Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally – to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Obama DHS: You Have A Right To Defend Yourselves From Armed Workplace Crazies With Scissors (But Not Guns)

Does this mean that Obama’s Secret Service detail has handed in their Uzis for pairs of scissors?  I sure hope they’re those safety scissors with the dull tips.  You sure wouldn’t want anybody accidentally putting an eye out while fighting to save Obama’s life, would you?

Under Obama, you have the right to perish miserably in the wake of workplace violence.  The story you are about to read is silent testimony to the fact that a crazed killer is out to murder you and your co-workers, you can’t have an actual weapon to protect yourself with – and there won’t be any cops coming anywhere NEAR in time to help you.  So grab your scissors.

And maybe you could grab a rock and a piece of paper and play with the murdering psycho for your life?

I know, I know.  That’s racist.  Thank you, President Hussein.  Praise you, messiah!  I feel so empowered with my scissors now.  While I’m waiting for my turn to be slaughtered I’ll be able to make arts and crafts!  Origami always did make me forget all about being gunned down by, you know, the only guy allowed to have a gun in your building.

Oh, origami doesn’t use scissors?  That’s okay; NEITHER DO I WHEN I’M CONFRONTING A MAN WITH A GUN.

I actually think it would have been a better idea to teach people to just give in to their terror and wet themselves.  Maybe the gunman would slip or something.

DHS Says: Confront Mass Killers With Scissors

From the New York Post:

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors

By S.A. MILLER | January 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman? No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator in the video, which shows an office worker pulling scissors out of a desk drawer.

The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire.

Thank goodness we have highly paid professionally trained bureaucrats available to give us great advice like that. This is right up their with the DHS’ advice about stretching before shoveling snow, and remembering to take off cold wet clothes.

The nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.

“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Other survival strategies promoted in the video include hiding “behind large items such as cabinets or desks. Remain quiet. Silence your cellphone or pager. Even the vibration setting can give away a hiding position.”

They might also recommend taking down any ‘gun free zone’ signs.

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.

“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman. “Clearly, you use whatever you can” to fight for your life, he said…

What kind of crazy talk is that? We hold Mr. Feldman’s doctor contacts the authorities so that he can be put away.

The video is part of the Obama administration’s ongoing campaign to reduce firearm violence in the wake of the horrific mass murder last month of 20 children and six teachers in Newtown, Conn., said a Homeland Security official…

The video was released to coincide with President Obama’s sweeping proposals to curb gun violence in America, said the official…

The only trouble is, all the scissors in that Sandy Hook school would have been ‘safety scissors.’

Besides, once people starting hurting each other with scissors, they will have to be banned as well.

Nobody with one of the 400 million guns already in America will ever dare to attack my workplace now.  I’m armed with scissors.

Now, I guess all I need is to figure out how to do this:

Mind you, I’d kind of rather have a gun.  For one thing, judging by all the scars on poor Edward’s face, it would be quite a bit safer than the alternative pair of scissors that Obama says I can fight back with.  But because I live in the Obama States of America, I am now a farm animal.  And if the slaughterer comes, it is my duty to meekly comply with my turn to be slaughtered.

Wait a minute, what’s that, Obama?  I can’t have these scissors?  Because they’ve been classified as “assault scissors”?  Well, dang.  That just figures.

Democrat Women Who Don’t Demand To Be Forced To Register For The Draft As Front-Line Meat Are Hypocrites And Cowards

Another “I told you so” is in order.

I wrote an article in which I stated that if women had a right to serve in combat, then they therefore had the same duty to serve in front-line combat as every man who has been forced to register for selective service (a.k.a. the draft) has borne.

Well, line up, bitches.  Sacrifice the hiney and shut up the whiny.  Because real men don’t whine.  Strap on that hundred pound combat load and stumble as fast as your little hiney will carry you into that machine gun fire way over there in the yonder distance.  And keed doing it day after day and every damn bit as well as all the men around you, because if you fall short your fellow troops are going to die because you were too damn weak to be there.  And you clearly think you’re just as man as the rest of we the testicled ones or you wouldn’t be there.

All young men have an obligation to sign up for front-line combat if they’re called to serve.  Now all women do, too.

You want equal opportunity, do you?  Well, here it is.  Not that liberal women have the integrity to actually ASK for actual equality.  Because liberal women DON’T want “equality”; they want “entitlement” masquerading as “equality.”

And that is because the core defining essence of every liberal is abject moral hypocrisy.  Liberalism means picking out only the most self-serving elements of “equality” and leaving the rest for those who don’t vote for Obama.  Women get to choose to kill their children; men are compelled by force of law to stand by helplessly while his kid is tortured and murdered.  And if a woman chooses to keep a baby which was by definition not a “baby” the last time the sperm donor that used to be called a “father” had anything to do with the pregnancy process, men are forced to support a child they had no choice to have until that kid is over 18.  Women get to “choose” to enter whatever part of the military they want and have a RIGHT to it; men get to be forcibly compelled to serve in the most brutal combat duty whether they want to or not in time of the draft that every man in America must forcibly register to participate in.

Why such a massive and self-referentially dishonest and hypocritical double-standard?  Because women overwhelmingly vote Democrat and men overwhelmingly vote Republican.  And Democrats are just that cynical and evil.  Period.

You voted for it, girls.  You voted for Obama and Obama issued his imperial order as pharaoh over all the land via his proxy.  Now man up and put your lives on the line, honeys.  The least you can do is for once in your whiny life quit thinking “entitlement” and start thinking “duty.”  Because if you should have a right to fight on the front lines, then you damn well have the same duty as the men you so stupidly and wickedly think you are.

It’s really quite funny.  Now the same liberals who most supported allowing women with “the right to choose to serve in combat” are saying the selective service registration requirement is outdated and ought to be thrown out.  Lest women realize that Obama’s “right” just viciously screwed them right up the whazoo and start voting for the party that actually represents women and families.

But they sure as hell weren’t saying that when they were introducing bills just a few years ago when Bush was president to not just bolster selective service, but to literally reinstitute the damn DRAFT:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”

“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.

“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”

Now, liberal, you can agree with me that liberals are so cynical and so depraved that they would literally exploit one of the most sacred obligations ever imposed on Americans to rise up for the good of their nation and fight for it in time of war and if necessary DIE for it as a device to hurt or embarrass George W. Bush.  Hundreds of thousands of the most honored Americans literally left their dead and broken bodies on battlefields across the globe so that Democrats could one day use their sacrifice as a cynical partisan political attempt to demagogically attack Republicans.  Or you can agree with me that women be immediately required to register for front-line combat duty to befit the new status of “right” that Obama just bequeathed you.  Until that “right” is taken away and replaced by common sense.

Do you know which president was the last one to try to call for a forced draft?

Jimmy Carter, Democrat:

Americans have not always been against reinstituting the draft, which was stopped in 1973. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter discussed the possibility of resurrecting the draft and reinstituted the Selective Service registration requirement for young men following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, a majority of Americans favored reinstituting the draft. Support had dropped below the majority level by the summer of 1981, after Ronald Reagan had defeated Carter in his re-election bid.

