THE TIME IS NOW ,NOT TOMORROW OR NEXT WEEK !
ISIS? Just treated by our President as another blip in the road with rhetoric to match the latest polling. But unlike any other crIsis he uses to rally his base, extremely deadly and over his head. Rhetoric does not win wars. Rhetoric from this president drives policy. The problem is the rhetoric's only goal is to secure his voting base, not the security of Americans.
And here we are on the Brink of WWIII, as Mark Levin recently announced. How did America get to this point? The President wants you to think evil magically blossomed and suddenly America has become a target because of our wealth or our tendencies to interfere in other continents affairs?
No, the problem is our President and his lack of leadership, the party in power, that has brought America to this point of impotency, something never seen before in American history. From day one our current President has used rhetoric, not leadership to bring about policy. He realized using the right rhetoric would get votes. He is beholding to every individual minority group and it is proven in his rhetoric that endlessly defends those minority positions compared to the rest of the population. In fact some of the goals of the liberals in power is to change some minority positions to majority ones.
A good example of rhetoric winning for democrats, is the anti war issues that brought democrats to power in 2006 because of their promoted perception and rhetoric that the war in Iraq was lost.. This, even though by the end of 2008, relative calm prevailed in Iraq. Our military and the Iraqi's had integrated both Sunni and Shia into one military. Sectarian violence almost became non-existent because our military under Bush, who did not micro mange the military after Rumsfeld left, was left alone and Bush listened to Petraeus and other military minds. This was sound policy despite the politics
The American people did not know that the Iraq war was actually being won. In contrast they believed it was a failure due to the liberal rhetoric game. And the mainstream media went along with it. Thus the votes that gave the democrats control of the house and eventually the White House in 2008.
How rhetoric based policy works.
Remember how despicable Americans were portrayed performing water boarding? How inhumane that was? The liberals must of polled that because that is all you heard for years. That motivated their base and kept their voters in the fold. Americans had short memories about 9/11 when compared to the alleged "atrocities."
Compared to actual ISIS mass killings of even women and children, water boarding today seems like a warm bath. Perception is the game liberals play. Change the perception with rhetoric and you can swing the voter. America, bad, and liberals will fix that problem on any issue that will swing a possible voting group. Thus they build a voting block based on a number of issues, most on minority positions that most politicians avoid while building a majority consensus. But democrats have learned and now rely on the premise that with the right rhetoric, you can sell Americans anything.
Remember shovel ready jobs? How long did it take for this President to admit they were not too many shovel ready jobs as he described? A couple of years? And he had his voting block believing it and then he moved on to other vote getting schemes. And did the economy boon? No.
How about the rhetoric that a video was responsible for the Benghazi attack? That one did not last too long, but shows how far with the ridiculous the liberals are willing to go with their rhetoric.
Remember what he promised immigrants? Amnesty if he was elected in 2008. He had the House and Senate until 2010 and was too busy with some more important rhetoric, healthcare, and he could not be bothered. A broken promise. A political lie. Unbelievable rhetoric that continues to this day to maintain a voting block. Yet come this November after the election, what are the bets on he will use executive orders to grant amnesty to a minimum 6 million? Done to maintain his liberal policies after he is gone in 2016 by making sure nothing gets in the way of democrats keeping the Senate this fall. With rhetoric comes nonstop campaign mode for this President and decisions are delayed to minimize damage to the base during elections. Do You really believe he is doing this for the immigrants when everything he does is for political power?
How about healthcare for everyone? The rhetoric to persuade voters, was because "so many people had lost their homes due to healthcare bankruptcies", or were cancelled due to reaching their maximum cap or were denied because of a pre-existing condition. Over 45 million Americans were not insured and the rhetoric made many Americans believe all 45 million were in desperate need. This was a healthcare crisis according to the liberal rhetoric, so bad the government had to step in. How many finally ended signing up at the end of 2013 extended into 2014 because a website was the blame for slow sign ups? Less than 4 million? Even with all the government money paying for those who could not afford it. Rhetoric for votes in my opinion. The problem was never as bad as the liberals described, it was just about votes and control. Creating winning rhetoric was the only goal. There really was not much care put into actual healthcare.
