Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

It’s Now Crystal Clear: If You Have Courage And Want To Fight Terrorism, Vote GOP; If You’re A Coward And Want To Be A Slave, Vote Democrat

August 29, 2014

Yesterday pretty much nailed it: John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement way back on August 7 that said, “The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS.”  And then Obama went on vacation and played golf.  Lots and lots of golf, prompting the liberal editorialist Maureen Dowd to point out on August 23:

FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I mean, Obama literally left to play golf NINE MINUTES after delivering his “statement of resolve” following Foley’s beheading.

Wednesday, John McCain says what is by now beyond painfully obvious yet again:

Asked if he would want Obama to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, McCain said the president still hadn’t developed a strategy.

“Under the War Powers Act he can bomb and then come to Congress after 30 days,” McCain said. “But what he really needs to do is come to Congress with a strategy, with policies that implement this strategy. Does anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?”

Well, DOES anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?  When the Turd-in-Chief finally comes back from vacation even HE says, “Hell no!”  He pointed out yesterday, “Hey, I’m the fool president and even I don’t have a damn clue what the president’s strategy is.”  That’s basically what Obama said:

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

At least the fool didn’t say, “I don’t want to put the cart before the clubs.”  As in GOLF clubs.

Now, he could have gone on to say, “But don’t worry.  I will be going straight to the Situation Room and will not be coming out until America has an effective strategy to  deal with the terrorist army that I foolishly and stupidly called “JayVee” just a few months ago.”  But then he’d have to say, “PSYCH!  I’m only kidding.  I’m not going to the Situation Room.  I’m going to another damn FUNDRAISER!  I don’t give a damn about the American people.  They’re less than cockroaches to me.”

Mind you, it’s not like this terrorist army that Obama only recently was mocking as “JayVee” has been building and growing for the last four years.  Except oh, wait, it HAS been.

Obama having no strategy is a national disgrace that will cause serious damage to America.  There IS no enemy who presents a greater threat to the security of the United States than our Fool-in-Chief.  It is FAR easier to destroy a nation from within than it is from without; as Obama is proving every day.

Amazingly, Obama the coward is trying to blame both the media and the Pentagon for his being a fool without a damn plan.  It’s not the Pentagon that doesn’t have a damn plan; it’s the failed fool who is supposed to be the damn commander-in-chief.  The Pentagon has ALL SORTS of plans that are just waiting for a president to ask for them.  That’s all some top brass DO is formulate plans for every possible scenario.  The only possible crisis disaster that the Pentagon doesn’t have a plan for is what happens if a moronic thug assumes the office of the presidency of the United States.  At the same time, Obama is trying to blame the media for the stupidity of his words, as if it’s the media’s fault that they are quoting exactly what he said exactly as he said it, as if Obama views himself a hand-puppet and is accusing some reporter of forcing his lips to mouth “I don’t have a plan” as he impersonated Obama’s voice just off the platform.

That sort of moral cowardice is the hallmark of his entire presidency as he first demonized and blamed Bush for his first failed term as president and then began to blame the House of Representatives for his second failed term as president.  Every president since George WASHINGTON had a predecessor and even WASHINGTON had politicians from the other party in Congress.  Obama is the first true coward who believes that a single opponent with any power is a threat to his status as a fascist dictating tyrant.  And that’s why this malevolent narcissist is so paranoid about Republicans.

And of course what’s Hillary Clinton saying about Obama’s not having any plan?  She’s repeating her Benghazi line saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?”  She said in testimony about that utter and disgraceful fiasco, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”  And she couldn’t even provide the correct motive – a TERRORIST ATTACK – as one of her possible scenario options to consider.

We had THREE WEEKS WARNING of that attack which resulted in the murder of the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  But what difference does it make, indeed.

There’s a crystal-clear pattern of Democrat behavior: an inability to see or face danger which results in our being viciously caught unprepared.  It’s been the case since World War I, frankly.  World War II, happened again.  Korea, happened again.  Vietnam, happened again.