You not only get to see that Jimmy Carter openly called for resurrecting the draft and forcing young men to serve, but he was the very man who reinstituted the Selective Service requirement that Democrats are now poo-pooing.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the lowest form of hypocrite.  And “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Now, I’m not actually dumb enough to believe that Democrats will show integrity for the first time in their parasitic leech lives and actually be consistent.  They won’t require women to register for Selective Service because, again, women would turn on them in droves the next election and vote for a party and a president who decries this moral idiocy as the evil that it is.

Instead, let me tell you what WILL happen.  Right now, today, in granting this “right,” Democrats are assuring us that of course, we won’t reduce our physical standards to accommodate female infantry recruits.

That’s what Canada said, too.

Back when I was serving, I read an article in the Army Times about Canada opening up infantry service to women.  All they had to do was go through the same boot camp that men had to go through.

Do you know what happened?  No woman could make it through the training.  Female Olympic athletes tried to make it through the training.  And not one could pass muster.

Because they aren’t the one thing they needed to be: MEN.

But it turns out that Canadian liberals are every bit as dishonest as American liberals.  Because you want to see what became of that promise from Canadian liberals?

Military drops fitness test for new recruits Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 9:03 AM ET CBC News

Canada’s military has dropped its physical fitness requirement for new recruits, saying it will take responsibility for whipping prospective soldiers into shape.

A notice posted on the Canadian Forces recruitment website says that effective Oct. 1, 2006, the physical fitness test is eliminated from the selection process.

“The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrollees to reach an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training,” says the notice.

To meet basic minimum requirements, people wanting to join the forces must have Canadian citizenship, be at least 17 years old and have completed Grade 10.

The change comes amid confusion surrounding suggestions that members of the Air Force or Navy could be called on to serve in combat roles on the ground in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops will be until 2009. Rotating deployments of roughly 2,000 have been in the country for the past four years.

Democrats have loathed the military ever since they voted for the president who stated that he personally was “loathing the military” when he was writing a letter to weasel out of HIS Selective Service requirement.  To whatever extent that we can’t say that they want to actively want to destroy the American military, they don’t give one damn about its quality or its capability.  It is nothing more than a social engineering ground for them.  And shame on them for it.

That’s how you know that in the not very distant future, we will be waiving our physical fitness requirement.  Because our military ultimately shouldn’t be one iota stronger than the very weakest woman who wants to exercise her “right to choose.”

It is a costly, time-intensive job to train infantry recruits.  We can’t afford to let thousands of women fail and flail away to the tune of millions of dollars.  Especially after Obama has gutted military funding past the breaking point as it is.

We’re going to dumb-down our requirements so that morally stupid women can ruin the American military.

That’s what’s actually going to happen.

If a man doesn’t register for Selective Service at age 18, he spends the rest of his life suffering for his “choice.”  He will not be able to participate in any federal benefit, including student loans or home mortgages, as a result.  And men can never go back and retroactively register.  They continue to bear that burden for the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do to undo their failure to register.

I hereby demand, in this age of Obama, that all women be forcibly required to register for Selective Service with the same possibility of front-line combat that men have had to endure.

After all, you have a “right.”  And you should have a right to die horribly as a result.

And by the way, welcome to God damn America, ladies.  Except you hypocrite Democrat women who won’t join with me in calling that girls should have the same duty to die on a battlefield that the men all around you have had since this nation was formed.

You need to understand this, women: liberal feminists have opened the floodgates of front-line combat service to you.  And in doing so, they have exposed you to the same DUTY that men have held throughout history.

And it is hypocritical in the extreme for women to say that they should get all the “rights” of this front-line combat as individual women but none of the duties incumbent upon women as a class.

Yesterday I wrote an article that basically asks the question, “How did it come to this?”  How did America so wildly fail and what caused it to collapse?

This is part of that answer.  We collapsed because there was a group of despicable liberals who literally hamstrung our military so that we could not fight.  First they gutted the military such that it lost the capability of fighting two wars simultaneously that it had held since World War II.  And then it first imposed homosexuality and then imposed physically comparatively weak women into direct combat roles that only a true fool would send them into.

Another factoid is that under Obama, the debt that he demonized Bush for accumulating is so-out-of-control that it is simply beyond unreal.

But day-by-day in this age of God damn America, we are seeing our national demise and the demise of Western civilization clearly spelled out for us.

Katie Petronio, a female Marine captain, nailed it in her article, “Get Over It!”  She points out that it is NOT female Marines – either officer or enlisted – who demanded this “right” to serve in front-line infantry combat.  This agenda is being foisted upon them largely by radical feminists who aren’t serving and frankly have no intention of EVER serving.  Captain Petronio points out that she scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine Physical Fitness Test for females.  If there is a woman who can “do anything a man can do,” Captain Petronio is that woman.  But in fact what happened was that she testifies that she was unable to perform like a man: her body broke down and she suffered severe muscular deterioration because her body didn’t produce the male hormones that enabled men to keep coming back at the job day after day after day; she would stumble and fall frequently; her lack of comparative agility and mobility put her and her unit in jeopardy.  She pointed out that her inability to perform as a man would have been able to perform affected her unit’s response time and overall capability.  She points out that as a result of her marked physical deterioration which was far more than the men experienced, she suffered polycistic ovarian syndrome which rendered her permanently infertile.  And she said that – quote – “there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.”

Again, we the testicled ones don’t have this happen to us.  It’s part of having testicles.  It’s not that women aren’t as brave, etc.  It is that they simply don’t have the physical package that God equipped men with.

And liberal feminists HATE God for that.

You need to understand this: liberals do not give one flying damn about women and they don’t give one flying damn about the military.  Their ideology, their worldview, leaves liberals hostile to reality or to the Truth and incapable of understanding how insane or dangerous their “solutions” in fact are.

Just as I was saying from my own perspective.

For convenience sake, here’s the article I wrote back in December before Obama fundamentally transformed America again with his latest outrage of giving women the right to fight if they wanted to in addition to their being given the right to murder their own child if they wanted to:

When Liberals Demand That Women Be Allowed Into Combat, They Are Actually Demanding That Women Ultimately Be Drafted As Machine Gun-Fodder

If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.

From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:

Women in combat — it’s time U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up. December 3, 2012

When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.

That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”

Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.

For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”

In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.

One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.

Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.

Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.

“U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told.  Of course, women are already being raped, too.  So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land.  That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article.  Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat.  Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.

This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do?  And liberals say of course.  Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.

If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat.  Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available.  It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder.  And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?

Because women can do anything a man can do.  Including get blown to bits.

It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose.  Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.

Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.

When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right.  They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry.  And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.

Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.

There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder.  The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women?  And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.

Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants.  So women can be firefighters, too.  And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety?  Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars.  Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.

My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had.  But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.

Men and women are different.  Anybody but a fool knows that.  Which is why liberals don’t know it.

Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns.  Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight?  If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???

If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat.  ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register.  That’s what is at stake here.

There are things that women do every bit as well as men.  Fighting isn’t one of them.  Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man.  I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument.  No it wasn’t, you roach; you were a poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman who didn’t have the strength to fight you.  But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.

