Commander in Chief ‘Not Interested’ in ‘Winning’ + More – Daily Digest

Posted on Tue 11/17/2015 by


The Patriot Post ~


“To render the justice of the war on our part the more conspicuous, the reluctance to commence it was followed by the earliest and strongest manifestations of a disposition to arrest its progress. The sword was scarcely out of the scabbard before the enemy was apprised of the reasonable terms on which it would be resheathed.” —James Madison, 1813


Commander in Chief ‘Not Interested’ in ‘Winning’

By Nate Jackson

Just when you thought you’ve heard it all… Hours before Islamic State jihadis killed 129 people in Paris Friday, Barack Obama boasted that his strategy had “contained” the group formerly known as the JV team. Clearly, that self-praise was incredibly ill-timed. Undeterred, at a press conference Monday, he proceeded to utter what might become the defining statement of his atrocious presidency: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning.”

Let that sink in for a minute. The president of the United States of America — the commander in chief of our Armed Forces — just said he isn’t interested in leading or winning. If Franklin Roosevelt had uttered those words, we’d all be speaking German or Japanese.

Obama meant his remarks as a rebuttal to a certain GOP presidential candidate who talks a lot about “winning.” Obama dismissed “whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like France.” He concluded, “I’m too busy for that.”

Maybe if the commander in chief is too busy (golfing?) to worry about such inconsequential things as leadership and winning, he should retire now instead of making us suffer through another 14 months of his contemptible rein.

Instead, he slammed critics: “Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference — because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough.”

Well, that sure beats telling the world you’re not interested in leadership or winning. Speaking softly only works if you carry a big stick — which is exactly what Republicans propose we do.

Unfortunately, Obama said a lot more. He explained his “contained” claim, saying, “[W]hen I said that we are containing [the Islamic State’s] spread in Iraq and Syria, in fact, they control less territory than they did last year. And the more we shrink that territory, the less they can pretend that they are somehow a functioning state and the more it becomes apparent that they are simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations.”

Small comfort to the “local population” in Paris some 2,500 miles from Islamic State territory.

Of the massive death toll in France, Obama said, “The terrible events in Paris were obviously a terrible and sickening setback.” A “setback”? Is he kidding?

But don’t worry; he’s got this. Doubling down is the answer. “So there will be an intensification of the strategy that we put forward,” he said, “but the strategy that we are putting forward is the strategy that ultimately is going to work. But as I said from the start, it’s going to take time.”

That would be because he’s not all that interested in leadership or winning. So we’re left to conclude that he means it’s going to take time until the next Republican president is elected.

Secretary of State John Kerry likewise bloviated, “We will defeat [the Islamic State] and all who share their despicable ideology, and we are on the course to do so. … That’s our responsibility, that’s our duty, and we will do our duty, side-by-side. And we will prevail.” Forgive us if that doesn’t inspire any more confidence than the pontification of his boss.

Anyone who would criticize Obama’s strategy, however, has no standing in his book. “If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan.”

His plan is, in part, to follow Vladimir Putin’s lead and just keep blaming Bush for his Middle East meltdown.

Even some Democrats are expressing frustration with Obama’s (lack of a) plan. “I have never been more concerned,” said Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding. … [I]t is their intent to attack this country.”

In a maddening example of Obama’s moral equivalence, he lectured, “[T]o the degree that anyone would equate the terrible actions that took place in Paris with the views of Islam, those kinds of stereotypes are counterproductive. They’re wrong. They will lead, I think, to greater recruitment into terrorist organizations over time if this becomes somehow defined as a Muslim problem as opposed to a terrorist problem.”

So we can’t link the Islamic State to Islam, but he thinks Christians today bear responsibility for the Crusades. Figure that one out.

In closing, it’s notable that Obama opened his remarks with a nod to the upcoming climate conference in Paris — before he bothered mentioning terrorism. That’s quite revealing in terms of his priorities.

