What is the Clinton Foundation doing in Colombia?

and0426j_590_444

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Our friend Fausta Rodriguez Wertz has been on this story for a week.   

It begs the question: What was The Clinton Foundation looking for in Colombia? 

Here is a bit of the very complicated story

Fondo Acceso was founded in 2010 by Bill Clinton, the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. The Clinton Foundation and the SLIM Foundation committed $10 million each to the fund.

The Clinton Foundation is a 50 percent shareholder in the company, according to its tax records. Numerous Clinton Foundation and Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership officials are listed as Fondo Acceso directors in Colombian corporate filings.

The fund has reportedly distributed $1.5 million to Alimentos SAS, a fruit-pulping company, and $250,000 to the telecommunications firm Fontel SA in exchange for shareholding agreements. The Clinton Foundation and CGEP have declined to release a full list of Fondo Acceso’s investments.

What exactly is the point of having President Clinton in business in Colombia with a Mexican telecommunications billionaire and a Canadian mining magnate? Why all the secrecy? Why was the website takend down?

I have a few other questions:

1) Did they do this to avoid regulations in Colombia or the U.S.? Or to create a fund to go around U.S. oversight or campaign laws?

2) Why didn’t President Clinton create the fund to boost business in the U.S.? For example, how about a fund to invest in our inner cities? Why promote investment in other places when our cities are desperately lacking in jobs?

3) Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have any role in this?

According to Fausta, Hillary Clinton’s timeline is interesting — or maybe Clintonian:

2008: Hillary Clinton campaigns for president, is against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

2009: Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State. She starts lobbying members of Congress for approval of the CFTA, as revealed on emails released on February 2016.

2010: Bill Clinton, Carlos Slim, and Frank Giustra (who pledged $100 million to the Foundation) open Fondo Acceso. Previously, in June 2005, Gold Service International, a South American business group, paid Bill Clinton $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South America. Gold Service was pushing for the free trade agreement, which would help boost Colombian exports to the United States, and Clinton was supportive of the policy.

The Clinton apologists will say that this is all coincidence, as they always do. My answer to the Clinton apologists is to remind them of Ian Fleming’s line about coincidence:  

“Once is happenstance. 
Twice is coincidence. 
Three times is enemy action” 

Finally, am I the only one who finds Mrs. Clinton’s change of heart about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement just a bit too cute?   

This is especially relevant because she was for the Trans Pacific Partnership until she was against it. Can we believe anything that this woman says? Will she flip as President Clinton to take care of some donation that someone gave to the Clinton Foundation?

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

They did not call Trump a racist when he contributed to Democrats

 

(My new American Thinker post)

During the primary season, Mr. Trump was often attacked by the others on the stage for having contributed to Democrats over the years.  We remember Senator Cruz for this:

Donald Trump has consistently financed the campaigns of some of the most liberal politicians in the country[.] … California is perhaps one of the more egregious examples. From supporting high taxes and heavy regulation to amnesty and sanctuary cities, the top three officials in California have been a disaster for the state. A number of qualified Republican candidates ran to fix California’s problems, but Trump decided to back liberal Democrats against them.

I am not trying to fight the primary all over again.  I am simply demonstrating the hypocrisy of those Democrats who have suddenly discovered that Mr. Trump is a racist.

The Clinton Foundation received at least $105,000 from Trump – money not returned!

Trump may have funded Planned Parenthood, too, although we won’t know for sure until tax returns are released.

And he gave to other Democrats, as Rolling Stone wrote last spring:

An examination of Trump’s donations since 1998 reveals that the bulk of Trump’s political largesse has gone to politicians in places where he does business — like Florida, where he long supported disgraced politico Mark Foley; Nevada, where he’s given $9,400 to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid over the years; and of course New York, where notables like Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and Anthony Weiner have all received Trump dough.

Again, I understand Trump’s logic here.  He was donating to people in places where he did business.  Nothing shocking about that.

My problem is that none of these Democrats has returned the money, especially now that the Clinton campaign is targeting Trump for racism, sexism, and whatever other “ism” is out there.

Someone, especially Mrs. Clinton or President Obama, should call on Democrats to return and disassociate themselves from any Trump money.

As I said, no one called him a racist when he contributed to Democrats.  It proves once again that the word “racist” these days has nothing to do with race.