How about "you can keep your doctor and your plan if you like it"? More rhetoric that again went on for three years from the time the ACA was signed in 2010 to 2013. Yep, repeated rhetoric that continued until people were cancelled and lost their doctor and plan. It became the lie of the year. It could have been the lie of the year for three years.
Then when people actually lost their doctor and the plan they liked, the rhetoric pointed the finger at the citizen, because he did not understand the asterisk attached to those statements. You know, you could keep your plan only if it "qualified as a government certified plan". For the liberal, when using rhetoric as the main source of leadership, then comes attaching blame to someone else when the rhetoric does not come true. Conservatives and republicans are usually the target of the blame game.
How about the redline in Syria. Rhetoric without policy or any decision making behind it. Syria crossed the redline and nothing happened and it was a Kerry blunder and the Russians who temporarily bailed out the President's bluff. A bluff is when the rhetoric fails to live up to its promises. Bluffs are not policy. Bluffs are for gamblers. And everyone is calling out all the President's bluffs.
Policy to fit rhetoric is when the Ukrainians asked for small arms to fight the Russians and we gave them meals instead, and we shipped them by trucks, not airplanes so as not to inflame the Russians by flying airplanes into Ukraine. Berlin airlift anyone and did that cause the Russians to react during the dangerous Cold War? No.
Rhetoric is telling Europe' America will help heat their homes if the Russians turn off their source of gas and oil, this from a president who does not believe in carbon fuels. This is why the Europeans are now going it alone.
So how is this related to ISIS?
Let's go back to the policy or rhetoric of the President. His rhetoric tells a story that America over the ages was an imperial power that put its nose in too many places for all the wrong reasons. Appeasement and talking was his new answer, not involvement. After all, all the social ills of America could be fixed with just a few of those war machine dollars. The President won elections on a campaign of "the wars are going to be over". Al Qaeda was defeated. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Terrorism, a word he tried not to use, had been degraded. I will bring our troops home, rhetoric.
And guess what. America's policy on any issue, fits that particular rhetoric. Notice, it starts with rhetoric. The rhetoric gets voters, and then the policy fits the rhetoric, even when there are setbacks.
Just take ISIS. Remember the president comparing them to a minor league team when it was brought up that they were making inroads in Syria last spring. He even knew about ISIS or ISIL a year ago, but mentioning them at that time did not fit the rhetoric. The military and the Head of the CIA, Panetta even wanted to arm the Syrian rebels, to take control of a deteriorating situation in Syria as early as 2012, and the President resisted. And then when the killings finally started, the President holds press conferences and then goes and plays golf? This is policy? This is leadership?
President Reagan came out and said exactly what he would do on just about every issue.
A Star Wars type missile shield had the Russians scrambling at a time the Russian economy could not provide for expanding their military.
"Tear down that wall" was his cry at the Berlin Wall. And it came down.
Even the Iranians released the hostages just after the Carter administration boondoggle, as soon as Reagan was sworn in. The same day.
And Reagan created jobs when he increased the debt. A net of 16.1 million jobs to Obama's 5 million. Reagan stimulated the economy with good policies, not with simply rhetoric.
There was no second guessing because when Reagan spoke, actions was not far behind. There was not even enough time to poll anything. This President waits a long time to make policy decisions and then makes decisions based on polls of his latest rhetoric. If there is action, it is often too late and after the situation is in crisis mode. Benghazi is the perfect example. Multiple warnings and cries for help that went unheeded prior to the actual attack. Then we got more rhetoric.
Where is real American policy that means something? Where is some Reagan like decisions based on sound, thought out policies. There is none except decisions about how to sway votes for the next election. Heaven help America is all I can say, and Heavan help Americans in November, that they vote all the enabling liberal democrats out of office because our current ISIS rhetoric is not life saving policy. It is down right dangerous. It is simply a President who does not know how to lead, only talk. Our rhetoric based policy will not deter anyone. It actually emboldens our enemies.