Obama’s Islamic Trojan Horse

By Paul Albaugh

The terrorist attacks in France this weekend demonstrate the stark reality that radical Islamic terrorism has no borders. (That’s why we coined the term Jihadistan — a borderless nation of Islamofascists with global reach.) Every civilized Western nation has borders for the main purpose of keeping its citizens secure from outsiders who seek to do harm. Yet when a nation’s government decides to accept refugees from another nation, a vulnerability is created, which in the case of Paris was exploited by those seeking to terrorize the population.

So what’s Barack Obama’s real agenda with Syrian refugees?

Two months ago, Mark Alexander warned of the jihadi pipeline Obama was opening by welcoming 100,000 Syrian refugees. Indeed, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Obama’s crisis “a disaster of biblical proportions” and warned that terrorists would infiltrate the ranks of refugees. Many of the Muslims flooding into Europe were not “refugees” at all but rather migrants — only 15% were women and children. At least one of the French attackers was a “Syrian refugee.”

Yet despite Clapper’s warning, Obama decided to open the pipeline into the U.S. — not the Keystone pipeline, but the one for jihad.

Last month, we warned that Syrian refugees would be coming soon to a city near you. It’s already happening. In fact, 32 states have accepted a total of 1,809 Syrian refugees since Jan. 1, with the highest numbers in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.

Fortunately, the Paris attacks awoke a sense of caution. More than two dozen governors have now closed their doors. Though most are Republicans, even the Democrat governor of New Hampshire has said enough is enough.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, a GOP presidential candidate, introduced legislation calling for an “immediate moratorium” on all Syrian immigration.

Though Obama yawns at jihadi attacks, what really makes him angry is Republicans. During his press conference Monday in Turkey, Obama slammed opponents of his agenda to flood our nation with Syrian refugees. “That’s shameful,” he lectured. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have a religious test for compassion.”

The last was a reference to proposals to limit refugees to Christians — those who are worst persecuted in the Middle East.

If Obama’s moral preening wasn’t outrageous enough, he also told other world leaders that “slamming the door” shut to Syrian refugees “would be a betrayal of our values.” He went on, “Our nations can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own safety. We can and must do both.”

It’s hard to fathom the nonsense that comes out of Obama’s mouth. What’s actually shameful is that this commander in chief will not acknowledge the threat posed by radical Islamic extremists. (In fact, he mentioned climate change Monday before he got around to terrorism.) It is un-American to think that the safety of these refugees is more important than the safety of the citizens in our country whom he and countless others swore an oath to protect.

If we don’t have a religious test for compassion, then why does Obama welcome Muslim refugees but turn a cold shoulder to Christians fleeing persecution? CNS News reports, “Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.”

All of the terrorist attacks in the Middle East, France and America have been carried out by Islamic extremists who are committed to waging jihad wherever they can. Christians are facing persecution and slaughter, yet their plight goes unrecognized by this administration.

Clearly, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. So why on earth would we even take the chance to let thousands of un-vetted refugees into our homeland knowing the incredible risk that one or two of them could very well carry out an attack like that in Paris or worse?

Hours before the attack in Paris, Obama boldly proclaimed that he has “contained” the Islamic State. This so called containment policy clearly isn’t working, yet he has the audacity to claim that we can welcome potentially hostile migrants while maintaining our own safety. Containing an enemy doesn’t mean opening your borders to them. It means stopping them from expanding their operations and expanding their influence. It means taking the fight to them on their turf, rather than allowing them to gain a foothold on yours.

National Review’s David French sums it up nicely: “The Obama administration insults our intelligence if it claims we can trust the government’s vetting process. And it insults our character if it pretends that aiding refugees abroad while defeating the enemy that drove so many of them from their homes is a ‘betrayal of our values.’ Americans have big hearts, but we also have brains, and we can certainly discern the difference between generosity and foolishness.”

Finally, the real question is this: Why is Obama burning so much political capital on this issue? First, he’s a narcissist, and opposition usually serves only to make him double down. But second, and more important, he knows if he gives way on Syrians, Republicans will point out that our porous southern border poses a national security threat, which is going to eat into Democrats’ appeal with illegal immigrants. His faux immigration strategy is to play the issue for political gain. The political capital he’s investing now is all part of the plan.

