Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Scandal Far, FAR Worse Than Nixon’s Watergate Cover-Up EVER Was.

First of all, do you know what the Watergate cover-up was about?

You probably don’t.

Most people – misinformed as they are by a mainstream media propaganda operation that is second only to the Nazi’s Ministry of Propaganda – believe that Nixon’s infamous “Plumbers” Unit was sent into the Watergate Hotel to look for information that would help his re-election campaign.  That is simply false.

So what were Nixon’s “Plumbers” looking for?

Late June-July 1971: Nixon Authorizes ‘Plumbers,’ Orders Media Leaks to Smear Ellsberg

 

President Nixon authorizes the creation of a “special investigations unit,” later nicknamed the “Plumbers,” to root out and seal media leaks. The first target is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press (see June 13, 1971); the team will burglarize the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in hopes of securing information that the White House can use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility (see September 9, 1971). Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervises the “Plumbers,” will later say that the Ellsberg burglary is “the seminal Watergate episode.” Author Barry Werth will later write, “[L]ike all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.” During the upcoming court battle over the documents, Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.” Whatever damaging information the “Plumbers” can find on Ellsberg will be itself leaked to the press, Nixon says. “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges (see June 28, 1971) ]. Just get everything out. Try him in the press… leak it out.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 84-87]

The Plumbers were looking for dirt to smear Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Here’s the thing: what did the Pentagon Papers reveal?  Who – or perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, which administration – did the Pentagon Papers indict?  The boldfaced type provides the answer:

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the “Pentagon Papers.” The papers comprised the U.S. military’s account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration’s preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House “Plumbers” group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

The simple fact of history – despite all the lies that the liberal ideologues have told masquerading as “journalists” – is that Richard Nixon was watching a liberal media campaign based on anonymous leaks erode and undermine U.S. foreign policy that had been approved by successive DEMOCRAT administrations (i.e., both the Kennedy and the Johnson administrations).  Barack Obama notwithstanding, American presidents have the duty to GOVERN and LEAD based on actual REALITY.  Both Republican and DEMOCRAT presidents who had sat in the Oval Office had made the tough calls based on the best intelligence ANY American will ever have access to.  And Nixon was watching the mainstream media communist fascists undermine that policy with a campaign of illegal leaks to selectively embarrass and ultimately undermine and cause the military defeat of the United States of America.

The Pentagon Papers documented that the DEMOCRAT LBJ administration had done some despicable things in their conduct of carrying out the Vietnam War.  They did NOT indict the Nixon administration:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

The Nixon presidency did not begin until 1969.

It’s amazing how history damns Democrats again and again and again.  The Civil War was waged against the United States by DEMOCRATS.  The Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the DEMOCRAT Party.  Prior to the Vietnam War – which had “DEMOCRAT” written all over it – Harry Truman’s incompetence and stupidity literally caused the Korean War in which nearly 60,000 Americans miserably perished.  History reveals that Harry Truman first refused to give weapons to the South Korean government, which emboldened the communist North which was armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated Soviet and Chinese weaponry:

Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments, but the United States refused to give South Korea any heavy weapons in order to ensure that its military could only be used for preserving internal order and self-defense. By contrast, Pyongyang was well-equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks.

History reveals that Harry Truman then proceeded to massively screw up by failing to list South Korea in their zone of protection which gave North Korea, the USSR and China the green light to attack the South:

But just because he did not include South Korea as part of his “defensive perimeter,” it was said later on that such omission had served to give the communists “the green light” to try to overrun Korea.

Emboldened by the exclusion of South Korea from the American defense line in the Pacific zone in the so-called Acheson Declaration, Kim Il-sung decided to launch an outright invasion of the South

Just as history also reveals that Harry Truman – in a pattern that has characterized Democrat administrations for decade after decade – disarmed and weakened America so that we were in no shape to fight anybody anywhere which further emboldened our enemies.

All that the Democrat fiasco in Vietnam was was a longstanding continuation of Democrat fiascos that ultimately included Bill Clinton disarming America and inviting the 9/11 attacks before Bush prior to Obama baring America’s throat to terrorist attacks after Bush.

As much as you want to dump your hate on Richard Nixon, his crime was that he was trying to protect a Democrat administration in order to protect American foreign policy.  And he was trying to expose a dishonest and corrupt media propaganda operation.  And he himself used corrupt and dishonest tactics to accomplish those goals.  And he got busted.  By the very liberal communist fascist rat bastard pseudo-”journalists” who were selectively illegally leaking classified government documents in order to bring about America’s defeat in the Vietnam War.

We now know that Barack Obama is the kind of Chicago thug who criminally used the IRS to target his political opponents.  The word “Nixonian” doesn’t begin to do Obama’s thug tactics justice.  You have to call it “Obamian.”  And if the crap that Obama is pulling doesn’t qualify as “enemies list” garbage, then NOTHING does.

We also know that Obama has his lapdog Kathleen Sabelius ILLEGALLY shaking down businesses to coerce them to give money for ObamaCare (see also here).  It is specifically illegal for someone in such an official capacity to strongarm businesses that you are regulating and asking them for money.  Democrats were besides themselves with frothing rage when Reagan did something like this to get around specific Congressional refusal to fund a program during Iran-Contra.  And they passed a law to criminalize it.  Just as they passed laws criminalizing the Watergate crap that Obama just pulled.  Again, this is Obamaian – because it goes beyond “Nixonian.”

