Your Shot at Being Comander in Chief

So…….once again, the president says some pretty reasonable things that most intelligent people could be onboard with and the right has decided to automatically reject every word of it, turn most of it into something it “wasn’t “, and just in general denigrate intelligent resolve into ruble.

So I have a challenge to all the Monday Morning Quarterbacks out there that seem to have a better plan.

If you weren't happy with what you heard last night, what’s your plan?


1. How would you fight a terrorist organization that has sleeper cells all over the world, that is funded by some of the riches countries in the world, that all work in secret cloaking themselves within communities not involved in their cause?
2. How do you make sure that people living in this country that are either deranged or radicalized “not” get their hands on guns?
3. How do you assure certain segments of our population, that are “not” connected with terrorist groups by ideology, but by ethnicity – that they too shall be protected from Islamophobic backlash from fellow Americans or terrorist's?
4. What do you do with refugees that you have “already” committed to helping in the face of attacks that have happened in other parts of the world “after” you have made said commitments?
5. Other than communicate what US Anti-Terrorist Departments & Homeland Security is doing to keep Americans safe - what more would you do or say to give American citizens the confidence their government is keeping them safe?
6. Lastly, how “better” could anybody, anywhere say this:

“If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization. It is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It is our responsibility to reject language that encourages suspicion or hate. Because that kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values, plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. We have to remember that.”

 

I didn't watch last night but here goes....

I would only fight them in my country. Let other people fight their own fights. That "We have to fight them overseas so we don't at home" is military industrial nonsense.

I would outlaw guns so that bullets would also be outlawed necessarily. Even if you can get a gun, it would be increasingly and exponentially difficult to get your hands on ammo, especially thousands of rounds at a time.

Isn't the government's job to protect people from hurt feelings.

4

Let them in.

Eliminate student loan debt and make public colleges free.

Don't know but if it is too long for a tweet then it is too long for the American attention span.

 

This first sentence, where you imply that those on the right are unintelligent and dishonest, reveals your bias, so I have no expectation that you will adhere to the rules in your signature that you already have broken yourself.
Regardless, I'll try to answer.

If I were CinC, I would turn that task over to the experts at pentagon, and give them free reign to:
a) overtly do what ever they, the experts, deem need to be done, within guidelines of international law and the Geneva Convention, to quickly and decisively defeat this enemy, and...
b) covertly do whatever they, the experts, deem need to be done to that end while, maintaining plausible deniability.

Essentially, I'd release the hounds. In the end, we would not defeat terrorism, but terrorists would have a clear message about who they can and can not (*)(*)(*)(*) with. I, as CinC, am not an expert in this area. So I would turn those decisions over to people who I trust, and who know what they are doing.

As CinC, and a student of history, I recognize that this country was founded to make people FREE, it was not founded to make people SAFE. I would bolster this ideology with the policy that those Citizens who have their freedom may enjoy all the rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution, to include the right to keep and bear arms. Conversely, those who initiate violence against another, after due process, will have their rights and liberties stripped from them, and will no longer enjoy their freedom. As CinC, I would remind people that if we love freedom, inherent in that freedom comes risk. We will take people who demonstrate violence and segregate them, forever, from peaceable society. But we cannot guarantee an absence of violence, we can only mitigate and minimize it, after due process.

By ensuring they have equal protection, under the law. In a free society, people are entitled to their own opinions and their own prejudices, and their own feelings. I, as CinC, cannot, and should not, do anything other than deal with violence as stated in #2 above, to ensure any group is treated any differently than any other. We must ensure that every individual receives equal treatment under the law, and that the violent are segregated from the peaceful.

I allow any refugees to go through the process as defined by our laws, and to pursue the path to citizenship. I would not do anything to encourage or facilitate their journey to our country, but I would welcome them when they arrived. As CinC, I would task our immigration department to use whatever due diligence they saw fit, but warn them that accountability would be theirs. If I were not CinC, but instead an immigration official, I would want to use every method available to vet every refugee, and I would want to have a way to continuously monitor their location and communications as a condition of their freedom amongst society, until they become Citizens, or until they return to their own country.

As CinC, and a student of history, I recognize that this country was not founded to make people safe. This country was founded to make people free. It is incumbent upon every Citizen to provide for their own security. Our Constitution includes the Second Amendment, that guarantees them the ability to do so. As CinC, I will maintain the worlds most powerful military to protect our borders from foreign military threats. As a Citizen Patriot, you are responsible to provide for the protection of your self, your family, and your property, and our Constitution guarantees you that right.

I cannot disagree with anything in that rhetoric, because it only states the obvious, but leaves the decision to do so to the individual.

 

As usual his word Olympics and intellectual dishonesty is in rare form, so misguided useful idiots will fall for the rhetoric. His contradictory dribble was not only irrational but irritating to watch. We need congress to declare war so we can not fight them because that is what they want us to do. This is the nonsense you consider reasonable? Honestly, you cannot just drop bombs,and not follow up, and warning the enemy each and every time you do a bombing run to insure the least amount of casualties, isn't a plan for victory, it is counter productive to say the least,and treasonous at best.

We are not fighting an organization, we are at war with Islam ideologies and Sharia followers. The sleeper cells are here only because we are to complacent, and politically correct to address the situation head on.

Go after them, not the law abiding.

Any one who follows the teachings of Islam is an enemy of the west. When is this ignorance going to stop. The extremist want to kill us and the peaceful ones want them too succeed.

Set up safe zones in their own country and stop this terrorists underground railroad that we are facilitating.

Obama has left the White House and is no longer controlling 1/3rd of the government.

Pacifist dribble that only emboldens them because they sense it as weakness. They understand one thing and one thing only, kill or be killed. We should implement every resource in assuring that the later is the case.

 

See, I'm not as disagreeable as you think, and I didn't mean to imply that everyone on the right isn't intelligent, as much as I meant that the same old usual suspects came out against the president the way they always do because their so inclined to do so no matter what he say's.

They're just programmed to bash first, listen second....

 

Both parties are programmed to be that way. That is the con. Keep people divided, and they can easily be conquered. We are on a fast road to a dictatorship/monarchy, and the two party scam is leading us into that direction.

 

Personally I didn't pay attention to President Obama last night because we were celebrating a birthday but that's of no importance in addressing these challenging questions.

Stop supporting tyranny. This includes the tyranny of virtually all governments in the Middle East, often the wealthiest like Saudi Arabia, but most certainly the tyranny of Israel that's been militarily occupying the remaining homeland of the Palestinians since 1967. Specific to that I would bring forward a proposal before the UN Security Council for economic sanctions necessary to implement UNSC Resolution 242 that requires the Palestinians to respect the territorial integrity and the right to live in peace of the Israelis as well as the withdrawal of all Israeli forces and citizens from all of the territory occupied in 1967 by Israel. If the provisions of UNSC Resolution 242 is not fully implemented then there can be no peace in the Middle East. The disputes between the Shia' and the Sunni are a much more difficult problem to deal with because it's reflective of a religious civil war in the region. Since the US is a secular, not sectarian, nation it would be best for us to "butt-out" if this religious civil war as we cannot take sides with either side related to it.

Ultimately as long as the tyranny exists the "terrorist cells" that fight against the tyranny will also exist. We can't eliminate those cells but we can remove ourselves from being targets by not supporting the tyranny they're fighting against.

Can't be done but there are pragmatic firearms regulations that can be adopted to reduce the number of "deranged or radicalized" people getting their hands on firearms. It should also be noted that this problem isn't related to "deranged and radicalized" Muslims so much as it's related to "deranged and radicalized" white Christians in the United States that overwhelmingly have the most guns and use them the most often.

More extensive enforcement of the "hate crime" laws expanding the definition of what "actions" constitute a hate crime. For example showing up outside of a Muslim mosque openly carrying firearms to demonstrate should be classified as a "hate crime" as it is an "assault" (threat) against those inside even though no shots are fired.

Additionally I'd engage in a public campaign of exposure of those that engage in ethnic, racial and religious hatred because if anyone is "unAmerican" its the racists that disparage other people based upon race, religion, or ethnic heritage.

I've been unable to find any cases where a person granted political refugee status has ever committed an act of terrorism. The "vetting" process usually takes about 18 months and it's the hardest way of getting into the United States. Even illegally crossing the border is far easier and tourist visas don't require nearly as much screening as refugees are subjected to. No terrorist is going to subject themselves to the background checks done for refugees and it isn't a problem for the United States. Always remember that the refugee is the victim of terrorism and not the terrorist.

I would expand the number of those being granted refugee status because they're victims of terrorism and not terrorists.

This is a tough one for several reasons.

First of all the government can't communicate much of what it does to keep us safe as that would compromise the measures being taken.

Next is that even what can be disclosed often isn't. For example I've heard that the FBI has successfully arrested and prosecuted over 200 people for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism predominately since President Obama took office but I can't find the source for that information on the FBI website. It might be there but if it is then it's very hard to find. This is information that should be well know by Americans but it's basically been hidden away and not publisized by our government.

Third, we should openly admit when we're wasting money. For example the average cost for arrest and conviction by "air marshalls" that were employed by the Bush Adminstration is $300 million and I've only read of one case was an air marshall was actually involved in restraining a person on a commercial flight. This has been a huge waste of money from all reasonable perspectives that merely gives Americans a false sense of security.

Finally we need to stop confusing the issues. Stopping immigration for peaceful purposes such as employment and/or be with family has nothing to do with national security. These people aren't coming here to commit acts of terrorism but instead are doing exactly what we do as Americans. We seek better employment and to be with family all of the time and that's all they're doing.

From an American perspective this has nothing to do with religion. From our (secular) prespective any action that violates the rights of others is wrong regardless of the opinions of those that commit these acts.

What is true is that only the ideology that spawns the problem of the violation of the rights of others can address it. It can't come from outside. Christians cannot change the beliefs of Muslim as that can only come from within the Muslim community itself. The United States has a relatively small Muslim community representing only about 6% if all Americans as I recall so the American Muslim community cannot fully address the radical Islam. The American Muslim community obviously has to address radical Islam in the United States but that isn't our greatest problem because there are so few Muslims in America. When it comes to religion being used as a motive for actions that harm others, from a national prespective, we need to focus on what we can do best and that would related more the acts by Christians because roughly 70% of Americans are Christians. That would have a far greater positive impact on America that having our focus on Muslims alone.

We also have a serious problem of racial prejudice in the Republican, Democratic, and even the Libertarian Parties and those political parties have to address this internally. A Democrat will not be able to change the racial prejudice of a Republican anymore than a Republican can change the racial prejudice of a Democrat. It just won't happen.

Back to the point of radial Islam the local Muslim community can have an impact but even then it's highly limited because the radicalization isn't typically from within our Muslim community but instead it's "imported" from the foreign Muslim community where oppression and tyranny is widespread. We only become targets because we often support the tyranny that's behind the Islamic extremism that I addressed in Item 1.

 

1. Target families of all known terrorists and their financial supporters, kidnapping and torture if that is needed.
2. Bomb them where ever they are no matter civilian casualties
3. No refugees from Muslim world

 

Short and sweet, productive and necessary.

 

Ok fine, but that's your opinion (which your entitled to) but your opinion doesn't exactly mean that your correct in your assessment, your only correct for you.

So even though he quoted over & over again how most of these war-time decisions are based on conversations & input from all the joint chiefs of staff, and really it's their vision....somehow for you that translates into "it's all Obama's irrational dribble"?

I think you meant to say something else here because your sentence makes no sense if you read it. But let me ask you this question: "are you ok with dragging us into another full blown war with thousands of troops on the ground, or do you see the common sense in sending special op teams over there to carry out stealth missions (like the Osama Bin Laden raid) which would probably be much more effective given the fact that no one in any of those regions trust's us or cooperates with US military personnel?

Actually I was talking about the sleeper cells that are all over the world, not just here, and while I will "partially" agree with some of your sentiments here - I think you are including present day American Muslims that are not complacent or compliant to the lunatics that have decided everyone on the planet must die.

It's dangerous to keep lumping or attacking everyone in this country that calls themselves a Muslim or to flat out be in denial over the fact that millions of Muslims are not crazy, and do not adhere to the more extreme versus in the Quran. (just because they're there)

You guys just keep repeating that nonsense like you know it to be true beyond all comprehension, and you'll be dammed if someone is going to tell you different...well I'm telling you different. Not every Muslim is a terrorist or is bound to become one or follow extreme tenements of a book, and the sooner you guys accept that, the sooner the healing can begin.

That's fine, and I'm with you, but how do we prevent people that should not own guns from having them.....in the first place?

This so called "ignorance" isn't going to stop because like I just said earlier your just wrong on this. There are currently 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet, and your telling all of us that every single one of them is "bound" to wage Jihad on the world?

Every single one of them wants to completely throw their lives away like those two idiots in California by going on killing sprees? Come on man, you don't believe that yourself......

This is the third time you've made this reference about terrorist being here that we're facilitating by being "soft". You already know what my answer is going to be so............... There are people here that would do us harm, yes, but not to the extent to which your paranoia has convinced you.

Cop-out answer, I'm asking you....what would you say or how would you communicate to the American public that you're keeping them safe?

You can't answer that by telling people the guy you don't like is gone, so somehow that makes everybody safe. Once again, these are your opinions & perceptions, but as president of the united states you have to provide real answers. Here's your opportunity to tell us what you would have said differently from what was said last night.

You claim that what he said damn near made you vomit, so ok............................your turn, we're listening.

And......yet.....again, your talking to American Muslims who do not have anything to do with terrorism, never have, and never will. How do you effectively communicate to them that you as the president of the united states understand that, and how do you communicate to them that you understand the importance of us as a nation standing together to defeat the lunatics.

Your their president too, or do you not realize that?

Come on man, your the president in this exercise, be presidential. There's only room for one fool to act like an @$$ while trying to become the president and that job is already taken by a self indulgent idiot that got rich off his daddy's money.

 

No, tell us how you really feel........

Dude, somehow I'm thinking you would scared the living daylights out of most Americans if you said that on television last night.

 

I would try to make it a bit more palatable when addressing the people. Listen we had no problem leveling Dresden, people just need to be told why and how, without saying we will kill little children and cute kittens.

 

Well I'm glad to hear you would want to make it more palatable.....

 

Uhh... using "cute kittens" is now very UN-PC. They prefer to be called "fuzzy young felines". The National Fuzzy Young Felines Initiative's attorney's will be calling upon you soon and filing a cease and desist motion about your discriminatory language. (Sorry - I couldn't resist).

 

But Obama and Valerie have all ready purged the military of it's experts. All you have left are "yes men" and the last thing a competent CnC wants is to be surrounded with is "yes men."

 

I was going to reply to your proposal until I got to the bottom and read your signature, LOL. Your first line in the post declares you cannot be civil, but you want all responders to be civil. Total hypocrisy.

 

Well we could start with the obvious. Commander in Chief can stop arming Syrian al-Qaida rebels. Giving them millions in cash and ammo. That would be a good start. Make it harder to recruit domestic terrorists. Or do you think we should continue to arm them because it will help...

Let's hear an intelligent response.

 

What a cop-out, seriously.....

Nothing in that post was disrespectful or insincere or uncivil, but I get it.

You'd rather "poke-sticks" than deal with the questions and make an attempt to reverse this whole thing back on me like I'm some sort of "bad guy", ok fair enough.

I've read posts in here that are unbelievable in terms of ugliness, ridicule & disrespect and your telling me that something in my post offended you to the point that you decided not to reply?

Ok, what if I apologize "just to you" to sooth your ruffled feathers, now will you answer, or was that question also not civil?

What's your definition of civil, mine lies somewhere between being a bit of a smart-@ass and exceedingly polite with a dash of sarcasm thrown in for good measure from time to time. (which is fathoms below some of the ugliness I've seen in here)

Why even bother writing what you wrote if the post offended you so much?

 

I actually agree with that mainly because ISIS fighters always get there hands on our weapons through sheer force or from rebels who have no more fight left and just want to get out of it by selling our stuff to the the lunatics.

Most of the people in the region all believe that we created ISIS which makes things incredibly difficult.

I actually like the idea of sending in special op-teams opposed to thousands of ground troops because they're much better at carrying out small missions that make huge impacts.

Plus it doesn't shift the focus from fighting the bad guys to................oh look, America is here......again.......to kill us.........

Everyone screaming about sending thousands of soldiers over there have no idea how bad America's name is in the Middle East, how little they trust us, and how ineffective it would be.

There are definitely ways to defeat these lunatics but by using a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

 

Well if it is only my opinion (which it isn't), you have nothing to worry about.

There is no doubt that he has established the perimeters of engagement, and under those hurdles the military leaders are doing the best they can with what they have been ordered to deal with, but it is extremely and seriously doubtful that what the Obama administration has dictated to the Armed Forces, is not "the vision" of the Chiefs of Staff, as to being the most logical, and rational way of defeating this enemy. Surely that is the way he sees it in his convoluted, irrational, supremacist mind, but it isn't reality.

Did you listen to his speech or not? That is what he said, not word for word, or even at the same time, but his contradictions were obviously clear if you were actually paying attention.

No I am not, because what we have been doing for the last decade and a half is not war. You don't train and arm the very people who wish to see you dead in a war. Not really sure what the true ulterior motives were, but it isn't hard to see that money/wealth/power were more of a priority than defeating the enemy.

Obviously we disagree. Any nation/country, group, or individual who believes that Sharia Law is the only law, is the enemy. Any individual who is in the USA who believes Sharia Law is the only law is not an American and does not, should not be considered a citizen, for any reason, especially some irrationally misinterpreted amendment to the constitution.

Here is the oath;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If by presidential you mean lie straight faced to the public, deliberately distort the responsibilities of the executive branch to the point of getting around the constitution by whatever means possible, and misinterpret the constitution so as to destroy it's original intent, then you already have your president in office. The goal of any true patriot should be to assure that the traitor to his own office, should be removed and prosecuted for his treasonous behavior.

Being presidential requires integrity, a sense of commitment, and honor to the office and the constitution,and protecting the nation from those who wish to destroy it. Unfortunately most of those people are doing the most damage while holding political offices that they cannot be thrown unceremoniously out of without a 2/3rds vote.

 

Ok....now that we all know how witty your slams can be, how about you put on the suit, pin the little American flag to your lapel, stand in front of the podium, answer all of my questions, and talk to your fellow Americans as their leader in a respectful, intelligent manner that gets everyone's attention.

Your the President of the United States........and in 5....4....3.....2.......go........

 

I listened to the entire speech.

I will respectfully disagree with you on most points and agree with you on some others.

I am saddened that so many people believe the things you believe regarding our president, but I understand it.

ISIS is a problem, fanatics hell bent on destroying the world is a problem, and lunatics getting their hands on guns is a problem.

I'm not where you are on the president but I don't want to get into that because neither one of us will ever change the other one's mind, fair enough.

Let's just leave it at, we're two Americans that wants the best for our country.

 

I agree. Arming the terrorists is obviously stupid. In fact, we should be letting our Arab allies handle this. Russia is now involved we are not needed.

 

Cut off their money supply (oil), trace and seize their monetary assets and cut off / seize the assets of the countries that are giving them haven or cover.

You cannot without impeding on the freedoms that this country already provides. It will be up to the FBI, State and Local Law enforcement as well as the local communities to identify suspicious behavior. I'd also suggest putting moles into mosques and where enough probable cause exists, get a warrant for video and audio taps in those mosques or on individuals who are part of those mosques. It's worth also doing the same thing to other non Muslim extremists groups which may exist within the US borders. I would however suggest that law abiding citizens get training (if needed) and arm themselves.

I would not suggest rounding them up, segregating them and putting them in camps with barbed wire around them, as FDR did. I can assure those segments of the population that I cannot protect them from backlash from other citizens any more than I can protect Sandy Musser in Chicago from getting mugged and beaten in the parking garage of her building.

Put those commitments on indefinite hold. Supply aid and support in the countries where they are.

Have an actual plan, free from ideology, free from demagoguery and free from political hackery (unlike what we have now) that actually takes specific, quantifiable actions such as putting the importation of refugees on hold, such as investigating mosques, such as improving and vetting the current no fly list to validate the names of those on it and THEN restricting gun purchases as well as informing the American people that criminals and terrorists can and will still be able to hurt us. To be ever vigilant, to be outspoken when something seems wrong and to call 911 about it without being concerned about political correctness or with fear of being called a "racist". I'd tell them those days are over... a person's life is worth more than politically correct feelings.

What Obama said was this: "Enlist Muslim leaders to help denounce discrimination as non PC language helps ISIL."

How to say it better? It's better to not be said at all. Less BS words and speeches, more action.

 

I'm ok with everything except for you feelings on his statement at the end, I happen to think that it goes a long way in mending fences and bringing people together.