What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.”  Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.

Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable.  And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.

Canada and other secular humanist nations have embraced women in combat with severely dumbed-down standards to accommodate this “fundamental transformation” of the entire history of warfare.

Here’s the thing: the freedom-loving world doesn’t depend on Canada to secure the peace of the world the way it depends on America.

But now that America is merely one nation among many others, I suppose it doesn’t matter if we hamstring ourselves to our very lowest common denominator for the sake of political correctness.

Many historians credit King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans as having saved Western Civilization at the Battle of Thermopylae so that some day we could emerge as democratic republics.  They fought to the death to give the Greeks a few vital days to prepare for an army of some one million Persians who were bent on annihilating Western Civilization for good.  You’ve kind of got to wonder what would have happened had his “300″ been a bunch of women.

As Obama allows the descendants of those same Persians nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile to deliver them, I guess we’ll ultimately get to find out.

Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.

For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh.  That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.

Title IX?  We don’t need that any more.  In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL!  Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports.  If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all.  And the same is true, of course, for professional sports.  We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis.  Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else.  They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.

It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same.  And it would be insane to suggest otherwise.   I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game.  That’s probably just as true for men, right?

If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?

The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.

 

Fiscal Cliff Deal Is A Raw Deal For The Rich And For America. And It Sets Up ANOTHER Raw Deal In Sixty Days Over Out-Of-Control Obama Spending.

It’s a truly fascinating thing.  Had we “gone over the cliff,” do you know what would have happened?  We would have returned to the Clinton tax rates.

What is truly remarkable is that the Clinton tax rates are now nearly universally viewed by Democrats as having been 98% pure, distilled evil.  Because the Democrat Party has now been saying that Americans can’t afford to pay the stupid and evil tax rates that Democrats once demanded they pay.

But what would have been stupid and evil and harmful to the American economy for 98% of the population is in fact true for 100% of the population.  It is simply a gargantuan lie to try to argue that the laws of economics – that when you tax something you invariably get LESS of it – is true for 98% but is a lie for 100%.

Yes, it is a fact of history that the Republican Party under George W. Bush saved America with the tax cuts that helped the middle class grow more and spend more.  And it is now a fact of history that Democrats are now implicitly saying that the Clinton tax rates were 98% evil and counterproductive to a growing economy.  Democrats were completely wrong about their high tax rates; but Democrats are liars who won’t EVER admit they were wrong.  Instead they merely continually shift their demonization and demagoguery to a different target without ever admitting that it was only a relative few years ago that Democrats were attacking the middle class with high taxes that are suddenly now universally recognized as evil.

Isn’t it amazing how Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media propaganda actually just claimed credit for 98% of the Bush tax cuts while still blaming Republicans as evil for creating the very thing that Democrats are on record as now being 98% for?  How does this kind of falsehood pass for truth???

Here’s a little bit of fact for you: BILL CLINTON CUT TAXES FAR MORE THAN HE RAISED THEM.  It wasn’t until Clinton CUT the capital gains tax in addition to many other tax reforms that the economy truly took off and the budget deficit shrank.  Versus Barack Obama, who has stratospherically hiked taxes on the rich and on the middle class via massive regulation and the equally massive ObamaCare tax hike.

And keep in mind that Bill Clinton – who largely presided over a good economy with the help of Republicans who controlled both the House and the Senate – said “the era of big government is over.”  Obama reversed that and now America will pay dearly for it.

It is a fact of history that Democrats are now demanding that we keep 98% of Bush’s tax cuts while simultaneously taking credit for them.  While amazingly still saying that the Bush tax cuts – which they now say were 98% good – are still evil.

Democrats claim that their tax hike on the rich, on the other hand, will generate $620 billion in additional revenues.  Here’s the first problem with the deal that Republicans were trapped into: no it won’t.

History is now replete, full, satiated, gluttonously gorged with examples of Democrats’ stupid tax claims doing the very opposite of what they claimed it would do.  The most infamous example is the luxury tax or so-called “yacht tax” on the rich.  Democrats assured Americans that the rich could certainly pay a little more (there’s a line that stupid people keep arguing, isn’t it?) to own luxury items.  Democrats saw the government getting more and the rich paying “more of their fair share” (there’s another stupid line of demagoguery for you).  What in FACT happened was that it turned out that, guess what, rich people AVOID TAXES just like everybody else tends to do.

Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts
By AGIS SALPUKAS
Published: February 7, 1992

The nation’s luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week.

President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war.

In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats — recreational craft costing more than $100,000 — cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

Now, sales personnel and owners of marine companies are hoping they will be swamped by buyers who have held off in the expectation that the tax will be repealed.

The 10 percent tax applies to the amount of the cost above $100,000, so that a boat selling for $300,000 carries a $20,000 luxury tax. That tax is in addition to any state and local taxes. [...]

Also, boat prices have dropped as much as 40 to 50 percent, interest rates have fallen and some lenders have begun to offer financing, though on very strict terms.

In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990′s level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent. Relies on Foreign Customers

“The luxury tax really hurt us,” said William J. Healey, the president of the Viking Yacht Company in New Gretna, N.J.

He gestured toward a few big luxury boats being built there. A 50-foot boat costing $800,000 is bound for Italy; a $1 million yacht may be sold in Japan. A 65-foot motor yacht costing $1.3 million is bound for Greece.

The business from overseas, developed in the last two years, is enabling Viking to limp along, its work force cut to 150 workers from 800. “Very fortunately, it has helped us weather the downturn,” Mr. Healey said as he pointed to two production lines that have been inactive for several years.

Domestic demand fell so sharply that a year ago Viking shut an operation in Tampa, Fla., that employed 800 workers. The plant was built in the boom of the 1980′s, when most boat makers could not keep up with demand.

Yeah, that’s right, stupid liberal.  Raising taxes on the rich a few percent won’t hurt anybody.  They can afford it.

And if you’re either stupid or demon-possessed, you still believe that damn Marxist class warfare lie.  But people who prefer the truth and have a clue about something called “history” sure don’t.

The fact of the matter is simple and straightforward: lower tax rates for EVERYBODY creates more incentive to work harder and invest more because you are allowed to keep more of what you earn.  It is a simple truth of American history that every single time tax rates have been cut, we have had growth that generated MORE revenue than we otherwise would have.

There’s a second and even more harmful reason that Obama won’t raise more revenue as he falsely claims: because he’s going to be targeting and attacking the small businesses that create jobs.  Yes, it’s true on one level that 97% of small businesses won’t see their taxes shoot up and force them to lay off workers and cut back to pay the dictator.  But as is often true, another word for “lie” is “statistic.”  Because here’s the thing: THAT THREE PERCENT OF THE BUSINESSES DO MOST OF THE ACTUAL HIRING.

I documented this back in July:

Please take a look at the US government census information on small businesses.  The latest data they have on file comes from 2008:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

So, yeah, the kid who is an “independent contractor” working his paper route won’t be paying more taxes under Obama’s class warfare plan.  That’s great.  But the overwhelming majority of small businesses (defined as businesses employing 499 or fewer workers) are going to get the crap beat out of them.