This thug Obama is a demon-possessed criminal who has contaminated the White House beyond repair.  He is the epitome of what his cockroach pastor for 23 years railed when he said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!”

But let’s get back to Benghazi.  We now know that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, incompetent failure before the 9/11 (2012) attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, cowardly failure during the attack to bring any U.S. assets to bear to help the Americans – including the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the failed Carter years – who ultimately perished during the attack.  And we most certainly know that they tried to cover-up the crystal-clear connection to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Obama claims that he called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the next day.  Bullcrap.

Obama supporters (read, “dishonest lying weasels”) claim that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Right. And I called Obama an honest man and a good leader. Obama had just referred to the 9/11/2001 attacks – which even Obama would call “acts of terror” – immediately prior to his statement that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” There is absolutely NO reason – grammatical or logical – to believe that Obama was referring to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with that reference. And Obama went on to PROVE that he wasn’t referring to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” by going out and repeatedly claiming that it was NOT an act of terror, but a mob protest gone bad over a Youtube video. Which it was NOT.

Here’s the thing: the very same NIGHT that Obama gave that speech above – at an event memorializing the 9/11/2001 attacks – he gave an interview to 60 minutes.  Let’s look at a snippet from that interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

So CBS stated as a FACT that Obama “went out of his way to avoid the use of the word terrorism” and Obama clearly continued to avoid using the word “terrorism.”  And if “it was still too early to tell” if it was an act of terror” the night AFTER he gave the speech in which he now claims that he claimed that it WAS an act of terror, well, you see the pretzel Obama twisted the truth in.  Which pretty much proves that when Obama later said he DID call it “terrorism” was a lie.  A lie from a serial liar.  And what we have had was a cover-up by the Obama administration from the very start. 

And why did Obama attempt this cover-up?  Was it for the sake of the previous Republican administration the way Nixon tried to protect the previous Democrat administration?  Nope.  Obama has demonstrated that he is a vicious partisan ideologue who would NEVER lift a finger to ever do anything but demonize and slander the Bush administration.  Was it to protect U.S. foreign policy?  Nope.  Obama was two months from an election and the only thing he was trying to protect was his own scrawny political neck.

Republicans pointed out the TRUTH from the outset. They said the very DAY that Susan Rice went out on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly lied to the American people that “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration.”  Which was obvious to anyone who wasn’t a demon-possessed Obama ideologue.

But as a whole, we know that the Chicago thug Obama administration and the mainstream media thug propaganda were on the same damn page.

The funny thing is that the Chicago thug Obama administration, the Democrat Party propaganda machine and the mainstream media cockroaches are all frantically claiming that there’s nothing to see in any Benghazi investigation because the Republicans are trying to politicize it.  Here’s the thing: these Democrat roaches have just been caught RED-HANDED “politicizing” Benghazi from the very first moments:

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

Which is to say that the Obama State Department falsified the truth and engaged in the very FIRST act of “politicizing.”  They literally admit here to altering the facts so their opponents won’t be able to point out that they were incompetent fools.  Which the facts now prove that they very clearly were.

Obama had a completely bogus narrative that, because he had been the president when we got Osama bin Laden, that somehow he had decimated al Qaeda and the War on Terror was over.  Obama stated that as a fact again and again and again prior to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi planned and carried out to correspond with the anniversary of the 9/11 attack against America in 2001.

The official liar of the Obama Administration, Press Secretary Jay Carney, had told the American people this:

“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” Mr. Carney said on Nov. 28.

We now know that like everything ELSE the most dishonest administration in American history has claimed, that this was a pure lie.  We now know that the talking points went through a DOZEN revisions in order to falsely scrub any connection to al Qaeda or terrorism in order to “support” the Obama lie that the attack was a protest over a video gone bad.  We now know that CIA director (and war hero) David Petraeus was “frustrated” and “surprised” by Obama’s whitewash and distortion of the Benghazi talking points.  Just as the number two man in Libya who clearly KNEW what had actually happened said “my jaw hit the floor” when he heard Susan Rice repeatedly report the Obama lie again and again and again and again and again five days after the attack.

We now know that – contrary to the Barack Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department official lies – that the intelligence IMMEDIATELY claimed that the Benghazi attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.  And we now know that Obama and Clinton deliberately falsified the intelligence and lied to the American people to cover their own incompetence and their own political aspirations.

Obama lied, Americans died.  Clinton lied, Americans died.  Unlike anything that happened during Watergate. Pat Smith, whose son Sean was murdered, is furious because Hillary Clinton looked her right in the eye and lied to her.  She now says, “She has her child.  I don’t have mine because of her.”  Americans died for Obama’s and Clinton’s sins.

But let’s forget all about Pat Smith’s pain.  After all, as Jay Carney claimed, “It happened a long time ago” (after eight months of delay and cover-ups).  And of course Hillary Clinton exlaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?” 

Susan Rice and Jay Carney need to go to prison – along with these IRS thugs - for their official lies and participation in an obvious cover-up.  Barack Obama needs to be impeached for his high crimes.  And Hillary Clinton needs to never show her face in public again.

