“We are losing today. This president is not leading.”
Carly Fiorina describes how she would stop ISIS.
Carly Fiorina was on The O’Reilly Factor last night and was asked by Bill O’Reilly how she would deal with the ISIS problem as president.
Fiorina began by reacting to President Obama’s lackluster Sunday night speech and pointed out the insanity of pushing climate change and gun control as a response to terrorism.
She then got into specifics such as the sharing of intelligence. She pointed out that the Patriot Act is 14 years old which equals generations in terms of technology. She suggested retaking ground from ISIS, increasing our bombing activity, working with allies in the region and more.
Bill also asked her about Donald Trump’s suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, with which she strongly disagrees.
Watch the whole segment below:
One thing that separates Fiorina from the other Republican candidates is her background in the tech sector. She has some very specific concerns in that area.
Leigh Munsil reported at The Blaze:
Carly Fiorina Warns of Threat She Says the U.S. Is ‘Woefully Unprepared’ to Handle: Cyberterrorism
After terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino turned the focus of the 2016 presidential race to national security, Republican candidate Carly Fiorina warned voters today that the U.S. remains vulnerable to massive, crippling cyberattacks.
In a Pearl Harbor Day speech to voters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO touted her background in the technology world — a world accustomed to using Pearl Harbor-like terminology to describe the damage that could be done by a major attack on U.S. infrastructure like power grids or traffic control.
“The United States is woefully unprepared for cyberterrorism,” Fiorina said, according to prepared remarks for the Iowa Presidential Tech Town Hall. “We are vulnerable. And … while we sit idly by, our enemies are building their capabilities.”
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
unfortunately , O’Reilly was so distracting with butting in before she could answer, I turned tv off never to watch that distracting nasty piece of work again.
I agree with the disgusting O’Reilly. He is the opposite of a host. Fiorina is a very smart woman but she is going to miss out on the surge that Trump has created by getting into the weeds of his speech on the temporary ban on muslim immigration. He didn’t say forever but until our agencies get a handle on why the latest shooter was not vetted properly and why this couple had been going to a shooting range and no one noticed. Our intelligence services are not up to the task under obama. Most people do not know that obama has instructed all references to islam and muslim be removed from all FBI and DHS training manuals. How can you defeat an enemy if you can’t say their name?”
“why this couple had been going to a shooting range and no one noticed”
I know that a lot y’all think that Texas is a backward state, and maybe it’s true. After all, we can’t determine a person’s intentions by the amount of their range time or the color of their rifle/handgun.
Listening to Trump last night being interviewed by Greta what’s-her-name I had several small shocks of recognition.
First, one must listen to Trump, not media interpretation or any second-hand “analysis.” The media is both dishonest and retarded. The dishonesty in some cases produces the retardation. For instance, Greta would ask the same question two or three times. She seemed incapable of processing his answers. His answers were cogent and intelligible to any average fifth grader. The retardation is also, in some perverse formula appropriate to our time, consistent with the educational background and elitist nature of the media.
In any case, it occurred to me really for the first time that Trump is a leader, and that what he was saying was difficult to comprehend because it represented the classic difficulty of language from leaders in a challenging time, and which some naturally find uncomfortable. I’d never been hostile to Trump. But still I’d not taken him entirely seriously. But he was saying what I considered simple truth — the sort of truth next to impossible to assimilate in the deluded, morally inverted and emotionally sodden era in which we live. The political and social mandarins find this truth revolting. “Truth!?,” they might say. “That all Muslims are potential terrorists!?” That is not the point. More Muslims than not are passively sympathetic to terrorism’s objectives and strategies. More Muslims than not are inherently hostile to secular liberalism and Judeo-Christianity. More Muslims than not do not appreciate democracy and prefer Sharia law. Massive, unvetted immigration of Muslims presents a potential and knowable social hazard in too many respects — at the very least to alter the electoral profile of cities and towns across America — not to consider Trump’s proposal and have this discussion. The fear and fury with which his speech has been met confirms its value to me.
My other recognition was to dismiss any candidate who took the kneejerk position to attack Trump on this count. This means that Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorino should be eliminated from consideration as candidates or putative leaders.
These are strange and in many ways very sick times. It is not that the old truths we cherished do not apply, but that they are being twisted for bad and dangerous purposes. And the even older truths, the harsher ones more closely linked to survival, are too alien and unpleasant to consider. Trump was laying out truths and facing them in ways we must face them.
As for understanding Islam, we as a society are retarded. Certainly our leaders are for the most part.
Given a choice,
I would rather have less Muslim Immigration and a free country than a Giant new Internet snooping operation and a Patriot act expansion.
False choice.