America’s Enemy Within & A Complacent Congress

Conservative Review

By: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel takes a step back from this year’s crazy election cycle and focuses on why Americans are so angry with the government to begin with.

Judging from President Obama’s recent Cuba visit, secret détente with Iran release of violent terrorists from Guantanamo, and nonchalant response the horrible terror attacks in Brussels, Daniel concludes America has “an enemy within” and a “complacent Congress”unwilling to stand up to him.

“This is a president who sides with our enemies, he has downright formed an alliance with our enemies – the Islamists, Iran, the Cuban regime – and yet Congress is completely out-to-lunch.” 

Cuba:

Raul Castro is using our kind immigration laws regarding Cuba to extract concessions from the Obama administration, who is more than willing to give in. Obama normalizes relations with the communist regime while Cuban immigrants are syphoning American welfare funds only to return to Cuba. Congress idles.

Iran:

Obama’s deal with Iran has gone much further than the nuclear agreement. Without punishment Iran conducts missile tests, detains U.S. soldiers, and now Obama is paying ransom to the regime. Again, Congress is nowhere to be found.

Guantanamo:

Defense officials have confirmed that Americans have been killed by prisoners released from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Obama wishes to close permanently.

Brussels:

“Numbers matter.” Belgium has an extremely large intake of Muslim refugees and Daniel warns that America, under Obama, is heading in the same direction. Congress has talked a big game regarding refugee resettlement but has done nothing substantial to alter Obama’s plans.

While Obama violates our sovereignty and safety, what is the Congress focused on? Oh yeah, criminal justice reform aka jailbreak…

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/listen-conservative-conscience-americas-enemy-within-a-complacent-congress#sthash.dXFqJI1F.dpuf

Ex-Kentucky Personnel Cabinet Secretary Tim Longmeyer charged with bribery

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) –  The former head of the Kentucky Personnel Cabinet has been charged with bribery in an alleged contracting kickback scheme, according to a complaint filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Lexington.

Timothy M. Longmeyer, who resigned this week as a deputy attorney general, is accused of using his state position in the Personnel Cabinet to steer work to an unidentified company “in exchange for cash payments and conduit contribution checks made payable to certain political campaigns,” the complaint says.

Longmeyer did not immediately respond to a message left on his cell phone Friday afternoon. He faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.

Continued Reading….

Another Bombshell: Hillary Clinton Helped a Donor Escape Justice

hillary

Independent Sentinel

There is overwhelming evidence of Hillary Clinton’s corruption, not only of violations of national security, but of her money laundering non-profit Foundation. It’s possible but not likely the Department of Justice will prosecute her though all but the most ardent Hillary admirers know the truth.

The Observer has yet another stunning example of her flouting the law. The Clinton Foundation helped a donor’s flight from justice.

Gonzalo Tirado was a donor to the Clinton Foundation helped out by Mrs. Clinton. He was president of and ran the Venezuelan operations for the infamous Stanford Bank. He was as close as a son to Mr. Stanford who is serving 110 years for an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. Tirado was charged with tax evasion and theft in Venezuela in connection to his employment with the bank.

Tirado fled to Miami and petitioned the State Department for political asylum though he had no basis for it since he had no record of opposition to the Chavez government. He was allowed to remain the US and live in the lap of luxury.

The Obama administration wouldn’t help the Chavez government investigate Tirado but they did indict former DEA agent Tom Raffanello who once headed up the DEA’s Miami office and who was the agency’s chief of congressional affairs during Bill Clinton’s first term.

Continue reading

Barack Hussein Obama: What’s in a Name?

obama-finger

PJ Media

There is a troubling hint of something very un-American about the American president. I am not alluding to the birther controversy but rather to something in the president’s character, attitudes, personal aura, and worldview. He could just as well have been born in Podunk or Dogpatch and yet an un-American flavor would still cling about him. A little while back I tried a thought experiment with an American friend still partly dazzled by the president’s populist dexterity and acclaim. I asked him to recite the names of a dozen presidents at random, ending with POTUS 43. He proceeded: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush. I then asked him to pause for a moment and repeat the full name of the current occupant of the White House. He waited a moment and said: Barack Hussein Obama. A longish silence ensued and then he said, as if struck by recognition, “I see what you mean.”

Of course, there is nothing wrong with a flamboyant name and much to recommend it. A striking moniker can add a chromatic and ebullient element to the habitual, a dash of playfulness, a spirit of diversity. Nomenclature can be fun. Our athletes, after all, have practically cornered the market on appellate extravagance: Shomari Williams, Tearrius George, Ken-Yon Rambo, Marc-Olivier Brouillette, Na’Shan Goddard, LeBron James, Chip Cox, Dontrelle Inman, Jabar Westerman, Swayze Waters, Prince Amukamara, Jade Etienne — to name just a dozen. But in the context of presidential history and political expectation, “Barack Hussein Obama” remains glaringly idiosyncratic in the calendar of historically resonant names, exemplifying something scalene about the man as an American politician and leader, his conspicuous outrider status in the almanac of legacy assumptions. This is precisely what startled my interlocutor when he performed our little thought experiment. He perceived a basic asymmetry between the name and the office — in other words, to make the obvious transposition, between the man and the office.

Needless to say, liberals will seize upon the suspicion of implicit bigotry or “racism” in such a nominal exercise, but I can assure them that Obama’s lack of fit with the American presidency has nothing to do with origins or skin color, as Leftists will predictably clamor. As far as ancestry is concerned, his name could be Solomon Greenberg or Chjeng Huanyu — or Bobby Jindal — without being negatively emblematic or disturbing in the slightest. When it comes to pigmentation, the same applies. “Obama is sui generis in American presidents,” writes Jean Kaufman, “and I’m not referring to the fact that he’s the first black president.” Martin Luther King Jr. is undoubtedly a fine name for a president of the United States. Thomas Sowell fits perfectly. Herman Cain is good, too. More to the point, all would have likely made decent chief executives.

Drawing attention to the president’s name is both racially and lineally irrelevant. But given its Islamic tinnitus and its flourish of decided otherness, the name functions as a symbol, that is, an allegory of synoptic dislocation, a token of visceral difference. It signifies something bizarre, something nomadic, extraterritorial, and domestically ineffable, something unusual in the roster of commanders-in-chief. For columnist Ben Shapiro, Obama is a “lightweight,” a “joke,” and a “Hollywood president,” a man who prefers appearing on The View and with the Pimp with a Limp to dealing with affairs of state, and who tweets pics of himself standing beside a cardboard cutout captioned “You look familiar.” But the implications are far more serious. The fact is that Obama is not a president in the authentic sense of the term; he is a glittering name acting the role of president, and in this sense Shapiro is right, he is a “Hollywood president,” a man with marquee presence and Stanislavski moves. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh calls the president Barack Kardashian, connoting the man’s celebrity allure and endemic shallowness. Some actors, however, few as they may be, do have a core personality, intellectual marrow, and moral substance. Obama does not, being in effect a mobile simulacrum of a cardboard cutout, which makes him as president of the United States not merely a joke and a lightweight but a disaster and a tragedy.

does-this-ass-make-my-truck-look-big_2