White House edits French President François Hollande reference to Islamist terrorism

I know, I know.

There's no market for intelligence, reality, and facts in the liberal voter pool.

 

Has there ever been a more gutless and weak president than Obama? This guy refuses to look reality in the face and call it as it really is. Its little wonder that he's maligned & disrespected all over the world by friend and foe alike!

 

When I was young and just a dumb little kid
My momma noticed stupid things I did
Like occutarding instead of getting a job

I'd vote Obama, and when I was done
I'd cash a welfare check and smoke some pot
That's when my momma said

(What did she say?)
She said "My boy, I think someday...
...you'll find a way to make your natural tendencies pay"

You'll be a liberal. (Be a liberal)
You have a talent for being a tool. (Tool)
Son, be a liberal (Son, be a liberal)
People will pay you to not use your brain.

 

Yes, but we do have to talk about that elephant as uncomfortable as it is. I'll address that later down in the post, as it specifically relates to what you said and I'd hate to sound repetitive. But ISIS has presented the most pressing danger to all of us(even to you, as you've stated plainly): The idea and threat that they would export their violence.

I don't deny it, I hate that part of our history. I reported on it, way back when I was in US Civics as a senior in 2010. My so-called independent political teacher denied the premise of the report, and that angered me and led me to leave that class lol. When I was reading Hillary Clinton's book, Hard Choices, Hillary herself made mention of the Muhajeeden mistake. And then it's like "Madam, why? If you know we failed in 1980, why would we then pursue the same policies, on a much more global scale?"

Was it "Humanitarian?" I'd argue that our Humanitarian desires were not met on the battlefield, but that instead it became more chaotic instead of peaceful. I'm merely a 24 year old private citizen of the US, but I can tell you that I oppose Libya, I opposed the Syrian War and the leadup to it, as the most dangerous intervention even beyond Iraq. And I think that in hindsight, Egypt's failure should have warned us not to press ahead but we doubled down.

I can only fully explain my position, by explaining my history from the political perspective. On the eve of the economically successful Clinton Presidency(though I now criticize the Clinton economic record), I became a Liberal. Because my grandmother one day uttered Bill Clinton's name and from there, I got into politics. A whim of fate to give me this life interest. From that day forward in 1999 all the way until 2008, I was a liberal. From 7-to-16. As a 12 year old, I voted instinctively and knowingly against George W. Bush in my school election. In 2004, the seams were starting to ripen economically, the war in Iraq was at its most violent, taking hundreds of human lives with no end in sight. And I certainly didn't think we were fulfilling the mission.

We now know John Kerry to be an imbecile, but I still don't regret the protests of a 12 year old me at the time. It was the right thing to vote against the war. That's why four years later, a man known as Barack Obama would descend unto the political scene. And I was a HUGE fan. We'd get out of Iraq, we'd reverse "unconstitutional laws", we'd strike hard against lobbyists and that "Wall Street" had to live within its means.

If anyone knows about running a populist campaign, it would be one Barack Obama. I remember, literally there were "Republicans for Obama". So this idea that there was this universal opposition to the President(at least, during his campaign) isn't true. He once had a 77% approval rating. 77%! There was a great high with this man, and not without reason. We thought we were finally getting greatness, such as this country deserves.

When Obama responded brilliantly to Rev. Wright in his Philadelphia speech, I became even more convinced that this man would be not only the next President of the United States, but one of its esteemed statesmen. Then when Hillary Clinton made her "obliterate Iran" comment, making the use of nuclear weapons okay, that sealed my support for Obama for good. There's no way I could stand with someone who doesn't believe in our non-proliferation efforts.

But then, it all went downhill from there. I was once having an "argument"(can't really call it that since it's not like he listened to me) with a high school teacher, who was a Hillary supporter. I argued passionately for the President. The teacher then said to me "You're 16, so you can't vote so your opinion doesn't matter."

This CRUSHED ME. It made me rethink everything about Liberalism, about so-called tolerance if my support for a candidate could be squashed by something as technical as whether or not I could vote for a candidate. And it's not like I wasn't a US citizen, I just wasn't old enough yet. My qualifications as far as understanding American politics, should not have been in question. But he questioned in effect, my political entity as a whole.