Suddenly Everybody Who Is Anybody In America Says Gay Marriage Is The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread. That’s Because This Is God Damn America Now.

Hillary Clinton just came out in a slick video stating that homosexuals are “citizens” who therefore have the right to marry.  She of course used to say the exact opposite.

I completely agree with the actual facts in her statement.  As depraved and perverted as homosexuals are, the ones who were born here (remember, Obama is trying to open the immigration floodgates to as many homosexuals from other countries as he can) ARE in fact citizens.  And of COURSE U.S. citizens ought to have the right to marry.

Which is why I believe that a homosexual has the right to marry any legally competent adult of the opposite sex who is stupid enough to have them.

That’s because marriage is the union between one man and one woman – as Obama famously said not only in Rick Warren’s forum, but on the very eve of the 2008 election on November 3rd.  But it’s one thing to have “the right to marry” and quite another thing for homosexuals to have the “right” to pervert and degrade marriage to make what was formerly holy matrimony as depraved as they are.

Of course Obama is now celebrated by the left for baiting and switching, much the same way he’s celebrated for demonizing George Bush as being “unpatriotic” and “un-American” for his $4 trillion in debt over eight years before racking up $6 trillion more in debt in only four years.

Under liberalism, abject moral hypocrisy is a virtue.  That’s just the way these people are.

And that’s the way all RINOs are, too.  They are people who hold up their finger to the political winds and, standing for nothing, shift in whichever direction those winds blow.

Republicans ran a RINO against Barack Obama in 2008.  The RINO lost.  They ran a RINO against Obama in 2012.  And sure as shooting cow pies in place of skeet, the RINO lost.

Rob Portman is clearly hoping to be the RINO who gets to lose in 2016.

I love Portman’s reasoning.  His son is homosexual, so he’s for gay marriage.

I mean, if Portman’s kid was a rapist child molester, would Portman suddenly support rape and child molesting?  The answer, of course, is that he most certainly WOULD support rape and child molesting - if that’s what was popular.

That’s the thing about RINOs.  They are morally weak people who stand for nothing.

I think Americans have proven they will vote for somebody who is authentically evil over somebody who is inauthentically a puff of fart gas in the wind.

I am sick to my guts of RINOs.  I’ll never vote for a damn RINO again.  If Rob Portman is the GOP nominee, I’ll be penciling in Bugs Bunny – who at least always had the virtue of ending up as the winner in all the cartoons.

The gay rights movement used to feature a group called NAMBLA.  That’s the “Man/Boy Love Association.”

Here’s the skinny on that inconvenient truth:

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

Sodomizing young children used to be perfectly fine with the homosexual movement, and you can rest damn assured that it will be for it again – much the way Barack Obama was “for” gay marriage before he was “against” it before he was “for” it again.

Democrats would assure you that such a thing will never happened.  Other than the fact that these liberal turds have ALREADY BEEN FOR IT aside, of course.  But what happened with your Barack Obamas and your Bill and Hillary Clintons will happen with child molesters, too.  Just remember a few facts: 1) pedophiles were born that way as much as homosexuals were born queer; and who are we to legislate against “nature”???  2) Times have changed, and what was wrong when it was convenient for it to be wrong is now just as right as it used to be wrong.  3) If we allow young girls the choice to get legal and free abortions when their “old man” knocks them up, why shouldn’t we allow young boys the right to bend over for some older man???  And 4) when liberals do it it’s called “evolving” but when conservatives do it its called ”flip flopping.”

So let me assure you that as part of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” we’re soon going to have child molesters, practitioners of bestiality, and group marriages to be legal.  Because, after all, we’re “tolerant,” aren’t we?  And these people should all have the right to follow their hearts and marry whomever they wish.  And of course if a guy wants to marry his canary, or if a woman wants to marry her stallion so she can be mounted the way she’s always dreamed, then who the hell are YOU to judge, you intolerant prick???

Liberalism guarantees all of this wickedness along with crap that my mind isn’t diseased enough to even imagine.  Because that’s the essence of liberalism.

The great American pastor John MacArthur recently said that the Democrat Party’s platform is Romans chapter one.  And of course he’s right.

In Romans chapter one, a society continues to morally deteriorate until it sinks to the absolute lowest rock bottom level of moral sewage that sure enough the Democrat Party has sunk America to.

The United States of America used to call itself “one nation under God.”  We used to say, “In God we trust.”  We put our hands on Bibles when we took sacred oaths, as if we believed that the Book that called homosexuality an “abomination” actually meant something.

God blessed this nation as He has never blessed any other.  And when God takes that blessing away, it will amount to a curse such that this nation will fall like no other nation has EVER fallen before.  America’s fall will be cataclysmic and catastrophic simply by virtue of the dizzying heights from which we will fall.

When we voted for Barack Obama in 2008, we voted to inherit damnation such as no nation in all of human history has ever experienced.  And when we re-elected this wicked man, we confirmed that demand to be “God damn America” as Obama’s reverend and spiritual mentor for over twenty years once screeched from the pulpit of Obama’s church.

This country is going to get the hell it voted for.

