An American Agenda versus a Liberal Progressive Ideological Agenda

Allen West / Townhall Columnist

 

We are drawing to the end of 2015, and as we enter 2016 it is the final year of President Barack Obama’s presidential tenure. The question then becomes simple, are we better off than we were and a year from now, will we be better off?

Recently President Obama made the assertion to his faithful that he will be squeezing out all the “change” he can in this his final year.

This is the person who said late in 2008, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” Seven years later, what has that transformation meant to you?

Now, if you embrace liberal progressive socialism as a viable means of governance, then you are very well pleased. The policies of the past seven years, and the ensuing final year have been like a dream come true. However, we need be honest and assess what it has meant for the future of this Constitutional Republic. And if you reject the ideal of the American Republic, then President Obama has delivered -- the dismissal of the rule of law and the elevation of the collective over individual rights and liberty.

President Obama’s final State of the Union address will be on January 12^th and the White House has already identified the final year agenda items.

For Obama, It's Not Delusion, It's Purpose

Ben Shapiro / Townhall Columnist

 

Good news, America: the Obama administration has achieved peace in Syria. That's according to John Kirby, the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Public Affairs and spokesperson at the US State Department, who issued a blog post filled with five-word summations of 2015. Here's their summation of the Syrian crisis: "Bringing Peace, Security to Syria."

So the hundreds of thousands dead, the millions of refugees, the rise of ISIS, the enshrinement of dictator Bashar Assad -- none of it ever happened. According to the State Department, everything's going swimmingly.

More good news: the Obama administration has also defeated terrorism: "Winning Fight Against Violent Extremists." Oddly, more Americans now say that America is losing the war on terrorism than at any time since 9/11; 74 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with how the war on terror is progressing.

But the news gets even better: the State Department proclaims that it has achieved Iran's disarmament: "Iran Peaceful Nuclear Program Ensured." Well, there is that whole awkward Iran continuing to develop whatever it wants while funding terrorism across the world with money freed up by the United States and its allies. But really, we've stopped the mullahs dead in their tracks.

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

In FrontPage today I explain how lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech: December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor […]
 
Read in browser »

 

Geller in Breitbart: The List – Jihad in America 2015

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Here it is: the year-end review of jihad terrorism in America. You’ll be shocked. Read it all. And I mean ALL.

Geller: Jihad in America 2015: ‘The Danger to the Homeland Has Never Been Greater’

“The danger to the homeland has never been greater”: so said Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, in September as he released a new report on the global jihad.

In each of the past few years, I have done an end-of-the-year summary piece on jihad activity and Islamization during the year in review, so that people might better understand the overarching progress of the jihad in the U.S., and connect the dots. You won’t find this material summarized elsewhere: the Obama administration and the...

Read the whole entry »

     

• Email to a friend • Article Search •

Op-ed: 
Low-Info Voters vs High 2016 Expectations...       Part 2 of 2
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on http://www.americanpbn.com/

Low-information voters...the bane of us all as my Right Side Patriots partner and friend Craig Andresen pointed out in Part One of our two-part series 'Low-Info Voters vs High 2016 Expectations.' (http://thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com/2015/12/low-info-voters-vs-high-2016.html) A brief recap for those who still do not see themselves for what they are...as in the aforementioned low-information voters...folks whose vote is cast either out of misdirected anger that their candidate of choice did not get the nomination; folks who cast their vote based upon media-generated misinformation about the candidate who did; folks who vote solely based upon where a candidate stands on the social issues, which by the way belong on the state not federal level; folks who think that Jesus is on the ballot never mind that He has never nor will ever be; or those folks who don't vote at all simply because they are just too lazy to get to the polls. And this last group of low-information voters will be the most vocal group of complainers when, just like in 2012, things go horribly wrong.

But possibly the worst of all low-information voters are those who vote third party...misguided sorts who use the excuse that they're voting their 'conscious'...never mind that it's a 'conscious' wasted on a fringe candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning anything, but then again they know that. And they also know the reality that most third party candidates are nothing more than avowed anarchists claiming to be 'warriors for God' or simple 'facebook' candidates who think if they can only get a million 'likes' on facebook it will propel them to the White House...in other words low-information candidates custom made for low-information voters.

But those who vote for these fringe candidates could care less as after all they're voting their supposed 'conscious' and the rest of America be damned. And it matters not that their vote is a vote actually going to Hillary, as this particular group of low-information voters, for the most part, are the same bunch of pseudo-altruistic sorts directly responsible for Barack HUSSEIN Obama getting a second term in office...you know...the 'holier than thou sorts'...who said “better a muslim we know than a Mormon we don't know”...those so far to the right they actually shake hands with and give a pat on the back to the left.

And when low-information voters as a whole do not get that islamic terrorism is the biggest issue we currently face, when you couple that with the fact that most of them are devoid of even a basic understanding of what are and are not the duties of the president...a position that if not for the all-important Constitutionally given power of the veto would be quite similar to the figurehead status afforded to Britain's queen...you just know how serious of a problem we face as the 2016 election draws near. Thinking that a big mouth alone...a mouth filled with empty promises played to the hopes and dreams of the disillusioned...will be enough to assure a successful presidency, the low-information voter ignores that the Constitution gives the president so-called 'sweeping powers' over the actual administration of the federal government, meaning a big mouth could soon turn into a kingship of sorts with the low-information and disillusioned voter still not realizing they've been had.