Only the AMERICAN people can change the dilemma AMERICA is in with this President and we do not have to wait until 2016. Voting out democrats this November is our only hope to minimize the damage caused by this Presidential failure to lead until he is finally done in January 2017. Send the President a clear message with your vote that you no longer believe in his RHETORIC. You still have that freedom left, use it before it is too late.
And here we are on the Brink of WWIII, as Mark Levin recently announced. How did America get to this point? The President wants you to think evil magically blossomed and suddenly America has become a target because of our wealth or our tendencies to interfere in other continents affairs?
No, the problem is our President and his lack of leadership, the party in power, that has brought America to this point of impotency, something never seen before in American history. From day one our current President has used rhetoric, not leadership to bring about policy. He realized using the right rhetoric would get votes. He is beholding to every individual minority group and it is proven in his rhetoric that endlessly defends those minority positions compared to the rest of the population. In fact some of the goals of the liberals in power is to change some minority positions to majority ones.
A good example of rhetoric winning for democrats, is the anti war issues that brought democrats to power in 2006 because of their promoted perception and rhetoric that the war in Iraq was lost.. This, even though by the end of 2008, relative calm prevailed in Iraq. Our military and the Iraqi's had integrated both Sunni and Shia into one military. Sectarian violence almost became non-existent because our military under Bush, who did not micro mange the military after Rumsfeld left, was left alone and Bush listened to Petraeus and other military minds. This was sound policy despite the politicsThe American people did not know that the Iraq war was actually being won. In contrast they believed it was a failure due to the liberal rhetoric game. And the mainstream media went along with it. Thus the votes that gave the democrats control of the house and eventually the White House in 2008.
How rhetoric based policy works.
Remember how despicable Americans were portrayed performing water boarding? How inhumane that was? The liberals must of polled that because that is all you heard for years. That motivated their base and kept their voters in the fold. Americans had short memories about 9/11 when compared to the alleged "atrocities."
Compared to actual ISIS mass killings of even women and children, water boarding today seems like a warm bath. Perception is the game liberals play. Change the perception with rhetoric and you can swing the voter. America, bad, and liberals will fix that problem on any issue that will swing a possible voting group. Thus they build a voting block based on a number of issues, most on minority positions that most politicians avoid while building a majority consensus. But democrats have learned and now rely on the premise that with the right rhetoric, you can sell Americans anything.
Remember shovel ready jobs? How long did it take for this President to admit they were not too many shovel ready jobs as he described? A couple of years? And he had his voting block believing it and then he moved on to other vote getting schemes. And did the economy boon? No.
How about the rhetoric that a video was responsible for the Benghazi attack? That one did not last too long, but shows how far with the ridiculous the liberals are willing to go with their rhetoric.
Remember what he promised immigrants? Amnesty if he was elected in 2008. He had the House and Senate until 2010 and was too busy with some more important rhetoric, healthcare, and he could not be bothered. A broken promise. A political lie. Unbelievable rhetoric that continues to this day to maintain a voting block. Yet come this November after the election, what are the bets on he will use executive orders to grant amnesty to a minimum 6 million? Done to maintain his liberal policies after he is gone in 2016 by making sure nothing gets in the way of democrats keeping the Senate this fall. With rhetoric comes nonstop campaign mode for this President and decisions are delayed to minimize damage to the base during elections. Do You really believe he is doing this for the immigrants when everything he does is for political power?
How about healthcare for everyone? The rhetoric to persuade voters, was because "so many people had lost their homes due to healthcare bankruptcies", or were cancelled due to reaching their maximum cap or were denied because of a pre-existing condition. Over 45 million Americans were not insured and the rhetoric made many Americans believe all 45 million were in desperate need. This was a healthcare crisis according to the liberal rhetoric, so bad the government had to step in. How many finally ended signing up at the end of 2013 extended into 2014 because a website was the blame for slow sign ups? Less than 4 million? Even with all the government money paying for those who could not afford it. Rhetoric for votes in my opinion. The problem was never as bad as the liberals described, it was just about votes and control. Creating winning rhetoric was the only goal. There really was not much care put into actual healthcare.
