MARATHON OF DEADLY STUPID LIBERALISM

The multicultural agenda of the left that refuses to recognize the committed nature of terrorists to infiltrate, lay wait, plot, plan and recruit native players for their evil mass murdering jihad is deadly stupid.

Our open borders and liberal immigration policy allowed the 911 terrorists (Al Qaida) to receive visa approval to attend aviation schools in America to train how to fly planes. Just plain deadly stupid.

Fort Hood, Texas, a Muslim psychiatrist shoots and kills 13 service people and wounds 31 more while invoking the Muslim praises to his god and the administration refuses to call it Islamic terrorism. Even though it was clear both before and after the attacks that the doctor was influenced by his association with Anwar al-Awlaki a radical American born imam. More wishing it isn't true, stupidity.  

When terrorists killed our Ambassador and three security personal in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton outright lied to the American people by calling it a murderous rioting of local Libyans upset over an anti-Muslim video. Our government and all officials knew it was a planned terror attack and they did nothing then nor anything since to respond to this savagery except to jail an obscure video maker. We can almost hear them whispering "It is about politics and winning elections, stupid. It is not about saving American lives."

Our open borders and liberal immigration policy allowed the Tsarnaev family to falsely claim the need for political asylum and our Homeland Security Agency bought that deception without balking. When the Russians warned that the eldest son (Dzhokhar) was a suspected terrorist, the FBI questioned him, decided he was no threat and worse kept the local police in the dark.  The Boston marathon bombers were imported, vetted and allowed to prey on innocent citizens killing three and wounding 264. Stupid, stupider and stupidest.  

These are only the terror examples with a high body count of those killed and wounded in America. There are many more examples of attacks that are called honor killings or lone wolf attacks that continue to be covered up by officials who refuse to recognize acts of Muslim cultural and religious killings as jihad attacks. Liberals dismissing assimilation requirements of immigrants, tragically stupid.

Between the sleeper cells, our open borders and the social media communication network of these psychopathic radical religious marauders, the left's naivety, lies and political corruption marches forward into the treasonous area of ignoring a known threat to our nation.

What happened in Paris, France will happen in America yet President Obama continues to insist on the implementation of his plan to import thousands more Syrian refugees into our country. Waving his arrogant finger at Americans who do not agree and admonishing us as being bigoted haters. Arrogant and stupid, or arrogant and cleverly flipping the pointing finger to us from his own disdain of America's exceptionalism?

Americans don't care if the jihadists are called Al-Qaida, al-Nusra Front, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, we want these people banned from entering the country. We want these inhuman people killed or captured when the opportunity presents and we don't want them sneaking into our country disguised as refugees. Don't stupidly argue that the Statue of Liberty is a suicide pact, that requires us to house our enemies!

No, Mr. President this hate isn't coming from the western world, this hate has always been germinated by a political cultist religion that seeks to kill or convert moderate and non-Muslims worldwide. They hate Jews and Christians. Americans know that compassion does not mean that one must endanger one's own family to help others. That would be stupid, Americans are not stupid! 

Airlift food, drop medicines, and create a safe haven for Syrian and regional refugees while the Syrian and ISIS war rages and when it is over, repatriate them back to their countries. Europe was foolish to think it could absorb a vast number of refugees and not import jihadist. Americans demand that our President and Congress not continue to be deaf, dumb and blind to a culture and ideology that is hell-bent on killing our citizens and Judeo-Christian values. Wake up Congress, and stop following political correct stupidity!

 

What has our liberal government learned from 911? Apparently very little, for they were directly responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing by importing, vetting and providing taxpayer monies to terrorists. What have they learned from Benghazi? Lie, then lie some more about lying.  What are they learning from Paris?  Nous des liberaux sommes toujours stupide. (We liberals are still stupid.)

Our recalcitrant corrupt and liberal defiant leaders in government all must heed the sane voices of the American people, that whether it is illegal aliens raping and killing our citizens or legal immigrant Muslim jihadists shooting and blowing up our streets, they must be stopped. Public office holders number one job, and their oath of office requires them, to serve and protect the nation and the Constitution!

  

Stop importing jihad, and seal our borders! It is just that stupid simple!   