The beast is coming.  The United States of America will be cheering when he arrives.  And nobody will be cheering more loudly than Democrats.

I write this to you as one who sits on the gate of America the way Lot sat on the gate of Sodom, waiting for the brimstone and the fire to start falling.

Liberals CONTINUE To Document That They Despise Housewives And Mothers

Hillary Clinton stepped in it and left the stinky tracks on the American consciousness in the 1992:

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life. “

Teresa Heinz-Kerry stepped in it and proved that the Democrat war on housewives and stay-at-home moms was hardly a “Fluke” (pardon the pun):

Q: You’d be different from Laura Bush?

A: Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.

Laura Bush was a public school teacher and a librarian as a “grown-up,” but that’s only a “real” job if you walk out on your classroom to strike for more union garbage, apparently.

And of course Hillary Rosen stomped in it and pretty much rubbed it all over the place:

“Guess what?” Rosen said. “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing.”

“Guess what?”  Conservatives said.  “Hillary Rosen visited the Obama White House 35 times - literally six times more often than walking embarrassment Vice President Joe Biden and more than twice as much as Obama’s CIA director. ”

And guess what?  This Hillary Rosen step-in-it moment also follows the fact that the Obama White House is only paying women 4/5ths what it is paying men.

And guess what?  It follows a VERY disturbing liberal trend that’s going on worldwide revealing a pathological hostility to families and stay-at-home moms and anything that gets in the way of government indoctrination of children.  And it follows a downright CREEPY trend that Barack Obama and Democrats have established in wanting our kids.

And Bill Maher – the guy who gave Obama a million dollars AFTER saying the following things about women -

• BILL MAHER: Bristol claims that the night she lost her virginity, she had accidentally gotten drunk on wine coolers that she didn’t know contained alcohol and then — and then blacked out and didn’t remember a thing. Oh, the Palins. I’ll tell you the s–t doesn’t fall far from the bat. Bristol, just admit it, you were horny, and while we’re at it, stop claiming that you were on birth control pills that didn’t work when you got pregnant. Here’s a tip, hon – they’re not birth control pills if they’re shaped like Fred Flintstone.
• BILL MAHER: “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you…”
• BILL MAHER: But I’ve often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I’d be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They’re sweet. They’re loving. They’re kind, but they don’t mentally advance at all. … Dogs are like retarded children.” — Bill Maher
• BILL MAHER: “And finally, new rule – and I never thought I’d be the one to say this – but DON’T show me your tits! (laughter) Last week the world’s first nurse-in was held to protest the case of a woman who was breastfeeding in public and asked by an Applebee’s manager not to leave but just to cover up a little bit. Because the wait staff got tired of hearing, ‘I’ll have what that kid’s having!’ (laughter) I’m not trying to be insensitive, here. I know your baby needs to eat, but so do I and this is Applebee’s, so I’m already nautious [sic]. (laughter) Breastfeeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don’t want to watch strangers performing intimate acts. At least not for free. (laughter) It cheapens it. But breastfeeding activists – yes, breastfeeding activists, called Lactivists (laughter) – say this is a human right and appropriate everywhere, because it’s natural. Well, so is masturbating, but I generally don’t do that at Applebee’s

I could actually just go on and on, but you get the point.  The guy who gave Obama a MILLION DOLLARS - or to put it another way the guy whose MILLION DOLLARS Obama is keeping – has a visceral hatred of women and he’s a big part of the Democrat Party fundraising operation.  Just to show which side is truly “anti-woman.”  And which side is abject hypocrites on a daily basis (see also here).

Well, all that aside, the man who is so honored by Barack Obama that Obama has steadfastly refused to return Maher’s gift now has this to say about the Hillary Rosen-Ann Romney controversy:

“The language here was, perhaps, inartful, or perhaps America is a society that lives to fight stupid, non-consequential, meaningless controversies and this is the new one,” Bill Maher said during the panel portion of his HBO show “Real Time” last night.

“But what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work. No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job, I remember that I was a handful. Okay, but there is a big difference in being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your ass out of the door at 7am when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, and even if you’re unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is a different kind of tough thing,” Maher observed last night.

Being a liberal means being stupid times arrogant times evil squared.

I liked the retort to Bill Maher and the Democrat Party and the Barack Obama who gladly accepts Bill Maher’s million dollars that I came across:

You know what else is different? Putting on a strong front and managing not to lose one’s cool when the kids are misbehaving and trying to kill each other. The same goes for crawling out of bed at 3:30 a.m. when your colicky baby needs to be held more than you need sleep. Or prying open a stubborn toddler’s mouth so he/she won’t starve to death due to his/her weird hunger strike. Let’s not forget figuring out a way to get the children off the playground when they refuse to leave. These are all challenges I’ve faced as an aunt, and I can’t even begin to imagine how much of a struggle it is to be a parent and encounter these things every day. The day-to-day annoyances and occasional meltdowns are trivial, but raising happy, healthy children is not an easy, comparable task.

And yet it makes sense that Maher, who isn’t a parent himself, wouldn’t understand that striving to be the best dad/mom possible is just as hard — perhaps even more difficult — than working with a prickly manager and going to the office in frigid temperatures.