Mind you, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.  Her replacement as Secretary of State has also twisted reality into a pretzel to suit the Obama talking points spin.  A year ago they refused to arm the rebellion in Syria when the experts (and the Republicans) were urging them to, citing their fear that the weapons would fall into the hands of the more radical elements.  Until it suited their talking point to claim the EXACT OPPOSITE and argue that in fact the rebel opposition was actually somehow growing more moderate as a result of Obama’s dithering and refusing to lift a damn finger to help them.  And the facts that documented the opposite just be damned.

Now, I would submit to you that the forces of ISIS/ISIL that pretty much OWN everything that Syrian dictator Assad doesn’t rather proves the fact that John Kerry and the damn Obama regime couldn’t have been more freaking wrong.  With the result that Obama literally cemented both ISIL AND Assad to permanent power in the region.

Meanwhile, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan wrote a letter asking to join ISIS/ISIL and become a “citizen” of the terrorist state.  But keep in mind according to Barack Obama, Nidal Hasan is NOT a terrorist.  He’s only guilty of “work-place violence.”  And the fact that he screamed Allah Akbar while he was murdering American servicemen after passing out business cards that announced him as a “soldier of Allah” meant NOTHING to Democrats.  Not ONE DAMN THING.  So let’s bury our heads in the sand and not call reality what it is and hope it goes away.  That’s the security platform of the Democrat Party.

Democrats are pathologically weak on national security.  And they have been ever since they hounded Lyndon Baines Johnson – who of course is to blame for the Vietnam War if ANYONE is – back in 1968 when they showed that the heart of the modern Democrat Party is VIOLENT FASCISM at the 1968 riot otherwise known as the Democrat National Convention.

There’s a reason for that.  And that reason is that the Democrat Party is completely wedded to secular humanism, and therefore to atheism, to postmodernism and to existentialism.  They don’t believe in Truth as an objective category, and therefore they do not believe in any ultimate line between good and evil.  It’s all infinite shades of gray to them.  At least unless they’re talking about homosexuality and abortion – in which they take a firm stand landing on the completely opposite side from God and His Word.

And that moral idiocy makes Democrats moral cowards.

Consider a few FACTS as I demonstrate this point and drive it home:

On many levels these ISIL terrorists are worse than the Nazis EVER were and a far greater threat to the world than the Nazis ever were.

Who let this happen???  If you say “Bush” you are both stupid and depraved.  By the end of 2007, al Qaeda in Iraq was routed.  In fact, al Qaeda had not only been defeated, but humiliated.  Obama kept claiming that al Qaeda was on the run while in reality he was allowing them to rebuild.  But al Qaeda truly WAS on the run when Bush left office – having been routed and humiliated in Iraq – and ISIS basically didn’t even exist yet.

It is simply a documented FACT that Barack Obama cut and ran from Iraq AFTER the United States under George W. Bush had secured victory in the form of a safe and stable Iraq that Obama and Biden BOASTED about.

It is a documented FACT that back in early 2009 we have Obama ON THE RECORD overruling his generals and his experts and deciding that he would completely abandon Iraq.  That is simply a FACT and anybody who tries to whine about Obama desperately trying to obtain a suitable status of forces agreement is a LYING FOOL.  In the same manner, we have Obama ON THE FACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD OVERRULING HIS ENTIRE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM AND DECIDING IN HIS OWN INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY NOT TO ARM THE PRO-DEMOCRACY REBELS IN SYRIA WHEN THEY HAD A REAL CHANCE TO ATTAIN VICTORY.

There is simply no question that Obama gave his fiasco of a “red line” warning and then did NOTHING.  Except allow Putin and Russia to step in and ensure the continued rule of Syrian dictator Assad who suddenly became instrumental because of his part in cooperating to destroy the WMD (much of which almost certainly came to Syria via IRAQ, fwiw).  And allow ISIS to spread like the cancer it is, first exploiting Obama’s weakness in failing to attack in Syria and then in Obama’s weakness in completely pulling out and abandoning Iraq.

If you ask any liberal, “Which wins wars, materiel or will?”  That Democrat will say “Materiel, of course”  They view war as pushing a button and defeating an enemy.  But to any graduate of West Point or Annapolis, that answer is WRONG.  It is WILL that defeats opponents and wins wars.  And under Obama we don’t have any will to fight.  Polls show that the American people don’t want to fight because their president has taught them his moral foolishness and cowardice.  A people need to be led; Obama has led them to the pen where they can be slaughtered like the sheep they have become.