So Obama and Democrats like to point out that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by their tax hikes.  But more than 78% of small businesses in his “97 percent” figure are “nonemployer firms” and hire ZERO workers.  So no jobs.  And when you look at the businesses that hire workers, you are looking overwhelmingly at the businesses that are going to be hit by these new tax hikes.  That is simply a FACT.  And it is simply a FACT that they are going to be forced to raise their prices to accommodate their rising costs of doing business, which will in turn reduce demand for their products or services, which will then in turn force them to lay off workers because of aforementioned reduced demand.

So what Obama and the Democrats just did is savagely attack the only people who have any chance at creating more job opportunities and bringing the US economy off its back and onto its feet again.

Keep in mind that in pimping his ObamaCare, Obama promised that premiums wouldn’t go up; he promised that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor; he promised that he wouldn’t tax the middle class.  He lied about EVERYTHING.  And he is lying to you now.  Because he has over and over again demonstrated that he is a liar without shame, without honesty, without decency and without integrity.

But we’re just getting warmed up describing how truly godawful this “deal” is.

Obama – even on his regime’s own calculations – will only get 8 1/2 days of additional tax revenue by attacking the rich and sabotaging the US economy by hurting job creators.  The problem when you consider Obama’s trillion-plus dollar deficits every single year of his entire presidency is that he refused to do a damn thing about the OTHER 356.5 days of the year.

We raised $1.8 trillion in income tax revenue in 2012.  It will be a very interesting thing indeed to see if we raise $2.42 trillion as the Democrats claim.  I bet we won’t be anywhere near that because it was a lie from the beginning.

Obama has the blue-whale-sized balls to claim that he cut the deficit by over $1 trillion.  Even the überliberal Washington Post says he’s a Pinnochio-nosed liar.  But let’s just think like people who AREN’T insane and AREN’T demon-possessed for a second: the US national debt is now over 16.4 trillion and will be well beyond that by January 20 when Obama’s first term ends; it was $10.626 trillion the day Obama took office.

Do you remember when our demon-possessed current president demonized his predecessor by pointing out that the debt had grown by $4 trillion over Bush’s eight years in office?  I pointed out back in September:

If Obama is a one-term president, which he himself by his own rhetoric said he ought to be, he will have added more than $6 trillion to the debt in his four years by the time he leaves office.  The same man who viciously demonized his predecessor for adding less than $5 trillion over EIGHT years.  The national debt is over $16 trillion now, and it’s going to keep piling on and piling on until January 2013.  With at least $500 billion in interest to pay on top of that.

Again, Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite without shame, without decency, without honor and without integrity.  He is shameless.  The Democrat Party is shameless.  And the mainstream media which protects both with their propaganda machine are shameless.

And our real debt is actually now considerably over a beyond-insane $222 trillion.  And is growing by about one trillion dollars every single MONTH:

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

And why are we that $222 trillion – and actually that is now more like $227 trillion given the rate of growth of that debt and the five months that have passed since that article documenting the true debt was written - you ask?  Easy, 99.99999 percent of that debt which guarantees the collapse of America came from Democrats, and specifically their boondoggle entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

It’s funny, in a sad, pathetic, ironic sort of way: Democrats demonize Republicans for trying to protect America and her interests abroad with a strong national defense.  But the only thing the Constitution specifically ordered the federal government to “provide for the common defense.”  And note that word, “provide.”  It means, “pay for to provide.”  The same liberals who demonize us for doing what common sense and the Constitution alike command us to do point to the phrase “promote the general welfare.”  Do you get that difference between “provide” and “promote.”  If you ask me to provide something, I’m on the hook for it in a financial way.  That’s what it means to be a provider.  If you want me to promote something, I’m going to say nice things about it and cheerlead for it.  But that’s all.  And so like everything else, Democrats turned the Constitution, basic morality and true Christianity on its head and made what is wrong right and what is right wrong.

If liberals were actually to “promote the general welfare,” they would cheerlead the private economy and encourage growth by keeping taxes low for those who are willing to work hard so they can keep what they earn.  And then, with the minimum size and minimum amount of regulation, they would get the hell out of the way.

What Democrats “promote” is the general cancer instead.

And that mindset became a rotting cancer that is just about to consume and kill the patient America.

This nation is doomed.  And if you voted for Obama, you are one of the people who doomed it.   We cannot possibly pay these debts that will ultimately bankrupt this country but only after our children and their children are forced to bear the burden and suffer because of your self-righteous and sanctimonious greed a.k.a. “your entitlement mindset.”  And one day you will stand before a holy God and answer for the fact that you are a toxic human being whose soul swims in every kind of lie.  Because that’s what Obama voters are: bad people who hate the truth and who prefer lies.  Aside from your dishonesty, you are greedy and hypocritical - feeling yourself entitled to seize other people’s money when you would scream if your own money were taken from you.  And aside from your dishonesty, greed and hypocrisy you are hurting the poor who ought to be helped.  Because as I pointed out above – and thoroughly document with the article I linked you to stating it – when you seize the wealth of private citizens who overwhelmingly worked hard and then planned well and then worked hard some more to get that wealth, you end up hurting the very poor you falsely profess to be helping.  Because you force businesses large and small alike to reduce their workers.  You rob the poor of dignity by preventing them from being able to find jobs.  And then you cynically exploit their desperation to get them to vote Democrat so they can be on welfare for life as long as they continue voting Democrat.  Oh, you will one day be forced to give an account for all of it, rest assured.  And you will be giving that account to a Someone who knows the truth from all of your lies and your slander.

In sixty days this “fiscal cliff deal” that the mainstream media is so damn giddy about will come boomaranging back in the form of a massive political crisis caused by Obama’s morally insane and fiscally evil out-of-control spending binge.

Further, this stupid deal did nothing to avert the sequestration that Obama’s White House invented that will cripple our economy.  Just for starters, 1.53 million defense industry workers are going to get their 60-day layoff notices that they frankly should have already received according to federal law that Obama abrogated for cynical political purposes.  The defense industry has already began to suffer because everybody knows that Obama is at war with our ability to defend ourselves against war.  Obama has already cut $480 billion from defense; and his sequestration gimmick will soon devastatingly cut the Pentagon by $500 billion more.

Republicans were maneuvered into an impossible rhetorical battle against a master demagogic rhetorician.  They were demonized as “the party who was willing to force everybody’s taxes to go up over the wealthiest two percent of the country.”  When how the hell were the Democrats not “the party who was willing to force everybody’s taxes to go up over the wealthiest two percent of the country”???  Weren’t Democrats threatening to go off the cliff unless they got to attack the top two percent of earners?  How were they not doing the very thing they slandered the Republicans for doing???

This country is going to shut down in sixty days over that “spending issue” that Obama and the Democrats absolutely refused to deal with.  Because this “deal” did nothing to slow down the debt, nothing to slow down Obama’s shocking deficits, nothing to avert a debt ceiling showdown and nothing to avert the REAL fiscal cliff of Obama’s sequestration plan.

The markets that stupidly surged today will just as stupidly collapse then.  Because anybody who isn’t a fool should see this confrontation over insane and immoral debt coming.