This event was devastating, and it started my downhill spiral outside of the Liberal Party, and into my support for the Third Position. Senator Obama then participated in the Senate as a "President-Elect" and he started by authorizing the Patriot Act, after campaigning against it! To me, this was a deafening blow and I'd have to reserve my support elsewhere sadly.(And I was studying a bit of Libertarian-ism at the time.)

It was too late, but towards the end of the campaign I had the chance to listen in on a John McCain town hall meeting. Which was ironically more substantial than Obama's rallies. John McCain specifically mentioned school vouchers, and I remembered thinking: Hey, that's actually a good idea. To the extent, where now I support such vouchers. John McCain and I will probably never agree on much, but I'd help him with that if he were still kicking around as a Senator and I got there.

Now, we're onto 2009. The President, then signed the biggest pork barrel spending bill in US History, after previously derailing pork! This was another huge blow. I wasn't and still am not a huge fan of the Stimulus which occurred shortly afterwards and was intended as a supplement to Bush/Paulson's emergency bill. After studying economics, I'm a huge fan of what Elizabeth Warren would've done and what Ireland did: Crush the banks, reorganize under Section 8 and allow new and inspiring businesses to take over the dead weight.

Instead, the government is still trying to prop up these organizations and the 20 billion of debt obligations the government is now entitled on.

But the big thing was the ACA, which I opposed except under a Public Option(and even then, I didn't like it. The only ones who WOULD like it, never had insurance in the first place. And I promise after a couple of months of having insurance, they'll start hating it to. When they're not sick, or anything and they have to pay hundreds a month in their daily "fees"(premiums).

I'm of the opinion if you want insurance, you should be able to get it, whenever. Of your OWN volition. Another reason I dislike the ACA, though I haven't mentioned it, is the "marketplace dates".This whole idea that you have a limited window to buy insurance, and that you have to wait for the next time to buy insurance. The only reason it was done that way, was so Obama and CO could artificially scare people into buying insurance.

Since when did the government become big pharma's selling partner? And when did Liberals think this was okay? Insurance Companies OWNED Obama in negotiation, like almost anyone does when they negotiate with him. The only reason conservatives don't, is they get caught posturing.

Getting back to the war, as a Third Positionist I started to realize that wars begin, and end on only two premises: Either on a country signing a peace treaty, or on total victory. It has never ended because a country went up and left.(And certainly, not the aggressor). When Obama pulled out from Iraq, I met it with less enthusiasm than I would've dreamed possible just even four years ago.

We did not win the war, nor did we gain peace from the extremists. There was no reason for us to pull back. Pulling back, enabled them to get territory. And not only that, but we gave them the WEAPONS to do that. We found that the Iraqi Army was ill-prepared, undermanned and cowardly as they upped and left. Leaving you to wonder what billions of dollars we squandered on that failed effort.

The danger of leaving a war too early, is greater than its overextension. So while I'm no neo-con, and I don't believe in 100 years. I now believe in fighting the war until its conclusion. If the Arabs want us out of the Middle East, they're going to have to provide the terms that we've made known that make it acceptable to leave.

ISIS proved how crucial it is, for the Middle East to adapt to the 21st century, and how the international community must aid in this attempt. Let's not mince words: Just as ISIS sees the "west" as a "great satan", we also see ISIS as intolerable and nonnegotiable. That being the case, we must not hesitate. Our hesitation and lack of commitment, has extended the war.

If, on the other hand we truly desire neutrality this has to be a commitment throughout our government and throughout the two parties. This means we have to finally resolve ourselves to that border, or to whatever security measures we can take for the United States. It means isolating ourselves from that part of the world as much as possible. Because for as "unfair" or as "selfish" as that MIGHT be, it's even more unfair and more selfish to take in scores of Middle Easterners, pray that they don't blow us up and that if they do: Well, the odds weren't good that day.

TCassa and My Fing ID hold that position, and as much as I respect both, I continue to say to them: Preposterous! The security of the US and US Citizens is not a game of Russian Roulette.

There's certainly something to be said there. The idea of restricting freedoms and liberties definitely allows them to say "we've won", and we've taken away what makes the US so special. I don't think that makes it spread, except with regard to possible recruitment. I think it just undermines our own efforts abroad and at home.