And now we have not a terrorist group but a terrorist ARMY that is even WORSE than al Qaeda with a stranglehold over a 36,000 mile CALIPHATE that Osama bin Laden DREAMED of to show for it.  Obama’s own experts are pointing out the FACT that they are more dangerous than al Qaeda EVER was.  And it was Obama who allowed this terrorist army to metastasize.  They called themselves “ISIS” which meant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.  But since Obama literally GAVE them Iraq and Syria, they are now calling themselves simply “IS” for “Islamic State.”  Because the more you give these monsters, the more they become hungry to TAKE.  You cannot negotiate with them.  You cannot appease them.  You can only either defeat them or bow down before them.  That is your stark, black-and-white choice.

Back in 2005, US intelligence captured a letter from the top al Qaeda leadership that put the aims of al Qaeda into four stages: 1) Drive America out of Iraq; 2) create a caliphate; 3) use that as a base to attack the United States and other countries; 4) attack Israel.  They didn’t drive us out of Iraq; Obama drove us out of Iraq when we had already secured victory.  And we have since watched them systematically succeed in their plan beyond all of the worst possible scenarios.  They’re coming right back at us and we’re now far too weary, weak and divided to fight them.

Liberals don’t believe in “black-and-white.”  Their world consists of infinite shades of gray.  There are no transcendent absolutes; there is no objective right or objective wrong.  Morality is relative, constantly changing and evolving according to Obama’s whim rather than according to God’s timeless Word.

There is no question that Obama and Democrats allowed this.  The only question is WHY did they allow it.  And here’s the answer:

Jonah Goldberg reminded us of the attacks that came from the left when George W. Bush had the narrow-mindedness to refer to terrorists as “evildoers.”  Goldberg pointed out the left’s objection to the word “evil” because to them:

it was, variously, simplistic, Manichean, imperialistic, cartoonish, etc.

“Perhaps without even realizing it,” Peter Roff, then with UPI, wrote in October 2001, “the president is using language that recalls a simpler time when good and evil seemed more easy to identify — a time when issues, television programs and movies were more black and white, not colored by subtle hues of meaning.”

A few years later, as the memory of 9/11 faded and the animosity toward Bush grew, the criticism became more biting. But the substance was basically the same. Sophisticated people don’t talk about “evil,” save perhaps when it comes to America’s legacy of racism, homophobia, capitalistic greed and the other usual targets of American self-loathing.

For most of the Obama years, talk of evil was largely banished from mainstream discourse. An attitude of “goodbye to all that” prevailed, as the war on terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation. War was euphemized into “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic military action.” There was still bloodshed, but the language was often bloodless. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a protege of al-Qaida guru Anwar al-Awlaki, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed his colleagues at Fort Hood. The military called the incident “workplace violence.”

But sanitizing the language only works so long as people aren’t paying too much attention. That’s why the Islamic State is so inconvenient to those who hate the word “evil.” Last week, after the group released a video showing American journalist James Foley getting his head cut off, the administration’s rhetoric changed dramatically. The president called the Islamic State a “cancer” that had to be eradicated. Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as the “face of . . . evil.”

Although most people across the ideological spectrum see no problem with calling Islamic State evil, the change in rhetoric elicited a predictable knee-jerk response. Political scientist Michael Boyle hears an “eerie echo” of Bush’s “evildoers” talk. “Indeed,” he wrote in The New York Times, “condemning the black-clad, masked militants as purely ‘evil’ is seductive, for it conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs.”

James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word “evil,” he wrote, “stops us from thinking.”

But as Goldberg points out, it’s not the people who use the term “evil” who “stop thinking”; it’s the idiots who refuse to think in the category that clearly reflects basic human reality.

The Bible nails these people.  They are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  And “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

When James Dawes says that “using the term evil stops us from thinking,” he’s not referring to himself or to his leftist ideology.  Of course not.  He’s referring to narrow-minded conservatives who think in ancient and therefore non-progressive and therefore obsolete terms of right and wrong.  He’s referring to those who in their narrow-mindedness refuse to understand morality as “colored by subtle hues of meaning” the way he does, the way Peter Roff does, the way Michael Boyle does, the way Barack Obama does.