Calling someone a racist in our political landscape means two things:

1) He is a GOP candidate.

2) And more importantly, the Democrat using the word “racist” does not want to talk about serious issues, such as black unemployment (8.4%), Democrat leaders sending their kids to private schools or the state of the very weak U.S. economy (GDP 1.1%).

Memo to Democrats: return Trump’s money, or we will continue to call hypocrisy!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Is Obama closing Gitmo to prepare his post?presidency?

crazy-barrys-1

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Over the last couple of years, President Obama has made a nuclear deal with Iran, put a U.S. Embassy in Cuba and continues to release terrorists from Gitmo, as reported by USA Today:

Rep. Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the released detainees “hardened terrorists” who will be a threat for years.

“In its race to close Gitmo, the Obama administration is doubling down on policies that put American lives at risk,” Royce said in a statement. “Once again, hardened terrorists are being released to foreign countries where they will be a threat.”

The Pentagon, in a statement, said an inter-agency review board considered their potential threat to security and unanimously approved six of the 15 for release, A consensus was reached on release of the remaining nine.

There are 61 detainees remaining at Guantanamo.

Are we safer? How can you put terrorists back in the game and assume that they will pursue a peaceful path?

So why is President Obama doing this?

My theory is that he is planning his post presidency. He wants to be an American version of Nelson Mandela, a man who travels around the Third World and left-wing precincts.

How do you get a standing ovation in those corners? Mr. Obama can say that he ended wars, closed Gitmo, ended the isolation of Cuba and signed a nuclear deal with Iran. All of these positions are extremely popular in the anti-U.S. corners of the world!

I ask again: how are any of these actions good for the U.S.? They are not, from a nuclear deal with Iran to throwing dissidents under the bus in Cuba to releasing more terrorists that attack us around the world.

Sadly, there is no one in the Democratic Party willing to stand up and tell President Obama to stop it.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Sanders turned out to be a big fake

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Senator Sanders’ socialist nonsense was always followed with the footnote that Sanders was genuine and a true believer, i.e. the crazy leftist uncle in the attic who actually believes that Marxism works if you give it a true chance.

We’ve learned a couple of things about Mr. Sanders since he endorsed Mrs Clinton:

1) He threw his supporters under the bus by supporting a candidate who represents everything that he spoke about, from crony capitalism to connections to Wall Street; and,

2) Mr. Sanders likes expensive homes just like the rich folks do. Mr. Sanders just bought his third home and we don’t think that he will be turning any of them into shelters for the homeless or to accommodate refugees from the Middle East. My guess is that he will also take advantage of all of those tax breaks that he ran against during the campaign.

According to NPR, Sanders is turning off a lot of his supporters:

Bernie Sanders may have found a new place to take a break from the political arena after buying a vacation home last week. But some of his former supporters were questioning his socialist authenticity.

Sanders recently purchased a lake-front home in North Hero, Vt., his home state. The $575,000, four-bedroom home includes 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island, according to the Vermont newspaper Seven Days.

The purchase makes this Sanders’ third home, and after the news broke of his recent purchase, the Internet became a breeding ground for complaints.

Socialist authenticity?

In fact, this is how a lot of socialists live, from Cuba to North Korea to the American left, who love public education but send their kids to rich private schools like the Obama, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Gores and so on.

I am not surprised that Mr. Sanders would bash rich people in front of fickle students and then buy a huge home to relax. He is actually a lot more typical of rich socialists than his supporters realize. It’s a shame that his supporters had to learn that the whole message was a fraud this way.

As my late father once said after watching a Sanders rally: “At 18 you believe this trash, then you grow up….”

That’s right. Bernie’s home is a teachable moment for the thousands who bought into his distributionist nonsense!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Remember the stimulus that did stimulate?

 

(My new American Thinker post)

It was 35 years ago that President Reagan signed ERTA or The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.  It took a couple of years, but it was “Morning in America” when President Reagan was reelected in 1984.