Liberty Depends on You

No matter the cost, The Patriot Post will continue to stand on the front lines of the battle to restore the constitutional limits on the central government — and thousands of Patriots have joined our ranks in the last decade. We don’t just “preach to the choir,” though. Because our donors support the distribution of The Patriot Post without charge, we reach large numbers of those who are politically indifferent, and fire them up!

Given the economic struggles our nation faces, we are once again holding the line on our budget — it’s not going up. However, we need your help in order to meet our Year-End goal. If you can, please consider making a donation today so that our operations budget is fully funded into the coming year. Thank you for your support! —Nate Jackson, Managing Editor


Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Offensive Starbucks Cup.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here.


For more, visit Right Opinion.


For more, visit Patriot Headline Report


Jim DeMint: “[Barack Obama] grossly caricatured those who take issue with his strategy — or lack thereof — as ‘a few who have suggested that we should put large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground’ and implied that his only option was the current course, ‘unless we’re prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.’ This rhetoric has become a pattern: when faced with credible criticism, create false choices. … The president proves more artful at destroying straw-men dressed up as GOP presidential hopefuls than he is at targeting terrorists. I suppose he is most afraid of the group which endangers him professionally. … The president’s clear intention was to use the aftermath of the Paris atrocity to make excuses and launch partisan political attacks. It will be difficult to unify against ISIS behind a man who is more interested in dividing his own countrymen. Obama’s remarks on Monday morning could have been his ‘Tear Down This Wall’ moment, his ‘Never Give In.’ Instead, we got ‘I’m Too Busy for That.’ Obama’s remarks in Turkey will be studied in history and foreign policy curricula for years to come as a prideful dereliction of leadership.”


Upright: “Obama [is] tougher on Republicans than he ever is on ISIS. … When talking about ISIS, it was — what’s the word for it? It was impersonal. It was detached. It was as though he was talking theory and philosophy in the faculty lounge. … The president wants to provide all kinds of leadership in terms of our welfare state, but he does not want to provide leadership in vanquishing our enemies, or so it seems to me. If you want to come here and become a freeloader for the Democrat Party, the doors are open.” —Rush Limbaugh

Observations: “We have become experts at treacly online mourning. We take grotesque atrocities and launder them into trite symbols and slogans that are usually self-congratulatory and, of course, wholly ineffectual. … Nothing positive comes from innocents getting shot down in cold blood for the offense of going to a concert on a Friday night. It there aren’t going to be more — and worse — attacks in our cities, the path ahead won’t be one of unity and peace. It will be the hard, thankless work of protecting civilization from its enemies.” —Rich Lowry

For the record: “This was not an ‘attack on all humanity.’ It was an attack on Western liberal values. And it wasn’t an attack on ‘the universal values we share,’ since there are in fact few universal values that humanity shares. If humanity shared universal values, there wouldn’t be wars, or hundreds of millions of subjugated women, or theocratic and secular tyrannies.” —Dennis Prager

That’ll scare ‘em: “The need to destroy Islamic State is an issue that faces the whole of the international community. I have therefore asked the [UN] Security Council to hold a meeting, as quickly as possible, to adopt a resolution to mark this goal shared by all to fight against terrorism.” —French President Francois Hollande

The BIG Lie: “Since we last debated in Las Vegas, nearly 3,000 people have been killed by guns. Two hundred children have been killed. This is an emergency.” —Hillary Clinton at Friday’s Democrat debate (Even the AP didn’t bite: “The Gun Violence Archive has recorded 11,485 gun deaths in the U.S. so far this year, an average of just under 1,000 per month, making Clinton’s figure appear to be highly exaggerated.”)

And last… “Obama asks Americans to reach out to distressed Syrian Muslims. He’ll get around to distressed Syrian Christians very, very soon.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post