How about "you can keep your doctor and your plan if you like it"? More rhetoric that again went on for three years from the time the ACA was signed in 2010 to 2013. Yep, repeated rhetoric that continued until people were cancelled and lost their doctor and plan. It became the lie of the year. It could have been the lie of the year for three years.
Then when people actually lost their doctor and the plan they liked, the rhetoric pointed the finger at the citizen, because he did not understand the asterisk attached to those statements. You know, you could keep your plan only if it "qualified as a government certified plan". For the liberal, when using rhetoric as the main source of leadership, then comes attaching blame to someone else when the rhetoric does not come true. Conservatives and republicans are usually the target of the blame game.
How about the redline in Syria. Rhetoric without policy or any decision making behind it. Syria crossed the redline and nothing happened and it was a Kerry blunder and the Russians who temporarily bailed out the President's bluff. A bluff is when the rhetoric fails to live up to its promises. Bluffs are not policy. Bluffs are for gamblers. And everyone is calling out all the President's bluffs.
Policy to fit rhetoric is when the Ukrainians asked for small arms to fight the Russians and we gave them meals instead, and we shipped them by trucks, not airplanes so as not to inflame the Russians by flying airplanes into Ukraine. Berlin airlift anyone and did that cause the Russians to react during the dangerous Cold War? No.
Rhetoric is telling Europe' America will help heat their homes if the Russians turn off their source of gas and oil, this from a president who does not believe in carbon fuels. This is why the Europeans are now going it alone.
So how is this related to ISIS?
Let's go back to the policy or rhetoric of the President. His rhetoric tells a story that America over the ages was an imperial power that put its nose in too many places for all the wrong reasons. Appeasement and talking was his new answer, not involvement. After all, all the social ills of America could be fixed with just a few of those war machine dollars. The President won elections on a campaign of "the wars are going to be over". Al Qaeda was defeated. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Terrorism, a word he tried not to use, had been degraded. I will bring our troops home, rhetoric.
And guess what. America's policy on any issue, fits that particular rhetoric. Notice, it starts with rhetoric. The rhetoric gets voters, and then the policy fits the rhetoric, even when there are setbacks.
Just take ISIS. Remember the president comparing them to a minor league team when it was brought up that they were making inroads in Syria last spring. He even knew about ISIS or ISIL a year ago, but mentioning them at that time did not fit the rhetoric. The military and the Head of the CIA, Panetta even wanted to arm the Syrian rebels, to take control of a deteriorating situation in Syria as early as 2012, and the President resisted. And then when the killings finally started, the President holds press conferences and then goes and plays golf? This is policy? This is leadership?
Policy should determine rhetoric, not the other way around. Everyone, including again Panetta, said it was a mistake not to leave some forces behind in Iraq to monitor and offer advice.
That historically has been good policy in other conflicts. But leaving some behind did not fit the rhetoric of: "I got our troops home out of Iraq" "I ended the Iraq war." "I will even end the Afghanistan war".
When we did not leave troops behind to monitor the political theater and military in Iraq, Maliki purged some of the Sunni leadership out of the Iraq military. Thus the unrest with the Sunnis again. And of course, the rise of ISIS and ISIL. The new rhetoric by the liberals is that it is Maliki's fault. The rhetoric turns to the blame game again. But think about it. If you left the keys in the car with your 6 year old behind the wheel, and after an hour you see the car roll down the driveway, exactly whose fault is it? Especially if your wife had told you never to leave Johnny in the car with the keys?
That historically has been good policy in other conflicts. But leaving some behind did not fit the rhetoric of: "I got our troops home out of Iraq" "I ended the Iraq war." "I will even end the Afghanistan war".
