trivializing quip: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”
Assuming the President was telling the truth, the White House analysis seven months ago was that ISIS was an irrelevant junior varsity split off from the really important al-Qaeda.
That would be a mistaken analysis of historic proportions. Yet it fits the continuing pattern of the State Department and the White House underestimating Boko Haram in Nigeria, the terrorists in Libya, the Taliban in Afghanistan (where an Afghan just killed an American major general, the highest ranking officer lost in the last 12 years of war), the Iranian nuclear program, the Iranian influence over Maliki in Iraq, the depth of Hamas's commitment to destroying Israel (killing every Jew as Hamas’s charter promises and as Hamas spokesmen have continued to suggest), etc. etc.
The Obama administration's Middle East confusion is matched by its misunderstanding of dictatorship in Venezuela, Putin's intentions around the Russian periphery, the growing North Korean weapons program, the growing Chinese aggressiveness in the South China Sea and with the Japanese. Again and again there is a growing gap between reality and the Obama Administration's analysis and plans.
Well-meaning but delusional governments can have catastrophic consequences and many people can die as a result of misinformed, overly positive, and or fantasy-driven leadership.
President James Buchanan simply couldn't bring himself to intervene to stop the South from arming itself, taking over federal armories and setting the stage for Civil War. He left the Union in much worse shape, made war much more likely, and is generally considered to be the most destructive president in American history.
Similarly, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin lied to the British people about the German military buildup under Hitler. He knew the truth but was afraid of annoying the British voters by forcing them to confront the danger of war. He simply wasn’t truthful, as Churchill pointed out time and again in frustration. Chamberlain succeeded Baldwin and continued the process of ignoring the demonic evil in the Hitler dictatorship and trying desperately to cut a deal to protect Britain even at the cost of selling out
President Obama should study carefully the costs of self-deception and weakness. He is in grave danger of leading us into a disaster on a scale that will be historic and will condemn him to be in the league of Buchanan and Baldwin.
That would be a horrifying legacy and a horrifyingly expensive result in both blood and pain.
Look at the facts as they are unfolding and decide for yourself if this analysis is too strong.
I fear the future will prove this analysis correct.
Newt is correct
Reply #251 on:
December 17, 2014, 08:26:31 PM »
Newt on Baraq's SOTU
Reply #252 on:
January 15, 2016, 06:08:50 PM »
Obama Blasts Bullying, Ignores Beheading
Originally published at the Washington Times
The 2016 State of the Union was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the President's concern for religious suffering.
President Obama worried that "politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens."
But he couldn't bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.
Insulting Muslims: bad. Killing Christians: irrelevant.
The President went on to say that when “a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer, it diminishes us in the eyes of the world."
Why is our civilization—or Islamic civilization, for that matter—diminished by name-calling, when the real damage to both is being done by virulent, violent Islamic supremacism? (After all, the vast majority of Muslims being violently killed are killed by Islamic supremacists.)
The President saw fit to blast bullying in his State of the Union, but he said nothing of the beheadings that leave Americans justifiably afraid. Nor did he mention San Bernardino, the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11—which occurred just over a month ago.
If calling a kid names is bad enough to diminish us all, how does the President feel about the incident in France this week, in which a Muslim student in Marseille pulled out a machete and tried to kill his Jewish teacher? Indeed, the situation in France is so hostile to Jews that the leader of the Jewish community in Marseille advised that they should stop wearing yarmulkes because it makes them targets. Not since the Nazis have Jews been told it is dangerous to be overtly Jewish in a European country.
Moreover, if calling a kid names diminishes us all, how would the President characterize the hundreds of assaults and rapes of German women by immigrants over New Years? How would he describe the German media’s and German government’s efforts to censor the news so that people would not know about it?
The President talks about "telling it like it is," but neglects to mention the thousands of women and girls sold into sexual slavery by ISIS. He says that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but offers no strategy for ending the brutal rule of ISIS over millions of people.
Finally, the President highlighted his delusions about the dangers of the real world at the close of his speech, when he said that he was optimistic that "unarmed truth...will have the final word.”
This is a wonderful phrase for a preacher.
It is a terrible phrase for a commander-in-chief.
Unarmed truth would have its head cut off by ISIS.
Unarmed truth would be sold into slavery by Boko Haram.