Meanwhile, it is God damn America, full speed ahead to ruin.  And then the Antichrist and the Tribulation will come.

Passing Of A True Hero: Gen. ‘Stormin’ Norman’ Schwarzkopf Dead At 78. It’s Probably Good He Didn’t Live To See What Obama Does To The US Military.

A great man died yesterday.  And we’ll probably never see his like again.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf died from complications of pneumonia after a long illness at his home in Tampa, where he lived in retirement after refusing to exploit his fame to enter the immoral and treasonous world of politics.

Given the fact that his death coincides with one of the great acts of pathetic stupidity of all of human history – the fiscal cliff – his decision not to contaminate his love for America with the ultimate cynicism that is politics was clearly a wise one.

When you consider how Obama’s fiscal cliff strategy – because, yes, the sequestration that led to this moment was the product of the Obama White House - will have on the United States military, it is probably a good thing that Stormin’ Norman was saved from having to watch Obama gut his beloved military machine:

“Forward” is a great slogan and everything, but the only way Obama is going to take America “forward” is to drive us off the fiscal cliff that was his bright idea to create in the first place (and see here for more because Obama set this disaster up from the very start).  The fact of the matter is that it is a documented fact by one of the great journalists in American history that the idea for sequestration – i.e. the “fiscal cliff” or “taxmageddon” – came from Obama’s chief of staff Jack Lew and Rob Nabors (Obama’s White House Assistant to the President and head of the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs).  The money quote:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

So anybody who wants to assert that sequestration originated ANYWHERE other than the Obama White House is a documented liar.  Not that liberals care about being documented liars.

Jack Lew was Obama’s chief of staff and Rob Nabors was Obama’s Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.  Lew and Nabors were Obama’s roaches who served Obama’s bidding.  And they first negoiated this fiscal cliff deal with Democrat Harry Reid and his roaches before forcing the House Republicans to sign on or be labelled “obstructionists.”  And so, yes, the fiscal cliff was Obama’s dream that he made come true.

And that destruction of the US military will spread through the entire defense industry, with 2 million more jobs about to fall prey to his savage attack against America.

Obama’s own handpicked Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, warned that Obama’s sequestration would forcibly return America to pre-World War II spending levels.  Which was why the Japanese attacked us.  But Obama has already publicly vowed to veto ANY bill that spared the military.

America will never rise to true might again after this blow which will be even greater than the one Schwarzkopf inflicted on the Iraq military machine.  Which is why I’m glad Stormin’ Norman didn’t have to live to see the new year under the grip of the president of God damn America.

Norman Schwarzkopf was a man who was literally born to serve his nation at the ultimate moment.  He grew up in Iran (his father went there to train Iran’s national police force and served as an adviser to the young Shah, Reza Pahlavi).  And he had the insight to understand that his destiny was tied to that turbulent and violent region.  He had his choice of commands – and many of his alternative possibilities looked better on paper at the time – but he wanted and got the U.S. Central Command – which was responsible for the Middle East.

Gen. Schwarzkopf was a man of vision: he wargamed out the EXACT scenario that in fact took place, as Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait out of lust for that small nation’s wealth and oil resources.

Because of General Schwarzkopf, America did not have to scramble; the commanding general was ready to go the moment Saddam’s thugs violated Kuwait’s borders.

People don’t remember how huge his 100 hour land war truly was.  Liberals, ever wrong, predicted a blood bath as Saddam Hussein prepared for World War One-style trench warfare and promised “the mother of all battles” and his desire to inflict massive casualties on the American-led coalition.  Stormin’ Norman had other plans, and delivered the military equivalent of a vicious punch right to the nose of Saddam’s military – which at that time was the fourth largest military power in the world and which was armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry.  No one short of God knows how many American and coalition lives Schwarzkopf spared due to his strategic and tactical brilliance.

Schwarzkopf’s character and courage marks a stark contrast with the leaders that mark God damn America today.  And I honor this great man and celebrate his great victory back when the Late Great USA could actually win a damn war.

I can’t take away your loss and grief, Schwarzkopf family.  But I can remind you that your pain ought to be accompanied by a feeling of great pride for a great man.

Obama’s Arab Spring: Al-Qaeda Flag Flies Above U.S. Embassies; Egypt Succumbs To Muslim Brotherhood; Iran Nears Nuclear Weapons; Syria Preparing Chemical Weapons

The reelection of Barack Obama was the single greatest guarantee that Antichrist would appear.

If you voted for Barack Obama, you voted for Antichrist to come.  And you will very likely worship him and take his mark when he arrives now that you have made his coming a certainty.

I remember when Democrats were demagoguing George W. Bush and saying that Bush set the Islamic world on fire.  No, he didn’t.  The al-Qaeda flag had never flown over a burned-out American embassy, let alone flown on American soil over FOUR U.S. embassies as it now has in Egypt, in Libya, in Tunisia and in Yemen.  Egypt – the heart of the Arab world - was a strong, stable ally of the United States and Israel prior to the Obama regime.  Iran was working on its nuclear weapons program, but only because Democrats were morally depraved fools who were blocking Bush’s efforts to deal with a crisis before it engulfed the world in Armageddon.  And Syria wasn’t mixing chemical weapons.

Oh, and a dictator over the heart of the Arab world wasn’t installing himself as entirely above the law while imposing a fascist sharia law Constitution on said “heart of the Arab world.”

Yes, now Syria IS mixing weapons and preparing the capability of launching chemical weapons (a lot of which they got from Saddam Hussein via Iraq, fwiw).  You’ve simply got to be beyond insane to believe that things were worse across the Arab world under Bush.  It is nothing more than a doctrine of your frankly bizarre religious liberal fanaticism.

In the Pax Obama, the state of affairs is defined by two things: growing chaos and the massively growing influence of Islamist radicalism and terrorism. You voted for those things, too, for what it’s worth.

I have repeatedly stated that Barack Obama is NOT the Antichrist; because the Antichrist will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (see Daniel 9:27) - and it was the ROMANS who did that back in 70 AD.  And the last time I checked, Barack Obama was not a Roman or in any way related to the Roman world.

Obama is not the Antichrist; he is merely one of the many false christs whom Jesus said would come in the last days:

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many (Matthew 24:4-5)

He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them (Luke 21:8)

Obama’s followers in the mainstream media have crowned him with the halo of righteousness and messiahship:

This most wicked president who ever cursed America has – rather like al Qaeda – planted his OWN flag over America:

Who IS Obama?  He’s “black Jesus,” according to those who carried him to power.

And they say that in Obama, “prophecy is fulfilled.”

Because Barack Hussein Obama is the messiah of Democrat Party, and the ONLY messiah with whom they will have to do.  Barack Obama represented the moment when every single Democrat chose to side with the devil.

They have proclaimed him as their messiah and they will go up into heaven or – and here’s where they WILL go – down into hell with him.

At the core of every liberal beats the heart of a fascist.  It is in their soul to want to create a giant mega-state and then worship their Führer, or their Dear Leader, or their Chairman Mao, or their “Red God” Joseph Stalin.  They erect a government as God - and then they proceed to worship the dictator of their government as God.  Because to them he clearly IS God.