The funniest thing of all is how you’ve got Democrats publicly whining about how the “war on women” they started has backfired on them and how unfair it is.

Hillary Clinton’s Solemn Oath To Afghan Women: ‘We Will NOT Abandon You’ (Until Obama Cuts And Runs And Abandons You)

Another Obama promise bites the dust.  We can add the lie below to Obama’s “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal“; we can add that lie to Obama’s very first executive order swearing that he would close Gitmo within one year (psst: it’s still open); we can add that lie to Obama’s promise to accept matching campaign funds (until he broke that promise) and Obama’s promise that he would not accept super pac money (until he broke that promise); we can add that lie to a long list of Obama flat-out lies (see also here).

Sorry, women of Afghanistan.  I know this will be an incredibly painful lesson as Barack Obama returns you to the state of abject slavery that George Bush delivered you from.  Just remember from now on NEVER to trust Democrats; they will promise you the world only to completely abandon you the moment it becomes politically expedient for them to do so.

Status of Afghan women threatens Hillary Clinton’s legacy
The secretary of State has devoted herself to the issue, but gains made may be reversed as Afghanistan’s conservatives become more powerful in the West’s wake.
By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
April 8, 2012, 6:05 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In the final months of her tenure as secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting a long retreat on a cause close to her heart, and to her legacy — the status of Afghan women.

Clinton embraced the cause long before the first U.S. troops landed in the country, and as secretary of State she has brought Afghan women worldwide attention, political power and unbending promises of American support.

“We will not abandon you,” she pledged.

But now, with U.S. officials laying plans to remove most troops in two years, the Afghan government and other institutions appear to be adjusting their positions on women’s rights to accommodate conservative factions. Restrictions on women have made a comeback.

“Most of women’s important achievements over the last decade are likely to be reversed,” predicted a bleak report issued last month by the Afghan Human Rights and Democracy Organization, a nonprofit in Kabul funded by Western governments and private groups.

This puts Clinton in a tough spot. Among senior U.S. officials, none is more closely associated with women’s rights: When prominent Afghan women are alarmed by developments at home, they often fire off emails to Clinton’s staff.

“She has been a very strong conscience of the world on this issue,” said Wazhma Frogh, director of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security in the Afghan capital, Kabul. “We have leaned on her help in the past, and we are looking to her help for our future.”

Clinton insists that the United States views women’s rights as a nonnegotiable “red line.” At a recent meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council, she insisted that “any peace that is attempted to be made by excluding more than half the population is no peace at all. It is a figment that will not last…. We will not waver on this point.”

Yet administration officials also acknowledge sharp limits to what America can do. Even future U.S. funding to help women is uncertain.

Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador at large for women and a longtime Clinton aide, said that American officials remain influential and will do all they can.

“But this is going to be in the end an Afghan-led process,” she said. “Ultimately, it is going to be the Afghans who are in the driver’s seat. We can’t see the future. This is a work in progress — we don’t know — we hope it will be progress.”

Senior U.S. officials see Afghanistan as an intractable foreign policy mess that will only get worse as long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain in the country. Winding down the U.S. commitment has become an overriding priority.

As America’s chief diplomat, Clinton has won praise not only from liberals, but also from conservatives. Gallup polls have found she is the nation’s most admired woman for each of the last 10 years.

Clinton has signaled that she will step down as top U.S. diplomat early next year, and the fate of Afghan women may not be clear until long after her departure. Even so, a reversal on women’s rights would be a blow to Clinton’s legacy.

“People will identify her with whatever happens,” said Shamila Chaudhary, who was National Security Council advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan until late last year and is now with the Eurasia Group research firm in Washington. “There’s a huge reputational risk in this for her.”

Clinton’s advocacy for women in Afghanistan goes back to her time in the Senate before the Sept . 11 attacks, when the world was horrified to see how the Taliban regime had marginalized women.

Clinton pushed for guaranteed seats for women in the Afghan parliament and other government bodies and has made sure that the United States has amply funded programs to support women’s health and education, businesses, legal clinics and shelters. Clinton was among the Western officials who lobbied the Afghan government to set up a women’s ministry and enact a tough law barring violence against women.

Her efforts have contributed to Afghan women’s gains. Over the last decade, women’s life expectancy there has increased from 42 to 64 years, and the number of girls in school has gone from 10,000 to 2.5 million.

But two months ago, the country’s top religious body, the Ulema Council, issued an edict that men are “fundamental” and women “secondary,” and barred women from mingling with men in schools or the workplace. Afghan President Hamid Karzai appeared to embrace the ruling, setting off an international outcry.

When Clinton called Karzai on March 8 to demand an explanation, Karzai said the ruling was only “advisory” and insisted that he stood by the Afghan Constitution’s guarantees of equality for women.

Yet the incident was widely seen as proof that Karzai and other Afghan institutions have started to position themselves for the more conservative era they see ahead.

Karzai “has a lot to lose if he can’t find a way to reach an accommodation with the Taliban,” said Heather Barr of Human Rights Watch in Kabul. “The consequences for him of moving against women’s rights are probably a lot less serious.”

Clinton’s pressure helped gain women nine seats in the High Peace Council, a body appointed to help direct the negotiations with the Taliban. But so far, Afghan women have been largely shut out of the preliminary talks, former First Lady Laura Bush, another advocate for the women’s cause, said during the meeting of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council.

There are other trouble signs. Dozens of mixed-gender and girls schools have been destroyed by insurgents in recent years, including 74 in 2010 alone, Amnesty International says. Prominent female politicians have been killed and others face growing threats of violence, Amnesty says.

U.S. spending for Afghan women, like other aid, has begun to decline, women’s advocates say. Although the administration is committed to long-term development aid to Afghanistan, Verveer acknowledged that decisions on such appropriations “will be a negotiation between the administration and the Congress.”

Although Clinton has remained focused on women’s rights, others in the Obama administration have concentrated most on security goals, starting with winning Taliban commitments to break off ties with Al Qaeda, say current and former U.S. officials.

If the negotiators are able to work out an agreement on security and other key issues, “the final deal won’t be held up by a disagreement over women’s rights,” Chaudhary predicted. “No way.”

You can go back to what Democrats did to Bush on Iraq to see that Democrats are 100 percent reliable – to abandon their own words and instead cut and run when their allies need them the most:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

George Bush won his war in Iraq that Barack Obama demonized.  Vice President Joe Biden literally tried to claim credit for Iraq, claiming, “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama proceeded to piss that victory away by not bothering for three years to get any kind of agreement to keep US forces in as peacekeepers whatsoever.  And now we find that Barack Obama is very obviously losing his war in Afghanistan.

And proving that anybody who trusts a Democrat might as well put a “kick-me” sign over their face.

Obama Says He’s Not Bluffing With Iran (Note: His Own Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Says He’s Bluffing)

Obama recently said:

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let describe very specifically why this is important to us.

But as I have previously pointed out, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had an exchange with a student in Tunisia that very much says otherwise:

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Hillary most certainly wasn’t speaking on the behalf of the Republican Party, which has always supported Israel and no president of which has EVER so blatantly snubbed an Israeli Prime Minister as did Barack Obama.

When Netanyahu comes to visit Obama today, I hope it is the same Benjamin Netanyahu who sat stunned with shock and outrage that an Israeli Prime Minister could ever be so contemptuously disrespected in an American White House.

And I hope that Netanyahu knows about Hillary Clinton’s words that we shouldn’t really trust a damn word this administration says when it comes to – how was it described again for Hillary Clinton? – “the Zionist lobbies.”

Obama wants to push this crisis back until after he gets re-elected so he can hang Israel out to dry without having to worry about it.  Obama knows that Israel doesn’t have the capabilities that the United States has, and that Israel therefore has a much narrower winder to effectively strike than does the U.S.  He should have dealt with this years ago but – as he has done his entire career – he just kept voting “present.” And he’s going to CONTINUE voting “present” until it’s too late for Israel unless Israel does something about it themselves. 

We can easily go back to 2007 when George Bush was dead right about Iran and Obama and his two senior stooges were dead wrong about Iran.  Obama hasn’t learned a damned thing since then because his worldview insulates him from reality.  All Obama understands is the politics of blame and demonization; and just as he’s spent the last three plus years blaming Bush for all of his failed policies, now he will begin to blame Israel for all the results of his failed policies when Israel is forced to attack Iran because of Obama’s history of “voting present” on Iran as all the fecal matter truly starts hitting the nuclear powered rotary oscillator that Iran has been building during the entire Obama presidency.

So I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu remembers that Israel was forged out of the Holocaust under the principle of “Never again” – meaning the principle that never again would the Jewish people be forced to depend on the failed promises of other nations to ensure their survival.  For Israel to lose control over their military destiny because some posturing fool made a bunch of empty promises would be the nadir of foolishness.

I stand with you, Israel.  I stand with you, Mister Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And I urge you to remember the repeated contempt and hostility that this president has demonstrated toward the only Jewish state in the world as you consider whether he will stand with you now.

Hillary Clinton In Tunisia: Don’t Worry, ‘Zionist’ Haters, Hillary Clinton And The Obama Administration Have Your Jew-Hating Back

This would be beyond belief if it wasn’t coming out of the Obama administration.

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Now you know why Israel would be the greatest collection of fools in the history of the world to trust the Obama administration as their very survival becomes an issue as Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear state.

I frankly don’t know what more the Obama regime can do to assure Israel that they don’t dare trust the United States under Obama not to stab them in the back and screw them if Israel trusts them.

Notice: Hillary Clinton doesn’t bat an eyelash at the mention of “Zionists.”  She literally assures the questioner not to worry what (Democrat politicians) say because they are only mouthing what people want to hear with no intention of following through on their promised support of Israel.

So Obama came out and said that “he doesn’t bluff” when it comes to Iran.  But, hey, if you hate Israel and want to see her wiped off the map by nuclear Iran, don’t worry: that’s just a bluff – according to Obama’s own Secretary of State.

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to visit the White House; let’s not forget how Obama contemptuously disrespected Bibi the last time he came to town.

So maybe now you can understand why Israel announced that when it came time for them to attack Iran, they would most definitely not warn the most dishonest and depraved administration in the history of the United States of what they were about to do.  Especially given the fact that  Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has already spilled the beans once about Israel’s plans to defend her right to exist.

You can go back to December 5, 2007 when Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all attacked George Bush for believing that Iran’s nuclear program was a threat:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

[...]

When – not if – Israel attacks Iran and ignites massive tensions and possible global war, nobody will be more to blame than Barack Obama and the other two stooges Biden and Clinton.

These Democrats – who demonized President Bush for trying to do something about Iran’s growing nuclear program before it was  too late – have had three full years to do something to prevent Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  And they couldn’t have failed more.

I keep saying it: the beast is coming.  And Barack Obama will be the Antichrist’s most useful idiot.

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party - turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

ObamaCare Will Make The Rubble Of Our Economy And Housing Bounce Beginning January 2013

Curtis LeMay had a way with words.  One of his sayings concerning America’s mortal enemies was:

“We should bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age, and then make the rubble bounce.”

By that measure, America is Obama’s mortal enemy.  Because that’s exactly what he’s going to do with both the American economy and the American housing market beginning January 1, 2013.  Both are already in ruins.  But Obama is going to bomb them again and make the rubble bounce.

Let me first refresh your memory of Obama’s promise to the American people:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” – then-candidate for President Sen. Barack Obama, September 12, 2008

To quote Joe Wilson, Obama lied:

3.8% Medicare tax on the sale of YOUR HOUSE
August 21st, 2011 | Author: milwaukeeco1

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property could slam middle-income families with a new tax they can’t afford.

This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare. The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.

Additional Document: The Costly Consequences of Health Care Reform (Courtesy of the Budget Committee)

The Obama economy is rancid.  In Bill Clinton’s words:

“I hate to sound like a broken record but we could create an awesome number of jobs from this in this lousy economy.”

And Clinton is obviously a DEMOCRAT, which is to say that “lousy economy” is the most positive spin you can GIVE Obama’s economy.

And our housing market is ABOUT TO GET WORSE AS IT IS.

If that isn’t bad enough, the medical exclusion has been increased from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10%, which will cost anyone (in many cases people who make well under $250k/yr) who deducts medical expenses.  Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will be reduced to $2,500 down from $5,000.  And there will be a new medical appliance tax that will hit a lot of people.

ObamaCare is literally shaping up to be a death sentence for special needs children (after it destroys those children’s parents’ savings).  You know, if said family can afford to stay in their house after the tax hits them.

If not enough Republicans get elected to gut this monstrosity, or if the Supreme Court doesn’t find the mandate to force the American people to purchase insurance unconstitutional, America is going to look back to the good old days that we’re living through right now.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, the Obama administration – which promised that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up one dime under his regime, will be going before the Supreme Court to argue that their mandate which will soon hit every American is a TAX.  Under ObamaCare, be ready to pay much more to get much less.

Leftist Newsweek Editor Admits Obama Wasn’t Ready To Be President. Mind You, He Never WILL BE Ready

Who would have guessed that a Marxist who had previously basically only worked as a community agitator wasn’t ready to be president?

Oops.  Hillary Clinton knew Obama was a clueless idiot.

And oops.  Even Obama’s own vice president knew the fool was nowhere near ready to be president.

Well, you voted for him, America.  And now you’re going to pay for it and KEEP paying for it until at least one of your collective braincells starts working again and you vote for a Repulibcan landslide.

Liberal Newsweek Editor Admits: Obama ‘Wasn’t Ready’ to Be President
By Scott Whitlock | September 27, 2011 | 16:18

During an appearance on Morning Joe, Tuesday, Newsweek editor Tina Brown made an off-hand remark about Barack Obama, conceding that the politician “wasn’t ready” to be President. Brown has previously attacked Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives for daring to oppose the Obama

While discussing whether New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will change his mind and run for President, the former New Yorker editor blurted, “Actually, I just hope he doesn’t, because in the end, you know, his tremendous misgivings, maybe he is right. I mean, We had this with Obama. He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.”

[See video below. MP3 audio here.]

On December 31, 2009, Brown mocked Rush Limbaugh, who just hours earlier had been taken to the hospital with chest pains, as a “bad fairy” who ruined the magical story of Obama. She portrayed the radio host as “the bad fairy at Sleeping Beauty’s christening” and added, “…Rush Limbaugh utters the words, ‘I hope you fail.’ ‘I hope he fails,’ he said, and from that moment, the sort of the Pandora’s box opened.”

Her full quote on Limbaugh:

TINA BROWN: It’s got to be that incredible inauguration of Obama….You started the year with this huge festival of hope and renewal and everything is going to be so different now, and then, like the bad fairy at Sleeping Beauty’s christening, Rush Limbaugh utters the words, ‘I hope you fail.”I hope he fails,’ he said, and from that moment, the sort of the Pandora’s box opened, and the rest of the year has been just this big discord and toxic atmosphere in politics and partisan divide and people shouting at each other and the Tea Parties and death panels.”

-Brown announcing her choice for the most important moment of 2009 on NBC’s Today December 31, 2009 a few hours after Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pains.

For more on Tina Brown, see the MRC’s Profile in Bias.

A transcript of the September 27 exchange follows:

7:27am EDT

TINA BROWN: But if he doesn’t feel ready to run- Actually, I just hope he doesn’t, because in the end, you know, his tremendous misgivings, maybe he is right. I mean, We had this with Obama. He wasn’t ready, it turns out, really.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Got four little kids.

BROWN: Maybe Christie isn’t ready. Maybe he feels like everybody wants him to but perhaps he does need longer.

ANDREA MITCHELL: But, Tina, you could also argue that he might have a better chance at this moment of becoming the president of the United States than being re-elected governor of new Jersey and given all of the problems of running that state.

Chris Christie at one point literally asked if he had to die to assure people that he really, really, really wasn’t going to run for president.  This has nothing to do with Chris Christie.

This has everything to do with the useless idiot who clearly has no business sitting in the Oval Office.

Audacity Of Indifference: Obama Believes American People Too Ignorant, Selfish To Understand Truth About His Path To Economic Disaster

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Obama top political advisor David Plouffe said.

That’s good for Obama, given that Obama promised the American people that if his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus porker was passed, unemployment would go down to 7.1% by now, and instead it just rose to 9.2%.

Plouffe’s comment was brought up to White House press secretary Jay Carney, who had even more to say about just how profoundly stupid Obama believes the American people are:

Earlier this week David Plouffe, one of Obama’s senior advisers and an architect of his 2008 campaign, was panned for saying “the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.”

In a condescending way, White House press secretary Jay Carney basically told the press corps  the same thing. Carney told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that Americans talk to each other about their feelings of the economic situation rather than “analyze the numbers.”

“I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers,” Carney said. “They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers.”

It’s too darn bad we don’t know how to read, analyze or think, or we’d know what a total abject failure Jay Carney’s boss truly is.  If we could just learn to read or count, we’d fix Barry Hussein good in 2012.

Carney began this dissertation on the ignorance of the American people by first saying,

“Well, I understand that we’re engaged in the – or rather, the Republicans are engaged in a primary campaign, trying to get some media attention.”

As though that should somehow insulate Obama to whatever they say (we know that Obama has NEVER campaigned, and transcends politics the way the gods transcend humanity, after all).

I came across someone who did a good chunk of the assessment of Obama’s latest job figures and the reality of the pain that increasing numbers of Americans feel as a result of Obama’s economy for me:

You’re a just bunch of dullards who don’t care about unemployment, or the deplorable state of the U.S. economy, or the out of control spending by a socialist kleptocracy.

Here’s the numbers:

The GDP is the measure of a country’s output at any given time. The nation’s $14 trillion+ debt now equals the TOTAL  U.S. GDP, and exceeds the world’s economic output.

The official unemployment estimate is 9.2%, but when you figure in all of the people who simply stopped looking for work or have run out of unemployment benefits that percentage increases.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, now stands at 16.2%.

I analyze Obama’s abject, deliberate destruction of America’s economy, every day.    Jobs, along with businesses are leaving America thanks to the idiotic regulations, high taxes, the trade deficit, government spending, and unions that price their people and jobs right out of the country.  Tens of thousands of jobs have moved to communist China, which means we’re propping up an enemy of the United States with capitalist dollars.

But the American people are too damn stupid to understand all of that.  How can the ignorant dirty masses possibly understand?  It is better that Obama TELL THEM what to think, is it not?  And no one should listen to Republicans, after all; they’re campaigning, you know.  And Obama would never do anything so crass as that.

Still, Carney’s hand-waving dismissal of the Republicans’ points make it somewhat interesting to find out what those points actually ARE:

Tim Pawlenty pointed out that Obama is “dangerously detached.”  That whole “I feel your pain” thing is simply absent from Obama.  He stands far too far above us to feel or understand our mortal pain.  Our duty is to worship our messiah and have faith in him and in his Marxist ideology come what may.

But Mitt Romney probably most hit the nail on the head:

“Today’s abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know – that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama’s closest White House adviser said that ‘unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers’ do not matter to the average American.

“If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment. His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference.”

That opens the door to another thing Obama assumes you are: too selfish to care about other people.

If you have a job, or are getting your welfare check from the government that the government has redistributed from someone who IS lucky enough to have a job, you clearly don’t give a damn about how much millions of Americans are suffering.  That was at the heart of both David Plouffe’s and Jay Carney’s point.  Let me provide the full David Plouffe (did I mention he’s Obama’s TOP political advisor?) statement:

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate; they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’

That’s right: if I’m doing okay, or at least if my family’s getting enough of the welfare pie, screw America.  Who gives a damn if everybody’s out of work?  I’m a DEMOCRAT; I’m getting MINE.  Barry Hussein took somebody else’s money and gave it to me so I’d vote for him.  Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate.

Amity Schlaes made a good point about the Great Depression in her book The Forgotten Man: “The Great Depression wasn’t that bad if you had a job.”  And that was true; particularly if you didn’t give a damn how much other people were suffering as a result of FDR’s terribly failed and immoral policies that kept America suffering for seven full years longer than was necessary.

Obama assumes that a majority of American voters are as selfish and self-centered as he himself has proven to be in his personal life before running for president.  Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party don’t care if millions of Americans are out of work and suffering as the result of their policies.  All they frankly cynically care about is whether they can exploit that suffering to their own political advantage.  And whether the American people are ignorant enough and selfish enough to fall for their lies.