ERTA kept a promise that Mr Reagan made in 1980:

The ERTA included a 25 percent reduction in marginal tax rates for individuals, phased in over three years, and indexed for inflation from that point on. The marginal tax rate, or the tax rate on the last dollar earned, was considered more important to economic activity than the average tax rate (total tax paid as a percentage of income earned), as it affected income earned through “extra” activities such as education, entrepreneurship or investment. Reducing marginal tax rates, the theory went, would help the economy grow faster through such extra efforts by individuals and businesses. The 1981 act, combined with another major tax reform act in 1986, cut marginal tax rates on high-income taxpayers from 70 percent to around 30 percent, and would be the defining economic legacy of Reagan’s presidency.

Reagan’s tax cuts were designed to put maximum emphasis on encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship and creating incentives for the development of venture capital and greater investment in human capital through training and education. The cuts particularly benefited “idea” industries such as software or financial services; fittingly, Reagan’s first term saw the advent of the information revolution, including IBM’s introduction of its first personal computer (PC) and the rise or launch of such tech companies as Intel, Microsoft, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Compaq and Cisco Systems.

In the end, “Reaganomics” proved to be an electoral success even if deficits were a bit uncomfortable for many of us.  I agree with The Tax Foundation that it was a “watershed event in the history of federal taxation,”  I just wish that spending had been controlled more.

Unlike the Obama “stimulus,” the Reagan plan put its faith in the private sector and US businesses. The Obama stimulus was focused on helping their supporters, including unions and many very wealthy supporters, as John Lott wrote in 2004.

And this is why we remember the stimulus that stimulated in the 1980’s!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Airports and the agony of watching CNN

116289_600

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Over the last week, we traveled to a niece’s wedding and had a chance to spend some time with my recently widowed mother. It was the kind of family quality time that we all yearn for except for having to watch CNN at hotel lobbies and airports.

On Tuesday night, the day that so many at CNN thought that Mr Trump had issued a call for NRA people to eliminate Mrs. Clinton, the panels at CNN were somewhere between silly and hysterical.It was the kind of selective outrage that we’ve come to love from liberals who went mute when far worse things were said about President Bush or VP Cheney.

At one point, I looked around the gate and nobody was watching…. wonder why? I got so fed up that I was following the Rangers-Rockies game on my phone!

On Wednesday, I reconnected with the world and found that CNN had dropped to 3rd, which is a fancy way of saying that you are last in the cable news business. In other words, there are only 3 so 3rd means last.

According to TV Newser, it was something like this:

Primetime:
FNC: 2.035
MSNBC: 1.407
CNN: 807

So even MSNBC, the laughingstock of cable news unless you think that President Bush knew of the 9-11 attack in advance, beat CNN by quite a lot.
My guess is that people watching MSNBC are so far gone that they are not even hearing the anti-Trump bashing. On the other hand, CNN reaches a lot of people at public places and most of them just looked at the phones and prayed that the flight was not delayed.

Maybe Mrs. Clinton will defeat Mr Trump. It goes without saying that Mr Trump has not helped himself much since clinching the nomination in Indiana, or over 90 days ago.

At the same time, there is a point where media bias is so obvious that even the people forced to watch CNN at airports just look the other way and find something else to do with their lives.

Let’s look at the treatment of Mr. Mateen, the gay-basher, Taliban-sympathizer father of the Orlando terrorist. He showed up feet away from Mrs. Clinton at a rally, then endorsed her, and everybody at CNN was looking to blame it on staff. On the other hand, David Duke endorsed Mr Trump and you’d think that it was the end of the world as we’ve known it!

Then there is the latest email dump! Many in the media defend Mrs. Clinton by saying that it was “staff” again. Whose staff are they? They work for Mrs. Clinton, who happened to be Secretary of State at the time that this was going on.

Trump has work to do but his enemies in the media are showing so much bias that a backlash in coming, and perhaps already underway.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Cuban-American Offers Thanks to Tampa Mayor Buckhorn

Buckhorn

So often, people judge others based on their party affiliation. Republicans talk to you only if you are a party loyalist. Democrats are also guilty of the same sin. And, yet, there are people who judge others based on their principled stance on key issues ranging from the second amendment to U.S./Cuba relations.

And this explains why when I come across U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), I thank him when he criticizes President Obama’s Cuba policy. And, I find it despicable when U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) joins President Obama on the historic visit to Cuba.

Actions and values do matter.

The Tampa Bay Times ran an article this week putting down Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn (Democrat) for being out of the step with many around Tampa Bay who are lobbying Cuban officials to set up the first Cuban Consulate in their cities. (See: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/on-cuba-buckhorns-out-of-step-with-many-around-tampa-bay-and-hes-ok-with/2287842).

Mayor Buckhorn could cares less about the incoming criticism, as he will not betray the core principles that he stands for. He stands with the cause to restore freedom and democracy to Communist Cuba. He honors a CIA agent who played a key role in the capture of aChesino Guevara, and he’s flown missions with Brothers to the Rescue.

Senator Menendez and Tampa Mayor Buckhorn remind me of a famous quote by German poet Bertolt Brecht: “There are men who struggle for a day and they are good. There are men who struggle for a year and they are better. There are men who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives: These are the indispensable ones.”

To me, Senator Menendez and Tampa Mayor Buckhorn belong to the “indispensable” category to bring back a Cuba Libre.

I’ve honored Mayor Buckhorn by penning a letter-to-the-editor to remind readers that he belongs to the “one of kind” politician. See: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/wednesdays-letters-bay-area-leads-in-job-growth/2287841.

New Librarian of Congress and Cuban-Americans

Carla Hayden, shown in 2015, was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday to head the Library of Congress. Hayden is the longtime leader of Baltimore's library system

On July 13, 2016, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Dr. Hayden as the next Librarian of Congress.

Dr. Carla Hayden, president of the American Library Association (ALA) from 2003-2004, refused to support an amendment to the section of the final report on the proceedings of the ALA’s mid-winter meeting to help free ten librarians that Fidel Castro had imprisoned for making available such documents as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and George Orwell’s 1984.

It is noticeable that Dr. Hayden was a vocal opponent to the Patriot Act during her tenure as ALA president, leading a battle for the protections of library users’ privacy. She objected to the special permissions contained in Section 215 of that law, which granted the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI the power to access library user records. Dr. Hayden often disagreed publicly with then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft over the language of the law.

It is ironic that Dr. Hayden would not side with the ten Cuban librarians who were locked up by Fidel for circulating access to information to the Cuban people.

See:  http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-abandoned-librarians-6408599

5 dead in Dallas…..5 more reasons to say that President Obama has failed us!

(My new American Thinker post)

Obama Care is a huge problem that President Obama will leave his successor. And there is Iraq, Libya and so on.  Lots of messes for his successor to clean up indeed.

In retrospect, race relations will be his biggest failure.

Back in November 2008, I voted for Senator McCain but looked forward that our first black president would bring us together. I was anticipating that he’d talk about the structural problems in the black community, such as the collapse of the black family unit and black on black crime in Chicago and other inner cities.

Instead, Obama has made things worse by focusing on the police and doing nothing about black districts lacking any hope or seeing no change.

A few months ago, Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University wrote an article that looks rather interesting after Dallas:

The last Democratic president and the last Republican president both managed race relations more effectively than Obama has. Seven years after American voters made history by electing the country’s first black president, racial tensions have worsened.

It didn’t rank on Obama’s one-item list of his “few regrets” during his State of the Union address. But signs of Obama’s failure are on our streets, on our campuses and among our leaders, left and right.

“Ferguson” has become shorthand for African-American fury objecting to insensitive white cops harassing young blacks.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement has spilled into American campus culture, as privileged kids attending the world’s finest universities bemoan their alleged oppression — bullying anyone who challenges them.

This black backlash has prompted a white backlash, personified by Donald Trump.

Every justifiable police shooting called “racist,” every Halloween costume labeled politically incorrect, every reasonable thought censored makes Trump look like America’s last honest man.

Amid this tension, Obama has been disturbingly passive — even during America’s first serious race riots since 1992.

He acts like a meteorologist observing the bad weather, not a president able to shape the political climate.

How embarrassing that Obama’s most memorable act of presidential leadership on race may end up being inviting a black professor and a white cop to the White House for his 2009 “beer summit.”

Yes, President Obama will be remembered for two things:

a) The articulate president who could not articulate a message to bring us together.  In other words, the man can speak but has little of consequence to say; and,

b) The first black president who did not understand the real problems in black communities.

His legacy will be that he left us more angry and divided than ever.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Obama left a lot of DREAMers with nightmares outside the Supreme Court

 

 

(My new American Thinker post)

As I’ve mentioned before in these pages, I support a limited plan to legalize those who were brought here by their parents.  My plan would legalize those young people who are doing well in school and staying out of trouble, who may even want to serve in the U.S. military.

It would not be a path to citizenship or amnesty.

It would simply legalize young people brought here by their parents.  My plan would not legalize their parents or every other relative.

This week, President Obama left a bunch of these “DREAMers” crying outside the Supreme Court.

So why was this case in the Supreme Court, anyway?

First, President Obama, with Democrat majorities, did not legislate the problem.  They promised but did not deliver on immigration reform.

Second, and worse, an angry President Obama reacted to the 2014 election (and the loss of the U.S. Senate) by waving the pen and signing an executive order legalizing millions.

It was arrogance of the worst kind.  It’s the kind of “presidencialismo” (presidential-ism) that has done so much harm to Latin America, from Perón in Argentina to Chávez in Venezuela to Mexican presidents who went around the legislature over and over again.

President Obama could have sat down with Congress and resolved this issue of the young DREAMers.  I think there are enough GOP representatives and U.S. senators willing to resolve the legalization of youngsters who were brought here years ago.  Again, we are talking about young people who are in many cases performing well in our schools and plan to attend our universities.  Are we really going to punish these youngsters because their parents walked into the country illegally?

We should add that the Supreme Court has stopped President Obama before, as the WSJ reported:

The one-sentence ruling was the latest defeat for Mr. Obama in the courts, which recently have stymied some of his administration’s top policy goals.

A federal judge in Wyoming on Tuesday blocked a rule setting stricter standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands. And in February, the Supreme Court suspended the Obama administration’s cornerstone climate-change regulation limiting carbon emissions from power plants while litigation proceeds.

The DREAMers are now under the bus and will likely stay there for a long time.  They should blame President Obama.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

House Democrats behaving like Latin American lefties

 

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Some of us have seen this movie before.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen news reports from Latin America of left-wing legislators, or the interest groups that they support, chanting and going out of control when they don’t get their way.

Recently, the teachers’ union in Mexico blocked the entrances to the Mexico City airport or last week a confrontation with authorities followed their attempts to close the heavily used highway to Puebla.

Let’s add some members of the U.S. House to that list of legislators or activists who want their way even it means stepping on other people’s rights.

The House Democrats, many literally sitting on the floor, want a vote on gun control. Unfortunately for them, the majority in the House, or the people elected by voters across the country, would rather take up other issues.

We call it democracy. In other words, the majority party sets the calendar. Just ask the GOP senators who wanted then-Majority Leader Reid to bring ObamaCare to a vote on the floor.

Incredibly, Rep. John Lewis is connecting this sit-in with his illustrious past civil rights experience:

“Today we made progress. We have come a distance,” declared Lewis.

Lewis said he had to walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge “three times” before he had completed the march to Selma, Ala. The Georgia Democrat suggested this was the first step on firearms.

“We have other bridges to cross. And when we come back in July, we start it all over again,” intoned Lewis.

At the same time, the hypocrisy of these Democrats is incredible given their silence about the shootings in Chicago.

Why don’t they get on a plane and block the street corners in Chicago where this violence is happening every weekend?

Why don’t they visit the churches and instituions of Chciago and call for an end to the mindless shooting?

Why not back the Chicago police that have to go into these areas every night?

Why not call on black leaders to have a frank discussion of the root causes of black on black crime in our cities? After all, Chicago already has a lot of gun laws.

The House Democrats are engaged in the worst type of grandstanding. We need dissent, but this is not dissent. This is chaos that threatens our rule of law.

Shame on Democrats. I never thought that we would ever see this in the U.S.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Hey, Bernie voters: Check out Venezuela

 

(My new American Thinker post)

Cheers for Vin Scully, the legendary voice of the Dodgers.  He’s called a lot of games and big moments over the years. His comments about socialism earned an A+ in the Truth Hall of Fame:

“Socialism, failing to work as it always does. This time in Venezuela. You talk about giving everybody something free and all of a sudden, there’s no food to eat. And who do you think is the richest person in Venezuela? The daughter of Hugo Chavez. Hello.”