You have to wonder how a man who has presided over such astounding and staggering failure at every level and at every turn can be so worshiped.  Obama’s economy is a shambles.  What did he do the last four years?  He spent them blaming Bush.  And as he slams the Republicans who control the House of Representatives with absurd demands (such as: DOUBLING his demand of an $800 billion tax hike to a $1.6 trillion tax hike; demanding the ability to be able to hike the debt ceiling as his regime requires; changing the Senate rules to allow what previous Democrats came absolutely unglued over and crush the minority), you already see how he will explain his next four years of catastrophic economic failure: by blaming the Republicans.  Because if he doesn’t get all this the Republicans are to blame for rebelling against his fascist-dictator takeover of the government.  Meanwhile, the Middle East and the world are melting down all around America as we prepare for the war of Gog and Magog and finally Armageddon.  Directly because of what Obama has already done in just his first four years.

As we face the increasingly real prospect of going over the fiscal cliff and creating a new recession which may lead to the catastrophic depression I see coming, we do NOT have two parties realizing a national crisis and striving to come together for the good of the people; we see the lowest kind of political posturing and demagoguing.  And no one – NO ONE – is doing that more than Barack Obama.  Obama has successfully divided America more than it has ever been divided since the Civil War; and now he is trying to “break the Republican Party” even as he falsely campaigns himself as some messianic unifier.  And that level of deception is satanic in origin and demonic in result.

Just as Obama has wildly failed in everything but deceiving and demonizing, so also will the true Antichrist wildly fail – but still be worshiped by a people whose souls are owned by Satan.  You see that throughout the Book of Revelation; the worse things get, the more the people cling to their false messiah while shaking their fists in hate at the Real Messiah Jesus Christ.

And here’s the answer that is also the harbinger of the true Antichrist who is to come: it is the nature of antichrist to deceive with false words, just as Obama has so successfully done.  Only the unrighteous will believe these deceivers, but when a nation turns the corner of wickedness that will assure the antichrist leader of political domination.

The coming Antichrist will have the demonic wisdom to twist and distort words and tie the truth up in knots to the degree that no one will be able to know the truth after hearing his words.  He will be such a master of words that he will be able to deceive not merely millions but billions.  Where Jesus told us the Truth, the spirit of Antichrist is always to lie and tie the truth up in deceptive knots.

We have already received a picture of what is to come in the lies and slanders and deceptions of the false christ Obama; the true Antichrist to come will be able to lie and slander and twist truth on a completely different level, but ultimately it will be more of the same that we have already seen in the false christs whom liberals/socialists have already worshiped before.

When Liberals Demand That Women Be Allowed Into Combat, They Are Actually Demanding That Women Ultimately Be Drafted As Machine Gun-Fodder

If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.

From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:

Women in combat — it’s time
U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up.
December 3, 2012

When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.

That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”

Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.

For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”

In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.

One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.

Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.

Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.

“U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told.  Of course, women are already being raped, too.  So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land.  That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article.  Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat.  Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.

This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do?  And liberals say of course.  Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.

If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat.  Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available.  It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder.  And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?

Because women can do anything a man can do.  Including get blown to bits.

It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose.  Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.

Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.

When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right.  They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry.  And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.

Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.

There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder.  The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women?  And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.

Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants.  So women can be firefighters, too.  And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety?  Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars.  Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.

My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had.  But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.

Men and women are different.  Anybody but a fool knows that.  Which is why liberals don’t know it.

Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns.  Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight?  If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???

If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat.  ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register.  That’s what is at stake here.

There are things that women do every bit as well as men.  Fighting isn’t one of them.  Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man.  I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument.  No it wasn’t, you roach; you were whatever poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman.  But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.

What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.”  Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.

Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable.  And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.

Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.

For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh.  That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.

Title IX?  We don’t need that any more.  In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL!  Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports.  If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all.  And the same is true, of course, for professional sports.  We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a ”WTA” for tennis.  Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else.  They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.

It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same.  And it would be insane to suggest otherwise.   I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game.  That’s probably just as true for men, right?

If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?

The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.

How The Tribulation Begins, And How What You’re Watching On Your TV As We Speak Will Help Bring It To Pass

How does the Tribulation begin?  I was surprised to hear a pretty well-informed Christian answer that question by saying, “with the Rapture.”

Nope.

The Bible is very clear: the Tribulation officially kicks off when Israel signs a seven-year peace treaty with the Antichrist.

I see a lot of things very clearly now.  The world wants the beast to come much the way that I long for Messiah Jesus to come.  The world is pushing and pressing and manipulating and demagoguging and slandering as much as it can to prepare the way for the false messiah who will lead them to the ideological future of their dreams.

They don’t realize that the invariable result of the political and economic future they dream of is the closes thing one can get to literal hell on earth.  That is because “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t
believe” (2 Corinthians 4:4).  Reason is becoming increasingly possible because the truth is foolishness to the unbelieving mind (1 Corinthians 1:18).  “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” God has told us in Romans 1:22.  And God has begun to fulfill His Word that “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent” (1 Corinthians 1:19).

Human beings have been tainted and perverted by sin.  The Scriptures tell us that over and over again.  All kinds of evidences and experiments show that human senses do NOT necessarily lead us to truth.  And that truth is even more true when it comes to the ideas of our minds.  All of the many “-isms,” such as Marxism or communism or socialism or fascism or existentialism or nihilism or pretty much whatever ”-ism” you want to name, not only do not bring you to truth, and not only take you further away from the truth, but literally anesthetize and even inoculate us from being able to possibly see the world as it really is.

Do you want to know how we can see reality as it really, truly is?  We endeavor to see it as God sees it.  And we can do that by reading God’s Word and reshaping and reordering our minds to align with the Kingdom of God rather than the sinful nature of man.  When you look at the world through the lens or prism of Scripture, then and then alone can you begin to see reality as it truly is.

But secular humanists will not do that.  They will do ANYTHING but that, in fact.  They will NOT see the world the way the God who created it sees it.  They do not want to see God and they do not want to see reality the way God sees it.  Rather, they believe that the can create their OWN reality and replace our reality with the one that they have fabricated through their theories and their narratives.  The result is something that I have said many times on this blog: the secular humanist left have become the stupidest people on the face of the earth through sheer brute force of their wills.  They WILL NOT see, accept, or understand the real world; rather, they are as determined as their ultimate master, Satan, to impose their own reality by whatever means seem to work for them.

They will not see that the very actions they take to fabricate their Utopia (ignoring the brute fact of history that EVERY SINGLE SOCIALIST UTOPIA HAS GONE WILDLY WRONG) will cause the hell on earth that the Bible warned us of – as epitomized in “the people’s” upcoming decision to elect the Antichrist as their world leader.

Hal Lindsey put it this way back in 1973:

It’s once again very important for us to realize that the Book of Revelation is John’s firsthand account of what he saw and experienced when he was taken up into heaven.  How difficult it must have been for him with his first-century orientation to find adequate descriptive words to verbalize the incredible things he viewed!  Even fifty years ago the things described in the Book of Revelation were so far beyond our comprehension that no one dreamed they could happen apart from some supernatural assistance.

