The Leftists people call LIVs or moderate Democrats, will do as they are told and support Hillary, the new God of the Left, if they get rid of Hussein.

Blaming Hussein is meaningless and for weaklings. It was only ever a convenient thing for us to support because it allowed a personal target for American hatred and emotion to be focused against.

The real target was and should always have been, the Leftist alliance and ALL of its members.

All of its members.

Like at the Marathon bombings, cracking down on citizens with curfews, and still not finding a clue.

That the quiescent American public is divided enough to give the illusion of having no power is a mistake in perception to assign it reality. The mob always have political power, it just needs an impetus for its formation and focus. ISIS’ entry into the US with a series of attacks would awaken the mob and democrats KNOW it and that is why they work so hard to keep it in the dark.

The police generally do as they are told and while the democrats are nominally in charge, police forces are not a unified whole and, if ISIS attacks, the police will be focused on stopping those attacks not repressing accusations against the Obama administration’s negligence.

Relatively successful attacks by ISIS cells would devastate democrats in either the 2014 or 2016 elections. LIVs who are NOT ideologues will firmly reject the party in power of the DHS, which would be Obama… if the US is seen as incapable of immediately stopping the attacks. In fact, any attacks will be politically damaging with fickle LIVs.

Better than doing nothing.

Also the House could cut spending.

Just try!

we are pass the point of lawsuits. Fill in the blanks to find out what comes next. Hike your skirts to avoid the offal staining your skirts.

If that is their thinking, then they are confusing their hard core base’s support, for Americans en mass. But they are as aware of the polls as we and have to know that Obama unilaterally granting amnesty before the Nov election would be highly counter-productive, at least in the short-run.

I agree that Obama is thinking long term and wishes to create a fait accompli toward permanent one party rule. He’s willing to sacrifice congressional democrats to get that voting majority. But… amnesty created through executive order is NOT the rule of law, so a Republican President could as easily reverse it. Clearly he thinks its a bet worth making that 2016 will see a Democrat President.

Given the support of the GOP leadership for ‘amnesty without borders’ (any democrat promises to secure the border are laughable) Obama’s assessment of democrat Presidential prospects in 2016 appear possible.

That said, he’s skating on very thin ice. If ISIS comes to America, Obama and the democrats are going to get all the blame in the minds of the LIV’s regardless of how much the MSM tries to make it Bush’s fault.

The prospect for a coming perfect political storm has to be at least 50/50 and in the worse case scenario, Obama’s ‘legacy’ becomes an albatross that democrats cannot remove from their necks for an entire generation.

You read it here first. This avoids the impeachment problem.