When we did not leave troops behind to monitor the political theater and military in Iraq, Maliki purged some of the Sunni leadership out of the Iraq military. Thus the unrest with the Sunnis again. And of course, the rise of ISIS and ISIL. The new rhetoric by the liberals is that it is Maliki's fault. The rhetoric turns to the blame game again. But think about it. If you left the keys in the car with your 6 year old behind the wheel, and after an hour you see the car roll down the driveway, exactly whose fault is it? Especially if your wife had told you never to leave Johnny in the car with the keys?
Untold numbers of military, members of congress, even other countries told and warned the President about not leaving some troops and advisors behind, but did anyone listen? Did anyone take advice? Nope. It just did not fit the President's rhetoric.
So the President's 4th Middle East plan in the past month is just a change in rhetoric and his policy fits the rhetoric. New bottom line of his rhetoric is that everyone else will fight the ground war. "We will only offer air support" so the President can present the image America is still not at war. This was probably polled for the November elections. Do you really think he is listening to those in the military who know, have, and fought wars? Or is he just getting those in the military to fit their policy to his rhetoric as they try to make the best of a bad situation? The bad situation is not ISIS, but dealing with poor policy and the President's rhetoric of the day. And with his track record of rhetoric that so many times simply fails to do what was promised, is this really the way to fight a war?
We certainly do not need the next lie of the year to be an ISIS one.
Leadership comes in many forms. Straight forward, blunt, honest and direct leadership has proven to be the best. This President has none of these leadership skills.
So the President's 4th Middle East plan in the past month is just a change in rhetoric and his policy fits the rhetoric. New bottom line of his rhetoric is that everyone else will fight the ground war. "We will only offer air support" so the President can present the image America is still not at war. This was probably polled for the November elections. Do you really think he is listening to those in the military who know, have, and fought wars? Or is he just getting those in the military to fit their policy to his rhetoric as they try to make the best of a bad situation? The bad situation is not ISIS, but dealing with poor policy and the President's rhetoric of the day. And with his track record of rhetoric that so many times simply fails to do what was promised, is this really the way to fight a war?
We certainly do not need the next lie of the year to be an ISIS one.
Leadership comes in many forms. Straight forward, blunt, honest and direct leadership has proven to be the best. This President has none of these leadership skills.
President Reagan came out and said exactly what he would do on just about every issue.
A Star Wars type missile shield had the Russians scrambling at a time the Russian economy could not provide for expanding their military.
"Tear down that wall" was his cry at the Berlin Wall. And it came down.
Even the Iranians released the hostages just after the Carter administration boondoggle, as soon as Reagan was sworn in. The same day.
And Reagan created jobs when he increased the debt. A net of 16.1 million jobs to Obama's 5 million. Reagan stimulated the economy with good policies, not with simply rhetoric.
There was no second guessing because when Reagan spoke, actions was not far behind. There was not even enough time to poll anything. This President waits a long time to make policy decisions and then makes decisions based on polls of his latest rhetoric. If there is action, it is often too late and after the situation is in crisis mode. Benghazi is the perfect example. Multiple warnings and cries for help that went unheeded prior to the actual attack. Then we got more rhetoric.
Where is real American policy that means something? Where is some Reagan like decisions based on sound, thought out policies. There is none except decisions about how to sway votes for the next election. Heaven help America is all I can say, and Heavan help Americans in November, that they vote all the enabling liberal democrats out of office because our current ISIS rhetoric is not life saving policy. It is down right dangerous. It is simply a President who does not know how to lead, only talk. Our rhetoric based policy will not deter anyone. It actually emboldens our enemies.
Only the AMERICAN people can change the dilemma AMERICA is in with this President and we do not have to wait until 2016. Voting out democrats this November is our only hope to minimize the damage caused by this Presidential failure to lead until he is finally done in January 2017. Send the President a clear message with your vote that you no longer believe in his RHETORIC. You still have that freedom left, use it before it is too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment