“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Trump is more right than wrong in attributing that the rise of ISIS belongs to Obama and Clinton. He should add Republican Neocon Hawks

In January 2013, Sen. Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the U.S. was involved in the shipping of weapons from Libya to Turkey, where they are expected to have found their way into the hands of Syrian rebels who later joined with al-Qaeda in Iraq to form ISIS.
SEN. RAND PAUL: My question is, is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record no one has ever asked me.

RAND PAUL: It has been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and they might have weapons. What I would like to know, is the annex that was close by [in Benghazi]. Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries -- to any countries, Turkey included.

HILLARY CLINTON: Senator, you'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available. I do not now. I do not have information on that.

Rand Paul: Hawks In My Party Created ISIS 5/27/15 

Jan 23, 2013

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky grills Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on her lapse of leadership resulting in the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. 

Lying Hillary: 

Jim Jordan traps Hillary Clinton on blaming video for Benghazi attack when she knew it was planned - Published on Oct 22, 2015:



    Trump is guilty of flamboyant and un-artful language.

    Clinton is a serial liar, a serial perjurer and a serial incompetent.

  2. I find Trump's language refreshing myself.

    I'm listening to the tape of his rally in Pa. right now....

    I'd much rather listen to him than:

    Wilt Romney
    George W. Bush
    Low Energy Jeb!
    Brain Freeze
    Practically anybody but Sarah...

    You are certainly correct in your characterizations of Hillary though....

    The Donald has been saying if he was to be Secretary of Something, he'd make a great Secretary of Keeping Jobs in USA.....

    Loud loud applause....

    Now he's bashing CNN....the Clinton News Network....the lies the deception it's like a third world country.....

    1. "If I ever said that I'd short circuited it would be headlines all over the world.....they would be calling for the death penalty for me....."

      "I don't want a President that short circuits....."

      rah rah

    2. "The Press today is the lowest form of life....."

      rah rah

  3. One of Trump's biggest applause lines always seems to be when he's talking about thumping ISIS, following by building up the weakened US military....

  4. "Intended as sarcasm or not, Donald Trump is right on this one. President Obama deserved credit as co-founder of ISIS"

    Yes, Obama IS A Founder of ISIS

    Our genius boy President threw it all away. The long article explains why and how.

    Our Lady Hillary aka Short Circuit ranks as a co-founder....

    1. How Hillary & Obama Brought Us ISIS

      The brutal accuracy of Trump labeling Clinton and the president the "cofounders" of ISIS.

      August 12, 2016

      Joseph Klein

      Donald Trump is standing by his charge that President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are the “co-founders” of ISIS.

      "In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama," Trump said at a Florida rally on August 10th. "He's the founder of ISIS. I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton."

      Commentators immediately ripped into Trump’s latest accusation against Obama as demonstrably false. They point out that ISIS’s predecessor organization was originally a part of al Qaeda in Iraq and was founded years before Obama became president. David A. Graham, a staff writer at The Atlantic, for example, wrote that the idea that Obama is “a founder of the group is plainly ridiculous.”

      A conservative radio show host, Hugh Hewitt, tried during an interview with Trump to offer him some wiggle room. “You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Hewitt said, in attempting to clarify for the audience what Trump really meant. At first, Trump did not back down from his use of the term “founder” when describing Obama’s relationship to ISIS. He responded, “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” But then, Trump explained, “I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about. If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.” Hewitt agreed with Trump’s explanation, but said he would not have used the phrase “founder of ISIS” to communicate it.

      A debate over the precise semantics should not be allowed to obscure the underlying truth of Trump’s observation. Obama’s policies, in which Hillary Clinton participated in their formulation and early implementation, created the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise and become the global threat that it represents today.

      ISIS (or the Islamic State, as it likes to call itself) emerged from the remains of the al Qaeda organization in Iraq, which was founded by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi was killed during the second term of George W. Bush’s administration. The al Qaeda organization itself was defeated as a result of Bush’s “surge” policy, which Obama and Hillary Clinton, as U.S. senators, opposed. On October 22nd, 2007, Osama bin Laden admitted in an audio tape, entitled "Message to the people of Iraq," that al Qaeda was losing the war in Iraq because it had made mistakes and no longer had the allegiance of Sunni insurgents who had switched sides. When Barack Obama became president on January 20, 2009, the war in Iraq against ISIS’s predecessor group was essentially won.

    2. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who would later declare himself the caliph and leader of the Islamic State, had been detained in 2004. The date of his release is not certain. He may have been released a few months after his arrest along with other prisoners who were deemed to be low-level at the time. However, according to one account, he was released from a U.S. detention camp in 2009, declaring to U.S. reservists “‘I’ll see you guys in New York,’” according to Army Col. Kenneth King, who was the commanding officer of Camp Bucca.

      What we do know for sure is that there was no serious threat posed by any organized ISIS fighting force when Obama took office in 2009. It was President Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, rather than follow the military’s advice to leave a residual force behind, which turned the smoldering embers of the once defeated al Qaeda-backed insurgency into the raging out-of-control conflagration that the newly constituted ISIS, under al Baghdadi’s leadership, created in the entire region. In that sense, ISIS became a newly spun off start-up under Obama’s watch, which launched successfully and expanded because of the power vacuum that Obama’s misguided policies created.

      Just as entrenched dominant companies have often ignored upstart challengers until it was too late, Obama indulged in the idea that ISIS’s expansion posed no serious threat. In early 2014, as ISIS was racking up military victories, Obama said, “If a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

      Hillary Clinton was no longer Secretary of State in 2014. But looking back at Obama’s JV comment in November 2015 as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, she rejected any suggestion that Obama’s trivialization of the ISIS threat was ill-advised, “from the perspective of what they had accomplished at the time.”

      Even as Obama began to take the ISIS threat more seriously, he chose to counteract it with little more than a reactive, incrementalist approach, which Hillary Clinton would continue if elected president. What is needed is the use of overwhelming military power to completely destroy ISIS’s nerve center and major satellite operations. General George Patton’s maxim holds true today: “There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”

      ISIS came to life in the first place because of the Obama-Clinton policy of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. ISIS rapidly gathered steam during its building stage because Obama underestimated the fierce determination of its leaders, the attractiveness of its jihadist ideological message to lure many new recruits, and its highly sophisticated methods. ISIS has metastasized into a global terrorist network because Obama failed to apply the maximum amount of military power at hand to utterly destroy ISIS at its heart in the minimum amount of time.

      Donald Trump is telling the cold hard truth. Obama and Clinton in effect created the space for ISIS’s success.

  5. Hillary's Islamist Phalanx

    Unless you had taken a course in advanced agitprop, you would not have recognized that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando nightclub shooter, was a plant. He was part of the propaganda show for Hillary Clinton, now playing to sparse audiences from coast to coast. The show is produced and directed by radical "let it all hang out" leftists, in coordination with misogynistic Islamic supremacists, who believe in forced marriage of children under 13 and clitorectomies.

    The purpose of Mateen in Florida, a state Hillary needs to win, was to change the narrative, since Khizr Khan was so successful in changing the narrative at the Democratic National Convention. Those "selected" for front- or second-row status at a presidential candidate's event are hand-picked for ideology, gender, race, or ethnicity. There is no chance that the Clinton show did not know of and approve of his appearance.

    Clinton needed to change the narrative for two reasons. First, her poll numbers are not really up as Pat Caddell, a professional pollster, has attested to, especially if you look at the abracadabra methodology. It's a classic case of disinformation.

    What if you give a candidate event, and very few voters show up? You change the narrative, as the Clinton campaign has done, PhotoShop the audience of the event to downplay the numbers, get fire marshals to close down overflowing events of the opponent, or whip up interest in the campaign events via "walk-ons" like Khan and Mateen.

    Second, and more important, there are continuing photos of Hillary tripping on and off stage with Broadway lights flashing "brain freeze," "conquers the stairs," and more. There are numerous documented events, that is, that even the producers cannot hide.

    Pakistani-born Khizr Khan published writings in support of sharia, the enemy of the U.S. Constitution. And the choice between these two is the issue of this election. To understand the importance of sharia in today's threat to America, here is a quote from Stephen Coughlin, who formerly briefed the Pentagon and other U.S. officials on the threat of Islam:

    For these enemies, the implementation of Islamic law – shariah – as the governing law of the land is the objective....

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  6. Tweetanalysis

    Text analysis of Trump's tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half

    I don’t normally post about politics (I’m not particularly savvy about polling, which is where data science has had the largest impact on politics). But this weekend I saw a hypothesis about Donald Trump’s twitter account that simply begged to be investigated with data:

    When Trump wishes the Olympic team good luck, he’s tweeting from his iPhone. When he’s insulting a rival, he’s usually tweeting from an Android. Is this an artifact showing which tweets are Trump’s own and which are by some handler?

    Others have explored Trump’s timeline and noticed this tends to hold up- and Trump himself does indeed tweet from a Samsung Galaxy. But how could we examine it quantitatively? I’ve been writing about text mining and sentiment analysis recently, particularly during my development of the tidytext R package with Julia Silge, and this is a great opportunity to apply it again.

    My analysis, shown below, concludes that the Android and iPhone tweets are clearly from different people....

    Some time ago I had "Q"'s Tweets analyzed.

    The results showed there were two Quirks atweeting.

    My analysts began calling one the 'S-Tweeter' and the other the 'D-Tweeter'.

    These were the sober Quirk and the drunk Quirk, respectively.

    Nowadays, my analysts can now only identify one Tweeter, the sober Quirk.

    So, I can confirm "Q" really is off the booze.