National Security: Yes, Yes, Yes, No and Maybe. Sadly it's a Partisian Issue.

yes no ok

Well now we know. The Sunday shows made it crystal clear that national security is mostly based upon Party affiliation and protection of the president by the Left but then again, what’s new in our twisted political world. It’s hinged upon gun control per a leading Democrat, Sen. Durbin. He said: ” background checks will make us a safer nation”, referencing the gun control bills that failed. On the Boston bombing he said, “it should be thoroughly investigated to see if we could have done more to protect Americans”.

And most talking heads today said that it’s imperative to pass immigration reform to make us safer. Asked if Benghazi was botched by the admin, well that’s the no and per Congressman Lynch (D-MA), it’s akin to a witch hunt by Republicans. But the prevailing sentiment on Syria is “we don’t know what to do!” by both Parties after seeing Israel taking a stand for itself against a growing threat flanking its borders.

Gun control has undoubtedly been a heated debate that some won’t let lie when so many amendments were duly voted on that the main bill was tabled by you know who. Yet Toomey blames the Republicans for making a political calculation in order to stop the presidents agenda. Really? And you call yourself a Republican that many of us were even fooled into thinking that you were a Conservative? Thanks for the clarity Sen. Toomey.

But I digress. For the gun grabbers to think that gun control will make us safer as a nation compared to the real threat of jihadists is downright scary. More so,  that the president considers all five acts of terrorism under his term as workplace violence or one-off, self-radicalized lone wolves is very disturbing.

Meanwhile, the respected Sen. King-NY stated that there are 850,000 here on student visas, yet the CBP system doesn’t’ cross check to determine if they are still valid. Even CNN’s SOTU Cindy Crowley did a high pitched “really ?” as in say it ain’t so in this day and age. Frankly I have to agree with her on this point.  More incredulous was King’s comment that insinuated that airport lines would be longer if we stopped the students at the airport. Huh and so what? And as usual, the president blames the U.S. for Mexico’s state of affairs including gun violence and practically promised immigration reform on their soil… A double whammy for guns and immigration all in one fell swoop!

heading to mexico

On immigration reform, Sen. Leahy would not commit to immigration passing but was sure to point out that both sides of the Gang want it to pass, preferably with no amendments since the fragile terms of the agreement might teeter and topple the bill. He admitted that chain migration for gay partners of legal entrants might be an obstacle…but he hopes not. I’m sensing that deja vu feeling from when a young senator from IL said he was for it but put up multiple obstacles for the 2007 immigration bill that he really didn’t want to pass. Deception is the name of the game. If Rush is right that it’s not supposed to pass in order to use it as a sticking point in 2014, well gay chain migration is surely the poison pill.

The no is Benghazi although it is getting heated by evidence of the MSM to even breath the word. The Left, the MSM and the admin wish they could make this cover-up go away but facts and honorable dead people are standing in their way. Not to mention the victim’s families that yearn for the truth about their loved ones and those that were directly impacted that want to testify. Somehow gun control, holding the self-radicalized Boston “boys” accountable and immigration reform will make us a safer nation but finding out who killed our brave in Benghazi is a no-no.

The Left doesn’t really want to have to examine the failures of Benghazi, let alone know why the Ambassador was there on 9/11/12, because Hillary must be protected at all costs for her 2016 campaign. But they will feign concern for the future of our diplomats in order to cover her bases once the whistle-blowers tell their stories. And for Sen. Leahy and others to blame it on budget cuts by Republicans is disgraceful since State Dept. Charlene ? testified it wasn’t a factor and said she watched the horror in real time. But my eyes will be glued to the hearing this Wednesday that I believe will send shock waves through the admin and disqualify Hillary from a 2016 run, God willing. She is culpable for the deaths of four of our finest and is not fit to be president and I surmise, that it will be born out in the upcoming hearings.

Finally, the maybe is Syria and on this, it can actually be said that it’s a bi-paritisan issue mess. Again, the president is late to any decision so leading from behind isn’t applicable in this case…yet, unless one thinks, without proof, that Ambassador Stevens was funneling arms to Syria via Benghazi to Turkey to fight in Syria’s war. No decision without UN permission is his MO and Russia, with veto power, is fond of the Syrian dictator.  I hate to say that I agree with McCain, but I do in that the president should have taken action at the onset like a no-fly zone. Now the enemy of our enemy is our friend is muddled and is too dangerous to arm unknowns to defeat Assad. Act with strength or shut up but don’t quiver on the national stage with faux red lines because the jihadists see that as red meat to continue their ways without immunity.

Hello Press: Please ask the president of his vision of a post-Assad Syria and if he supports and likes the outcome of Egypt and other ME countries that ousted their leaders and have become more radical towards the West. Oh, and ask if he is still the great healer of the world (unlike Bush that supposedly gave us a bad reputation*) when he was greeted with burning effigies in Costa Rica. Our national security may depend on it.

*I’ll take a bad a** reputation that deters terrorists any day over governing by polling with a finger in the wind.