Down in Venezuela, the situation has reached “failed state” status.  What do you call a state where soldiers have to protect bakeries so that people don’t steal flour or bread?  It is horrific, as we see in this report from The New York Times:

With delivery trucks under constant attack, the nation’s food is now transported under armed guard. Soldiers stand watch over bakeries. The police fire rubber bullets at desperate mobs storming grocery stores, pharmacies and butcher shops. A 4-year-old girl was shot to death as street gangs fought over food.

Venezuela is convulsing from hunger.

I visited Venezuela a couple of times before Chavez.  A nation “convulsing from hunger” is not what I found.

On the contrary, it was a happy country, full of well-stocked stores and some of the finest restaurants in the world.  To be fair, it was not a perfect country, from too much dependence on oil and too many imported goods.  Again, there was no hunger or shortage of anything.

Cuba went through a period like this in the 1960s.  Unlike Venezuela today, Castro had a USSR willing to pay the bills as long as he served as a spokesman for socialism in the Third World and sent troops to fight wars in Africa.

Here is the bottom line:  Millions of US citizens voted for Senator Sanders, a man who would love to turn the US into that place where the government gives you this and that, paid for by the rich.

I am not going to say that every Sanders voter was voting for socialism, but a lot of them did by accepting the idea that government would provide you health care and tuition.  How is that working out in Venezuela?   Frankly, how is “free stuff” working out anywhere else?

Here is an idea:  Every young person in college should listen to that quick audio from Vince Scully.  Better than, they should go down to Caracas for a few months and see what Sanders had in mind.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Obama a terrorist from GITMO is missing in Uruguay

Guess what?   One of the 5 guys that President Obama released to Uruguay is missing.  He is one of the 5 sent to Uruguay last year.   This is from Representative Royce’s office:

“The Obama administration is pushing dangerous detainees to countries that it knows can’t handle them. We’ve seen it across the globe, from Afghanistan, an active war zone, to Ghana, a country with limited security resources. And now, in Uruguay, a dangerous jihadist has gone missing in neighboring to Brazil.”

Uruguay has a big border with Brazil.   Let’s hope that we can find this criminal and send him back to GITMO.

In the meantime, why is President Obama releasing these men anyway?    They are not victims.  They are deadly terrorists!

Many in the left don’t want to see what is happening out the window

 

(My new American Thinker post)

We’ve all been there before. We’ve all refused to deal with a reality at some point in our lives and conveniently taken the distraction exit.

We are watching something like that after the Orlando shooting. Let’s check out some of the things that we’ve been hearing about the terrorist attack in Orlando.

First, we hear that he was not directed specifically by ISIS. However, he carried out a mission that made ISIS very happy. So do we need to find a letter from ISIS welcoming the terrorist to the club? Do we have to find a membership number along with car rental or cell phone benefits? Are we this silly?

Second, we have the usual shift to gun control.

Third, we see the failure to connect the dots or the PC attitude that is leashing our law enforcement agencies, as Bill Gertz wrote:

Security analysts said the attack exposed failures of the administration’s counterterrorism policies that were designed to separate Islam from the jihadist terrorism that continues to spread from the Middle East to Europe and now the United States.

What FBI agent wants to be disciplined for believing that the Muslim young man in front of him may commit a terrorist attack?

So what’s going on? I think that many in the left don’t want to look at the window and see the mess that eight years of Obama have left.

Obama promised to end wars. He has not. In fact, his premature withdrawal from Iraq created the vacuum that gave ISIS a second chance. Would ISIS be running the region if 10,000 U.S. troops had been stationed in Iraq after 2011? The answer is no. They would have quickly run into a very powerful U.S. force with F-16s dropping bombs. I hope that Mr. Trump brings this up in his attack of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy!

Second, would any of Obama’s gun laws have changed a thing? The answer is no. We are dealing here with a man on a mission. In other words, he would have found an alternative weapon, such as creating a fertilizer or pipe bomb that would have exploded outside the disco. Gun laws do not stop terrorists!

Third, Obama was supposed to be the “great communicator” or the man who would bring us together. In fact, he has not. He misunderstood that his 53-46% victory was some sort of a landslide or a call to change the country. It was not.

Fourth, electing our first black president was supposed to end racial tensions. In fact, it has not. We are now more racially divided, in large part because people like Obama call you a racist if you want to talk about black on black crime, the failure of public schools in black districts, or an honest discussion of the devastation of the black family.

The left can not deal with reality. More distractions are coming!

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.