But let's start here with a simple lesson in civics as it applies to the serious threat islam poses to our country today. Sadly, low-information voters simply do not get that if we don't deal with said islamic threat now nothing else will matter later. And low-information voters refuse to accept the fact that war has already come here to America, for they see the social issues as their driving force and mainstay.

First, and so important to remember, is that our Founders and Framers were wise enough to make sure that even a presidential veto could be overridden with enough votes in Congress...making this what prevents us from ever becoming a dictatorship. And second, the Constitution also makes sure that it's Congress who dictates law not the president by imposing certain constraints on his power...including his power to wage war... although in Obama's case he routinely tries to stretch his 'authority' beyond what is specifically listed in the Constitution by way of his infamous 'pen and phone'...and don't think it won't happen again with the wrong person in the White House.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...” - Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution

And to the affect of waging war, the president's role as Commander-in-Chief does not give him the power to unilaterally declare war as that is and must remain a power reserved for Congress. And while all generals and admirals take their orders from the president...including the order to 'stand down'...which Obama (I believe) assuredly gave as the nightmare that was Benghazi unfolded...the president's role as Commander-in-Chief does allow him to decide where and if troops will be stationed, where and if warships will be sent, and how and which, if any, weapons will be used during times of war...a power we have seen Obama cavalierly throwing to the wind as America's enemies are his friends.

And this is the power that in today's sad day and age of islamic terrorism must not be taken lightly for as bad as Obama's cavalier anti-American attitude is, the low-information voter needs to understand that our next president must not be a hothead either...a hothead with a finger on the nuclear button I might add...whose thought processes are driven by anger alone instead of by logic, reason, and tangible policy...nor must the next president be of the isolationist sort for the truth is that the world is indeed a safer place when America and America alone sets the rules of the game.

I hope that sinks into the mind of the low-information voter for it's tangible policy...a workable and doable tangible policy...that is the key to not only declaring and winning wars...and Obama has yet to even declare war on ISIS...but helps to set all future rules of engagement concerning war. And saying 'I will do this' or 'I will do that' is not policy but theatrics used in the hopes of reeling the low-information voter in.

And future rules of engagement has America's Chief of State...the president...being the public 'face' of the sum of the American people as he presides over ceremonial functions as would a king or a queen. And as the 'face' of America, the low-information voters must understand that whether they like it or not manners, civility, and decorum, do matter in a position such as the presidency for while leadership is about both current and future actions it is also about how those actions are presented to both the American people and to our allies...meaning that insults lobed at others and a narcissistic bravado of tooting of one's own horn is not perceived well neither here at home nor on the world's stage, and will surely alienate our allies and be used against us by our enemies.

And while America's enemy is now for the most part 7th century barbarians with 21st century weapons...an enemy who should be obliterated from the lands of civilized men...angry words and rhetoric by certain candidates bought into by low-information voters will not now or ever win out over concrete and decisive military strategy and action...a winnable tangible strategy put in place by candidates who are wise enough to see the big picture and act accordingly.

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...” - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

And in this current time of war, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, becomes all the more important. Giving the president the power to make treaties with other countries including treaties to end wars...subject of course to ratification by two-thirds of the Senate...could also have the low-information voters with stars in their blind-following eyes helping to elect yet another president who, like Obama, twists that power so as to conduct themselves as if they are king, and who will made treaties just for a personal 'well done' and a bow on the world's stage. In other words, a narcissistic bravado sort reinforced by voters who do not understand that character in positions of leadership does indeed matter for when bravado takes precedence over substance when it concerns treaties, the enemy then becomes the victor and the treaty-maker becomes a stooge maybe not in his eyes but in the eyes of 'We the People' who have again been sold out.

And while the president obviously has other powers not related to declaring, waging, or ending war, I cannot stress enough that the person who is best capable to handle this specific power not possibly abuse this power should be what one bases their choice on for who should be our next president. A calm, clear-thinking, level head is needed to undue the damage done by Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions, meaning we must not chose a president based upon popularity and selective hearing alone...hearing of so-wanted words but not hearing that there's no substance behind those words.

And that is exactly what today's low-information voters are doing as they forget that's how Obama got elected the first and second time around. And they also forget that a lack of substance has allowed this man to rule by executive order...overriding Congress via his pen and his phone...overriding Congress as the low-information voter stands by and whines and complains, oblivious to the fact that they were the ones who voted this man in by making choices based on the unimportant instead of seeing or understanding the ramifications of how they were casting their vote.

An emotional vote is never a well-cast vote no matter the caster's high expectations, and time and again it's seems it's always the low-information voter who casts such a vote. And it's the low-information voter who does more damage to our country than even the man their misplaced emotions helped elect for the low-information voter has not learned one thing from elections past, making it seem like they are deliberately trying to hurt America instead of trying to help save her...and that is the saddest thing of all.

So, as the Iowa Caucuses fast approach I hope the low-information voters see them selves in what Craig and I wrote and realize that a vote based upon emotions, anger, and misguided information, will never serve our country well. And while what we both wrote might anger some, hopefully the truth in our words will win out for this election is indeed our last chance to set our beloved America right again, and in doing so political correctness be damned.