Now such things as John described are not only possible, but could happen within thirty minutes!  There are already enough nuclear-tipped missiles on station and ready for launching to do everything predicted in this chapter [chapter 8 of Revelation].  Dr. W.H. Pickering of Cal Tech confirmed this when he warned, “In half an hour the East and the West could destroy civilization.”

Although it is possible for God to supernaturally pull off every miracle in the Book of Revelation and use totally unheard-of means to do it, I personally believe that all the enormous ecological catastrophes described in this chapter are the direct result of nuclear weapons.  In actuality, man inflicts these judgments on himself.  God simply steps back and removes His restraining influence from man, allowing him to do what comes naturally out of his sinful nature.  In fact, if the Book of Revelation had never been written, we might well predict these very catastrophes within fifty years or less!  — Hal Lindsey, There’s A New World Coming, pp. 114-115

Man does this to himself.  Man chooses it.  Man does it.  Man votes for it.  Man elects it.  And we even find that: man cheers for it and even that man worships it.

The official kick-off to the Tribulation is Israel signing a covenant with the Antichrist.  And man will very much push Israel into that step.

The past 64 years, since Israel became a nation, Israel has had one or two allies with the rest of the world increasingly isolated against her.  But one of those allies was mighty America, and none of Israel’s enemies could defeat her with her great ally protecting her.

That period ended in 2008 when America voted for Barack Hussein Obama.  And America reaffirmed its choice earlier this month when it said that it wanted more of what Obama’s spiritual guide for 23 years prophetically called “God damn America.”

Israel is now more isolated than it has EVER been.

Israel is forced to contemplate an invasion of Gaza for the same reason it had to do so a few years ago: because Palestinian terrorists are launching hundreds of missiles that could land damn near ANYWHERE and which force a complete shutdown of Israeli society.  Such an indiscriminate attack against innocent civilians would be decried and condemned by the world if anyone else did it TO anyone else, but it is the Arab world viciously attacking Israel, and so the elite talking heads pooh-pooh the violence while reserving their condemnation against Israel.  An article from the generally leftist Daily Beast from when this last happened in 2009 proves what I’m arguing:

Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn’t dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel’s close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium. [...]

The current rocket attack is nothing new.  Arabs hate Israelis and love murdering their citizens and their children.  When they run out of rockets to fire at Israel, they demand a cease fire that prevents Israel from destroying the weapons that the terrorists will stockpile for the NEXT surprise attack against Israel’s people.  The terrorists stockpile and fire their rockets in dense population centers in homes and schools and hospitals counting on the fact that Israel will have to kill women and children to destroy the rockets that would otherwise be used to try to kill Jewish women and children.  The world that could frankly care less if Jewish women and children are murdered are outraged that Palestinian women and children are being killed.  It doesn’t matter if those Palestinian children are being killed because Palestinian terrorists are putting rockets in their cribs.  And so the world demands that the Arabs get their cease fire so they can stockpile more weapons and start the war again.  Over and over and over, as needed, until Israel is gone.  This vile game is called “international diplomacy.”

Israelis believed that Bush was pro-Israel to the tune of 88% affirming that statement.  When only 6% of Israelis view Obama as being “pro-Israel,” if you have eyes to see and ears to hear you understand that Obama’s election left Israel more isolated.

Further, the last time Israel was bombarded with rockets, Egypt was an ally that was firmly on Israel’s side.  Today the new Muslim Brotherhood terrorist president of Egypt has openly sided with the enemies of Israel and has passively allowed the Palestinians to use Egypt as a conduit for their rocket arsenal - with said rockets manufactured in Iran –  so they can keep trying to murder more Jews and provoke a reaction from Israel knowing that the world will condemn Israel.

The Prime Minister of Turkey just called Israel a terrorist state and urged the terrorists targeting Israel to keep murdering Jews.

An Associated Press reporter named Matthew Lee bravely called attention to the fact that Barack Obama is inherently useless and weak in actually standing up for Israel in ANY meaningful way and exposed the true cowardice that is the core of Obama:

But the American people voted for a president who would turn his back on Israel in true time of need.

Meanwhile, Iran is racing toward its nuclear weapons which represent the extinction of the state of Israel and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.

Iran WILL get nuclear weapons.  America voted for that on November 6th.  The Iranian leadership knows with certainty that Barack Hussein Obama will NEVER order a massive military attack against Iran.  Iran knows that it is 16,275,183,000,000 percent free to continue working on their goal of Armageddon and Obama will do nothing but offer rhetoric and meaningless sanctions to prevent what will now necessarily happen.

And allow me to cite the source that affirms that Obama’s sanctions have been completely ineffective just in case you are fool enough to believe that Obama was being honest with you:

Iran nuclear work at constant pace despite sanctions – IAEA
By Alexandria Sage and Fredrik Dahl | Reuters – November 20, 2012

PARIS/VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is enriching uranium at a constant pace and international sanctions aimed at making Tehran suspend the activity are having no visible impact, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said in unusually blunt remarks on Tuesday.

The point made by Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reinforced the view of many analysts that increased Western economic pressure on Iran has failed to make it change its nuclear course. [...]

So the only way to stop Iran is war.  But Obama won’t go to war.  And Iran knows full damn well Obama won’t go to war to stop them from threatening the existence of Israel.  Therefore Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iran will also have the means to deliver those weapons much sooner than the Obama administration has claimed.

Israel is being pushed and prodded and forced into the arms of Antichrist.  And Israel will ultimately do what the world wants and sign that peace covenant so that hell on earth may officially begin.

America will soon be getting what it most dearly yearns for: it will get to worship the beast and take his mark.

When It Was 3 AM And The US Consulate In Benghazi Was Being Attacked, Where Was Barack Obama???

I thought this needed to be framed and took a screen shot. The last picture has a GIF animation that makes the picture worth clicking on to take you to the original.  Just hit the back button to come back here:

The guy that just nailed Obama right to the wall with this did one of those GIF animation jobs to provide priceless animation of Hillary Clinton furiously scrubbing the wall to clean the famous bloody handprints on the column:

The al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya began at 9:40 p.m. local time.  The battle that ultimately killed an American ambassador, two incredibly heroic former SEALs and one other American went on for an agonizing seven hours during which time the CIA support site nearby repeatedly begged for permission to go in and help their fellow Americans under attack and were ordered to stand down.  So it was 3 AM in Benghazi, and Obama was sound asleep and continued to sleep contentedly through the night while Americans died during an enemy attack on foreign soil.

And what did Obama do the next day (September 12)?  He climbed aboard Air Force One and took a trip to Las Vegas so he could do a fundraiser.  He really was in Las Vegas on September 12, all right.  Meanwhile his crew of Chicago thugs was already lying up one side and down the other that what happened was NOT a terrorist attack or any kind of preplanned act of war against the United States on United States soil.  Nope.  It was just a bunch of unfortunately-violence-prone Muslims going as nuts as a bunch of monkeys because they saw a video that had been made in America which proved that our First Amendment needs to be abolished.  And of course it was just out of the blue, and couldn’t be foreseen, and the fact that it happened on the VERY significant day of “9/11″ clearly didn’t have anything at all to do with anything.  All their information, they claimed, said that’s all it was and they had absolutely zero information that terrorists had anything to do with it.