A DEEP DISH DIFFERENCE

At last conservatives were treated to a somewhat fair debate in which the candidates, not the moderators, were able to characterize their political positions. I used the word, somewhat, only because some questions were fools fodder such as "Which Democrat do you most admire?" and also because the moderatos failed to control the time (Kasich) more equitably.

Governor of LA Bobby Jindal set the centerpiece on the debate table in the first tier by expressing that conservatism, itself, is under assault, by both the left and the right. Big bloated government is a product created by both political parties and unless a true conservative with constitutional values is elected little will change in Washington.

That theme carried into the frontrunner tier debates with Cruz, Fiorina and Paul all marking out a territory that defined genuine conservative principles as opposed to Republican-light policies. In fact, Rand Paul's debate within the debate of Marco Rubio's proposed child tax credit that would cost close to a trillion dollars, was an important voter compare and contrast moment, between the old establishment GOP thinking and the real ideals of conservatism.

Rubio may be young and articulate but his ideas are straight from the backroom, boardroom and Washington lobby-room that so infuriates American voters who feel betrayed by the beltway. Elitists conservatism isn't conservative and has only two purposes at its core, raising political money by pleasing donors and winning elections to keep the status quo safe.

Rubio keeps the IRS and the tax code safe and takes a page from the Democrat's give-a-way something for votes playbook, by calling for a child tax credit increase while slyly masking it to voters as not a new handout (which it is) but using his fast talking rhetoric to suggest it is a program to support family. Really Marco, does the government need to give Americans a tax credit to raise their families properly? 

The subterfuge of fraudulent politicians is not always easy for the voters to spot, which is why good debates that pit the policies of candidates rather than personalities of candidates, proves their value to voters. Rand Paul might not be your choice as a candidate but he was exactly correct to call out Rubio, and challenge him to explain how a big government give-a-way can be called a conservative idea. It isn't, and Marco Rubio may have a smooth tongue but on immigration, the economy and on foreign policy his candidacy is the lump of clay lobbyists hope wins the White House.

Voters also learned another key difference between genuine conservative and the faux candidates on stage. Jeb Bush and John Kasich would bail out the big banks and Cruz would not. Neil Cavuto looked at Ted Cruz with incredulity when he responded that he would not bail out the Bank of America if it were to fail, asking him the question again, as if to suggest that Cruz might want to change his answer given the financial hurt it would cause depositors.

That was when John Kasich interrupted, again, as he had all night long, like an obnoxious drama queen that had the loudest laugh at the party, making everyone ask "Who invited him?". Worse Kasich's answer to the bank bailout question was incomprehensible and had more gobble in it than the our upcoming Thanksgiving day bird. 

Still it was Ted Cruz who gave the correct conservative answer to the bailout question, which is a simple, no. The same answer to why General Motors should not have been bailed out.

Either you favor crony capitalism, corporatism and too big to fail socialism or you are a free enterprise promoter of a fair marketplace in which government plays its only role as an ethical arbiter through laws and regulations. Either you favor base-line budgeting or as Carly Fiorina suggested we have zero based budgeting where the government must do the same ledger math, as people and business do in the real world. Either you favor allowing illegal aliens to ignore our laws and still be granted citizenship as it seems Bush, Rubio, Kasich believe or you believe that they must suffer deportation which so far only Trump advocates. We did not hear from Fiorina, Paul, Cruz and Carson on the deportation question.  

Which leads to another criticism I had for the FBN Debates, which is on this very substantive issue as immigration certainly is, we should have heard comments from all the candidates on what to do with our growing illegal immigration problem. Perhaps some have some new ideas yet to be considered, but we need to hear all the candidates comment in order to choose wisely.

So who won the debate? Voters.

 

Clearly with a better panel of moderators, asking more substantive questions, allowed the voters to win this one. We certainly came closer to seeing the deep dish issue differences between the posers, frauds and faux conservatives versus the true constitutional based conservative ideals with freedom as one of its basic principles that founded our nation. One of these candidates will receive our approval to beat back the social progressives destroying the country. Will we chose a thin crusted pretender or deep dish principled advocate? The debate goes on.