 

I like what you wrote, American Nationalist. Many people would not have the courage to alter their beliefs with new information. I knew about Obama before he became president because I researched his past while much of the media was rifling through Sarah Palin's trash cans.

Much of the chaos and economic sluggishness we see now is in part Obama and his European allies fault.

 

Transparency in all it's glory.

 

Hillary Clinton's platform is the most aggressive, militaristic and pro-Wall Street and pro-Israel of them all. Even Trump seems more moderate about ME matters. Bad news is; she is the Democrat favorite.

You appear more mature than your age suggest.

Of course. I don't think there ever was a governance of late that did fulfill their promises: I can understand your deception about Obama, as I felt the same (notably about Gitmo). Now it may be that I'm older and more blasé, but it just feels to me that such is the nature of the beast. I don't see it as "lies", from the leaders but rather as meeting the wall of realism; changing things is a slow, uphill process.

Iraq, as a nation, has been defeated and defeated well. But what is Iraq? A collection of different tribes that was held together by a man who used to be the US' ally. When this uniting force fell, chaos was instaured. Abandonned soldiers changing sides by putting on a different hat, is how armies were both destroyed and built overnight out there.

The first people to be lost in the ME is us, with our vision of was a country should be: We are left spinning as alliances are made and broken by tribes who largely ignore the central power - often represented by a western puppet whose authority stops about a hundred yards past his palace. Used as we are with simple political duality, we blindly enter wars with three, four sides, one of them which inevitably clashes with some ally's allies. It is a mess. Compared to this, the War on Drug looks optimistic. We are fighting no nation with uniforms, armor and jet fighters out there: we are fighting chaos.

I like the present position promised by Canada's PM Trudeau; To limit our intervention in the ME to humanitarian matters. This reputation for neutrality that Canada once had was a much better security against the spreading of terrorism here that a whole carrier task force. It was an invaluable national treasure that we nearly lost playing the partisanry game.

On the other hand, you Yanks have this problem in the ME: No one wants to be seen with you there, be it the locals or your allies. What you offer as a helping hand is seen as a Judas' kiss. As oil becomes less important, I really hope the US (as well as the rest of the occident) will gradually cease to support the intolerable in the ME, and actually live by the values we pretend to be the champions of.

The fear of losing more freedom every day worries me a lot more than the next terror attack. This is a totalitarian governance's dream come true - they gain more control on their citizens at their own demand! Incredible.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1y6Q9PYcg

Jeremiah Wright saw himself as black nationalist first and Christian second. He made friends with those who shared his extreme racialist views.

 

The majority in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sudan must too work some type of jobs, yet I wouldn't want to live there because of a constant threat of persecution, discrimination and terror attacks targeting non-Muslims. We live in an open society and we have the right to know. You cannot have members of some communities causing problems and the root causes and failures for such problems be covered up by public institutions and the press.

 

OF COURSE NONE OF YOU HAVE CHECKED,BUT THE WHITE HOUSE VIDEO IS NOT EDITED.
Go to the white house website.
The video is there. Unedited.

 

Even the news outlets reported it was edited and the WH blamed it on a glitch.

 

Well, first the good news: You don't have to live there. Second: What makes you think that the people out there doesn't say the very same thing about America? If they have local medias who like to exacerbate their public (like you have in the US), do you think it would be hard for them to focus on what's intolerable and give a skewed projection of what life really is here? Think about it: the BLM riots, Trump's promises, the govt spying on his own citizens, the violence at abortion clinics, the shootouts in schools etc.

And yet in happens, here like everywhere, sadly.

 

Yes, it was a mysterious technical issue.

As of 6 p.m. Friday, the White House had posted the original footage with the words “Islamist terrorism” included.

http://canmua.net/new-york/white-house-says-technical-issue-caused-omission-of-610174.html

 

A majority of moslems may not be virulently anti-American, but it's not an overwhelming majority. And they certainly haven't done us many favors when it comes to terrorism so far so there's not much to gain by coddling them to the point of ignoring common sense and reality.

 

I think he is anti-colonialist. I think he grew up in anti-western Islam and went to an anti-american christian church because to get ahead in American politics you have to be Christian, and that was the most tolerable one he found.

I doubt he believes in god at all. He supports anti-colonial groups because his world view is that the US is the problem. Not because he believes in their god.