It turns out that the “spontaneous protest” that top White House spokespeople in fact never occurred.  It was a lie.  It never happened.  As history now records in Benghazi, Libya at the US Consulate according to the Associated Press:

Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.

Obama’s people lied.  There was no spontaneous protest that went bad.  There was no protest at all, in fact.  And no stupid video that they kept talking about had anything to do with anything when it came to that attack in Benghazi where the first United States Ambassador since 1979 was murdered at his post.

Obama claimed in his third debate with Mitt Romney that he was claiming that he referred to the Benghazi attack was what he described as “acts of terror” in a brief statement he gave just before jetting off to fundraise in Las Vegas.  But a couple of “buts”: first he referred to “acts of terror” immediately AFTER referencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  Isn’t it kind of possible that he was referring to THAT attack?  And second when he gave his address to the United Nations on September 25 (two full weeks AFTER the attack on Benghazi), Obama clearly pooh-poohed ”terrorism” as the cause of the Benghazi attack.  He never ONCE used words like “terrorist” or “terrorism” but SIX TIMES decried the Youtube video that was filmed by an American as being responsible for the attack that tragically killed an American ambassador.  So bullcrap to Obama claiming that he says that he clearly meant that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  He’s a lying weasel doing what lying weasels do.

Where was Obama as the former SEALs who had violated their “stand down” orders to save the lives of thirty Americans at the ultimate cost of their own?  Yeah, probably on a golf course in Las Vegas talking crony-capitalist grease-my-palm shop-talk with some rich liberal bigwigs.  Just as the collage picture above says.

When we find out that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team were BEGGING for increased security in a Libya that was in the process of INCREASINGLY falling to al Qaeda, the Obama administration was deciding to FURTHER REDUCE the security staff.  Why?  Because Obama wanted to sell the bogus delusion that Obama was the man who killed bin Laden (based on intelligence developed by George W. Bush), and that in killing bin Laden Obama had destroyed al Qaeda.  And in destroying al Qaeda Obama the messiah had won the war on terror.  And that meant “normalizing” relations with Libya and pulling our armed security guys out no matter that the country was falling apart and there were literally hundreds of “incidents” to prove it was falling apart.   That was the cynical political delusion that Obama was pimping.

The fact of the matter is that Obama keeps saying “no one gets left behind” when it comes to giving more people more socialism, but he was all too ready to let those Americans who perished in Libya get “left behind” as the orders from the Obama administration were to “stand down” and not help the Americans at the besieged US Consulate.

The fact of the matter is that Ambassador Chris Stevens had begged for more security from Obama.  And he got his security REDUCED in violent and chaotic Libya while his Svengali stand-in Valerie Jarrett got to enjoy the status of being the first political advisor EVER to get a full Secret Service detail when she was on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

The fact of the matter is that the intelligence and security professionals were warning Obama for MONTHS that sovereign US territory in Libya was under threat and that the United States Ambassador’s life was at risk.  AND OBAMA DID NOTHING that wasn’t incredibly stupid and even more incredibly wrong-headed during those months.

The fact of the matter is that we further learn that in fact Obama had THREE FULL WEEKS OF WARNING that the very attack by the very terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was going to happen.  AND HE DID NOTHING.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has attempted a cover-up that is FAR worse than anything Nixon did during Watergate.

And the fact of the matter is that this will be God damn America until Obama is exorcised out of the American people’s White House.

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

Allow me to introduce this story by citing the words of one of the few honest journalists left in the “profession”:

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.

Smoking gun.  This story amounts to a HUGE smoking gun.  Liberals looked and looked for evidence that George Bush knew or should have known about the original 9/11 attack but did nothing to prevent it.  They never found it because it never existed; and the fact is that Osama bin Laden declared America a “weak … paper tiger” and vowed to attack America as a result of Bill Clinton’s policies and COMPLETELY under Clinton’s watch, planned the 9/11 attack entirely under Clinton’s watch,brought in all the terrorists who attacked us entirely under Clinton’s watch, financed the operation entirely under Clinton’s watch, and completed virtually ALL of the necessary training for the attack under Bill Clinton’s watch.  It was never anything but vile to blame the attack on George Bush – whose only crime was being blindsided by the extent of the failure of the Clinton national security shambles that he left behind for Bush to inherit.

But we now have the same smoking gun proving that Obama either knew or should have known about this NEW 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on United States soil and that resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador since 1979: 

Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack’
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
 
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
 
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
 
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
 
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
 
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
 
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
 
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
 
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
 
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
 
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
 
“An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi,” Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. “Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

FactCheck.org – normally a left-leaning organization – has a devastating timeline to document just how incoherent and dishonest the Obama administration has been regarding this attack almost from the moment it happened until the present.

We now know that Obama had THREE WEEKS OF SPECIFIC WARNING ABOUT AL QAEDA ATTACKING THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA AND HE DID NOTHING.

We now know that the two former SEALs who laid down their lives did so by refusing the Obama administration’s orders to stand down because they lived – and the United States had until Obama always lived by – the doctrine that when Americans are under fire you go in and you save them from the enemy.

We now know that the US Ambassador and his staff in Libya were PLEADING for more security and that not only did Obama refuse to GIVE them more security but he actually CUT the insufficient security that they had prior to the attack (see also here).

And we now know that the reason that Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with was because of his role in what would clearly amount to a bigger scandal than the Iran-Contra affair if the media were honest; because we have details of secret White House arms transfers THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

We most certainly know that there was NO “spontaneous protest” prior to the well-coordinated and preplanned terrorist attack that featured multiple phases/waves as well as both direct AND indirect fire, and that all Obama did for the first three full weeks PLUS was offer nothing but deceitful fabrications intended to stave off scrutiny until AFTER Obama was elected and there was no longer any way to throw his weasel ass out of office.

We now know that Obama had to have been briefed on the deteriorating conditions and potential 9/11 attacks at least the day before the attack.  And given that we KNOW that Obama knew this, and given that we KNOW that Obama repeatedly brought up “spontaneous protests” and “the video” when he KNEW FOR A FACT that he was lying to the American people and to the entire world.  There is NO question that Obama fabricated a linkage to a protest that never even happened and to a video that had nothing to do with the attack.  And he cynically and deceitfully lied and slandered our First Amendment freedoms to give himself political cover to try to conceal his massive failure to govern and to lead.  And what has been unfolding ever since was an incompetent cover-up to try to obfuscate incompetent presidential leadership.

And yes, now we know that the Obama administration had three weeks of credible and specific warning describing exactly who was going to attack the consulate and exactly how they were going to do it.  And Obama decided to go campaign instead of dealing with it both before and immediately after the disaster.

Obama has now thoroughly demonstrated that he will NOT come clean with the facts.  Because he knows the American people would vote him out if they knew just how terribly and despicably he had failed.

The best way to judge Obama is to judge him by his own party’s attacks against George W. Bush.  And Obama fails wildly by that metric in a way that Bush did not.