Unarmed truth would be massacred by Al-Shabab.
It is a sad reality that while President Obama is very sympathetic to the plight of Muslims, he is stunningly silent about the plight of Jews and Christians.
It is a frightening reality that President Obama has no idea how dangerous the world would be if truth did not have the protection of the American military.
This was a very disturbing State of the Union—an address that explains much of our current danger.
Reply #253 on:
January 29, 2016, 11:31:35 PM »
Supreme Court Justice Obama?
Originally published at the Washington Times
As the Republican primaries have become increasingly contentious in recent weeks, various factions have threatened not to support the others should their preferred candidate fail to win the nomination. But if the prospect of Hillary Clinton as president is not frightening enough to unite Republicans behind their eventual nominee, perhaps something Secretary Clinton said in Iowa this week will be.
Asked at one of her town hall meetings if she would consider appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court after his term as president, Hillary appeared as if she had just heard the best idea of her life.
“Wow, what a great idea!” she gushed. “Nobody has ever SUGGESTED that to me! WOW. I love that! Wow.”
For the full, chilling effect, you will have to watch the video. It must be seen to be believed. It’s uncanny.
If--despite our history with her--we are to take Hillary at her word, it seems there is a chance she would appoint the most anti-Constitutional president in American history to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he could remain for decades as the most anti-Constitutional Supreme Court justice in American history.
From the point of view of Democrat primary voters (if not from Clinton’s), the idea isn’t insane.
The party openly celebrates President Obama’s illegal actions--from suspending immigration law by executive fiat, to modifying Obamacare (“the law of the land”) at whim, to using the IRS to target conservative opponents, to making “recess appointments” when the Senate was not in recess. Democrats would like to protect as many such overreaches as they can. Undoubtedly, they could trust President Obama to give his illegal innovations--and the many others sure to be committed by a Clinton administration--the stamp of Constitutionality.
The idea of appointing a former chief executive to the bench is not without precedent. In 1921, Warren Harding nominated former President William Howard Taft to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. Taft went on to hold the position for more than eight years, and regarded it as the greatest honor of his life.
Somewhat like Taft, President Obama has exactly the “right” background for the job. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, where six out of the nine current justices went to school. And before he ran for office, Obama was a Constitutional law professor, which is all the experience that many other justices required to begin pronouncing law from nation’s highest court. (Obama has certainly had plenty of practice pronouncing it from the presidency.)
If the thought of Justice Obama is not frightening enough by itself, consider that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. served on the Court until he was 90 years old. By that measure, President Obama, who is 54 today, could be on the bench until 2052--or even longer, if the miracles of medicine are able to keep him issuing opinions into his ninth decade.
Imagine the damage he might do from a perch of 30 or 40 years on the Supreme Court. Or consider just a few of the questions that today hang by a 5-4 majority of the conservatives: whether the free speech clause of the First Amendment protects speech about political matters (Citizens United v. FEC), whether the religious liberty protections in the Constitution apply to Americans who own businesses (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), and whether there are any limits at all to what the federal government can justify under the Commerce Clause (NFIB V. Sebelius).
Whether or not President Hillary would in fact appoint Barack Obama to a retirement job on the Supreme Court, we can be absolutely certain about one thing: she would surely appoint justices who would eagerly overturn all of those 5-4 cases, and sanction almost any abuses of power she could think up.
In other words, no matter whom she nominated, Hillary’s lifetime appointees would decide cases as if they were Justice Barack Obama. That specter alone should be terrifying enough to end any talk within the GOP about not supporting the eventual Republican nominee.
Newt Gingrich interview on the 2016 election
Reply #254 on:
February 08, 2016, 05:54:27 PM »
Re: Newt Gingrich
Reply #255 on:
February 08, 2016, 07:24:10 PM »
Agree. Cruz in starting to seem in a sense like Romney. Just cannot get over the hump so to speak, but for different reasons. He is not likable no matter what. I don't see how anyone can win without a likability factor.
Bush now in 2nd in NH by one poll! God help us. He is a disaster.
I would take Christie over him. Maybe even Kasich......
I would certainly vote Trump before him
I ddin't see the debate. Was Rubio really that bad or is the MSM and his political enemies making it out to be worse?
Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 07:27:14 PM by ccp
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines