Wednesday, July 22, 2015

You Don’t Like Me, You Really Don’t Like Me! [Hillary's weakness shows in CO, IA, and VA]

Pajamas Media ^ | 07/22/2015 | Stephen Green 



Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings are underwater in three swing states President Obama won handily:
A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday found that Clinton has strikingly negative favorability ratings among voters in Virginia, Iowa and Colorado, especially compared with where she stood in the spring.
The numbers come at a time when Clinton has a massive fundraising lead, relatively weak competition for the Democratic nomination and more federal government experience than other candidates. Even with these advantages, the poll shows Clinton may be vulnerable in states that by all accounts will have an outsize say in who wins the White House next year.
Then there’s this:
45/50 on the “needs and problems” question in Virginia isn’t a good sign for the would-be first female president.
Clinton would have had a lock on the 2008 nomination had it not been for a charismatic young senator from Illinois with a hint of the messianic about him. Even then it was a close-run thing, with Hillary having a slight edge in the popular primary vote, but Obama doing the hard ground work of winning more delegates in the caucus states.
This time around Clinton’s main challenge is a septuagenarian socialist Senator from Vermont with no hint of the messianic, but who connects with the Democrats’ increasingly populist-progressive base. Unlike ’08, Hillary won’t make the mistake of concentrating her efforts on the big headline primary states, but is already spending vast sums building grassroots organizations even in places as unlikely as Oklahoma.
So even with Clinton “feeling the Bern” in IA and NH, 2016 probably won’t be another close-run thing.
Her problem comes in the general election, because the polls show that she isn’t very likable and she’s even less trustworthy — which brings us to her campaign’s central dilemma.
Obama’s domestic record can be summed up with two letters: D&D. Not “Dungeons & Dragons” but “Division & Despair.” Clinton’s trick then is to separate herself from Obama’s record of economic despair, without alienating the young and minority voters (the “divided”) who still approve of his policies.
John McCain faced a similar problem in 2008 — how to distinguish himself from George W. Bush without alienating himself from the GOP base. McCain’s one advantage in that difficult task was his reputation as a “maverick,” never fully in tune with the GOP to begin with. He might have even pulled it off, had the financial meltdown not have intervened.
On the other hand, Hillary’s task is made more difficult because “I support Obama’s policies but not the bad results!” is a fundamentally dishonest approach — and voters already find Clinton to be untrustworthy.
McCain in 2008 was able to play into his one real strength. Clinton must play into her greatest weakness. That her weakness shows in CO, IA, and VA may provide a glimmer of hope for the GOP. Without those states, Clinton begins with a likely Electoral College floor of 241. With those states, Clinton begins with a virtually insurmountable lead of 269 — the GOP candidate would have to sweep every other swing state in order to win. If CO-IA-VA go Red, the GOP contender would then need to take FL and one out of NV, OH, or WI. Or if FL is out of reach, they would have to start with OH and also nab the other two.
(ASIDE: I’m assuming that MI, MN, NM, and PA remain out of play for the GOP, but that Walker puts WI — trending ever more purple since 2000 — into play.)
There is one more big difference between 2008 and 2016. Eight years ago, Clinton was still the likable-if-unaccomplished senator from New York — baggage free, and running as the First Woman Ever.
Now she’s lost much of her likability, and must also carry eight years of Obama’s baggage and four years of her own as SecState. Plus, at some point voters are going to have to ask themselves if they really want to spend four or even eight years with a president with a voice like the Psycho knife music. It might be cruel to mention it, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
If Obama’s record can be summed up with D&D, then Clinton’s weaknesses are U-Cubed: Unlikable, Untrustworthy, Unconcerned. Hit her hard and smart on all three, and she could very well crumble with the middle of the electorate. Keep an eye on Carly Fiorina’s social media and other appearances — she’s been showing exactly where and how to hit Clinton — smart, hard, and fast. If there’s a better Veep pick than Fiorina, I haven’t seen them in action yet. Not even close.
The GOP has a tough road to 270, but today’s poll numbers may show a way to smooth it.

DEPORT THE ABDULAZEEZ FAMILY

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/22/2015 | Daniel Greenfield 

Before and after 9/11, the FBI took a hard look at Youssef Abdulazeez because he had apparently donated money to Hamas through a front group. He went on a watch list. He went off the watch list. The FBI forgot about him until his son, Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez, went on a Jihadist killing spree in Chattanooga.
Just like the Tsarnaev terrorists, the media is digging into the background of this dysfunctional Muslim family. We have learned that Youssef Abdulazeez liked to beat and rape his wife. He even wanted to get a second wife to rape and beat, as permitted “under Islamic law… in the parties’ native State of Palestine.” He also included some of his kids in his Koran-approved domestic abuse.
The family is issuing statements claiming that their son, like every Muslim terrorist ever, was suffering from “depression” and that Islam is a peaceful religion. But the father’s donations to Hamas and the rants about America, Israel and Europe on his family’s social media tell a very different story.
The only obvious conclusion from all this is that the Abdulazeez family, like the Tsarnaevs, should never have been allowed into this country. And after 9/11, they should not have been allowed to stay.
Their history of domestic abuse and terrorism is abnormal by American standards, but normal by Muslim ones. The Abdulazeez family’s native Jordan has unprecedentedly high levels of support for Al Qaeda and ISIS. Honor killings of women continue to have support from inside the political system.
Among Palestinian Muslims, like the Abdulazeez family, as many as 1 in 4 support ISIS. Palestinians who are displaced in their Jordanian homeland tend to affiliate with Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood which supports their cause, much as they do in Gaza where Hamas is the local Muslim Brotherhood franchise. All that made Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez into an even bigger threat to Americans.
Not only shouldn’t Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez have been working at a nuclear power plant, he should never have been in this country. The Chattanooga massacre did not have to happen.
Palestinian Muslims are indoctrinated in terrorism to a degree exceeding even ordinary Muslims. Their immigrants, first and second generation, who have committed acts of terrorism, include Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood in support of the Taliban, Mohammed Salameh, Ahmed Ajaj and Nidal Ayyad who took part in the bombing of the World Trade Center and Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, who shot seven people on top of the Empire State Building.
Of the six deadliest Muslim terror attacks against Americans, half involved Palestinian Arabs.
Muslim immigration is already a bad risk. Palestinian Muslim immigration is a bad risk even by the standards of bad risks. Muslim terrorist attacks in America have been disproportionately carried out by Egyptians, Pakistanis, Saudis and Palestinians. The latter are disproportionately involved in terrorism despite being part of a small population because they are governed by PLO and Hamas terrorists.
The Palestinian Muslims are a fake nationality groomed to be terrorists; an artificial group invested with no other identity except terrorism, no history except bombings and no future except more bloodshed.
After Chattanooga we can either waste more time puzzling through the dysfunctional, and yet entirely normal relationships of the Abdulazeez family, or we can end further immigration by a group from a place where honor killings and terrorism are normative. The social, political and religious problems of the Abdulazeez family and the Tsarnaev family are not our problems. We foolishly made them our problem by taking them in. And it doesn’t take reforming the whole Muslim world to get rid of them.
Both the Tsarnaev and the Abdulazeez families may not have spent every waking moment plotting to kill Americans, but they distinctly disliked us. No matter how “ordinary” their sons seemed, how many parties they attended and, how many of their American friends saw nothing wrong with them, they were always ticking time bombs waiting for the right confluence of theology and anger to explode.
The people of Boston and Chattanooga unknowingly lived with these ticking time bombs. Ticking time bombs just like them are all around us; Muslim families with scowling fathers, timid mothers, a history of failed businesses, growing resentment toward the infidel, sons who drift through life despite good schools and numerous opportunities until they find their focus around the black flag of the Jihad.
Americans should not have to live with these ticking time bombs. We should not be spending a fortune on failed efforts to “deradicalize” people whose degree of radicalism we wouldn’t have to worry about if we weren’t wrongly allowing them into this country.
If Youssef Abdulazeez had been deported after 9/11, Chattanooga would never have happened. His son’s killing spree would have become Jordan’s problem, Kuwait’s problem or someone else’s problem. Instead the authorities shrugged at the donation to a Hamas front group and moved on. Meanwhile in the Abdulazeez home, the time bomb went on ticking until it finally blew up.
If the United States stopped letting in people from cultures and countries where support for terrorism is widespread and affection for America is rarer than water in the desert, we would have less terrorism.
85% of Jordanians dislike America. The odds of a Muslim with Jordanian citizenship liking us were never very good. The best we could hope for was that he wouldn’t actually kill us. And that hope also failed. Instead of hoping that the Muslim immigrants who come here already hating us won’t kill us, maybe we should start rigging the odds in our favor. There are all sorts of practical ways to do that.
We could stop treating those international approval ratings as reasons to apologize to half the world and instead start using them to determine which countries we want immigrants from and which countries we don’t. If we did that, we would be getting more immigrants from the Philippines and fewer from Pakistan, there would be more Poles and fewer Palestinians, more Italians and fewer Egyptians.
And we don’t have to worry about Polish suicide bombers and Italians shooting up our soldiers for Allah.
After 9/11, there should have been zero tolerance for any support for terrorism. Youssef Abdulazeez and his entire family should have been on the first plane back to Jordan. And it’s still not too late.
After a terrorist attack, Israelis destroy the home of the terrorist. Before the Israelis, the British and the Ottomans had a history of using similar tactics. The idea is to remind the prospective terrorist that his family is responsible for his actions and to give the family a significant incentive to report an attack.
If that idea sounds abusive, we have been fighting the War on Drugs by using asset forfeiture to seize the property of pot growers even when the homes and land actually belong to their family members. Islamic terrorism is a much bigger threat than a bunch of pot and yet asset forfeiture has been used much more lightly with Muslim terrorists who have killed Americans than with a bunch of potheads.
If Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez had been growing pot in the basement, his family might have lost their home and their cars. Since he only carried out a brutal domestic terrorist attack against American military personnel, neither he nor they had nothing to worry about. And that’s just wrong.
What if the next Mohammod, Mohammed or Muhammad were to know that within 24 hours of his attack, his family would be denaturalized and on a plane back to their country accompanied by only the things that will fit in their suitcases? He might still go through with it or he might not. His family might report him or they might not. But the odds in our favor would suddenly go up.
Imagine if a terrorist attack were not followed by agonized psychoanalyzing of what went wrong, but were instead accompanied by swift and decisive action? There is no such thing as a lone wolf terrorist. The “lone wolf” acts in the name of a cause. His family is part of that cause. They may not have handed him a gun and pointed him at his target, but they helped fill his mind and heart with hate.
Now they need to go.
America needs an immigration policy and a deportation policy with zero tolerance for terrorism. It can and should begin here. It’s time to put our people first and to put those who hate us last.

Obama Administration Won’t Release Full Iran Deal to Congress!

National Review Online ^ | July 22, 2015 | Joel Gehrke 

President Obama won’t allow Congress to review two key aspects of the Iranian Nuclear deal, Republican lawmakers learned from international partners last week.
Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency would negotiate separately with Iran about the inspection of a facility long-suspected of being used to research long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
“The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”
The IAEA has been trying to gain access to the Parchin site since 2005, but Iran has refused, even as it apparently demolished various parts of the complex. “The hardliners do not want to grant any concessions unless Iran is suitably rewarded,” International Institute for Strategic Studies director Mark Fitzpatrick told the BBC in 2014, after reports emerged of explosions at the base.
The terms of the current agreement wouldn’t allow Congress to review any concessions the IAEA makes to get into the site. “Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of,” said Pompeo.
The IAEA will also separately negotiate “how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” according to a release from Pompeo’s office.
Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Pompeo, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, learned of the arrangement while meeting with the IAEA in Vienna, Austria last week. “That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Cotton said in a statement to the press.

One honey of a deal!

D8SQeSg.jpg

What matters?

x3S3KSc.jpg

Ignore it?

166532_600.jpg

Leading by a mile?

166564_600.jpg

CRAP!

PR9Dqm9.png

Her Table

PhJKtp2.jpg

Pantsuit on fire!

MW6AJHG.jpg

The Choice

UxAJhBX.jpg

Miracles

UQhChi3.jpg

Accountable

5vQtpei.jpg