Understand that Obama’s political rhetoric may have changed but he is still a doctrinaire liberal who continues to think like the doctrinaire liberal he is.

Obama referred to ISIS after the choreographed video of James Foley’s public beheading as a “cancer.”  But it’s just words.  If Obama truly realized the Islamic State terrorist army was a “cancer” he would order all of our resources to cut that cancer out and remove it no matter how painful that “surgery” would be.  But General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with crystal clarity that the only way to defeat ISIS is to take them out in Syria:

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Obama’s meaningless response to ISIS in Syria makes it clear: Obama will NOT defeat ISIS.  At best, he will play patty cake with “cancer.”   Thank God Obama will eventually go, but when he [finally!!!] does, the “cancer” of ISIS will remain.  Due to the pathological weakness and cowardice of Obama.

ISIS/ISIL has been growing and building for all the years that Obama has been our failed president.  While Obama was mocking them as “JayVee” they were building up with experienced terrorist personnel, seizing territory, seizing BILLIONS of dollars, seizing a vast arsenal of military equipment such that they literally have the power of a true state, and absorbing whole networks to keep becoming more and more and more effective.  While Obama did NOTHING.

Now, understand why I call Obama a “coward” for not taking on a fight that his previous weakness and cowardice caused.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN if our soldiers die; he’s out golfing.  What makes Obama afraid and a COWARD is that if he tries to stand up and do the right thing, his own leftist base will viciously turn on him.  Because liberals are evil and cowardly and everything that is truly contemptible.  Obama isn’t man enough to deal with his own base; THAT’S what makes him a “coward.”  And a coward he is.

This is a story of of Overseas Contingency Operations, Man-Caused Disasters and how the pathological weakness and moral cowardice of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party has inspired ad emboldened our worst enemies.

One of the things I vividly recall after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was his statement – after being waterboarded and broken – that he believed that the United States response after the 9/11 attack was so massive and so lethal and so devastating that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

The terrorist mastermind was waterboarded until he was “vomiting and screaming.”  He was waterboarded and he was interrogated until he was broken.

Now, we were told by a dishonest media that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “waterboarded 183 times.”  Which is bullcrap.  He was waterboarded FIVE TIMES, which consisted in 183 pourings of water.

Another lie of the dishonest leftist media is that Mohammed was interrogated during his waterboarding and we could somehow not trust anything he said because people will say anything you want them to say when they are being tortured.  Again, bullcrap.  For one thing, waterboarding consisted in only one aspect of his interrogation.  He wasn’t interrogated AT ALL while he was being waterboarded; the entire process was intended to acheive one thing and one thing only: to alter the terrorist’s perception and to force them to understand their new reality, that the United States of America owned them and would stop at nothing to defeat them and to crush their ideology.  Waterboarding was only one PART of that process that Obama has ENDED.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong, of course, in his assessment that terrorists would never dare to attack the United States again due to the astonishing massiveness of the American response.  He was wrong because his waterboarding colored his thinking such that he failed to remember how pathologically weak the Democrat Party truly is and how inspired and emboldened the pathological weakness of the Democrat Party makes our enemies.  All it took was for one Democrat regime to get elected to re-embolden the stunned and dismayed terrorists.

It was via waterboarding and that breaking process that KSM and the other two terrorists who were WATERBOARDED gave up two key facts that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden: the name of Osama bin Laden’s courier – Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq – and the city in Pakistan -Abbottabad – where bin Laden was hiding.  Those two crucial pieces of information ultimately enabled American intelligence to track Osama bin Laden to the very house he was living in in that large city.

Barack Obama was able to boast that he got bin Laden.  But he only got him because of the very thing he demonized and criminalized.

America will NEVER break another terrorist until every Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive.  Because the platform of the Democrat Party is treasonous self-loathing and the refusal to stand up to our enemies and punch them in the mouth before you blow their smirking heads right off their shoulders.

Obama has GUTTED our intelligence capability and he was already at work doing so back in 2009.

Right now we’re seeing the fruits of Obama’s pathological weakness.  For example, when you see the images of beheaded journalist James Foley and the other captured Americans in orange jumpsuits -

Both prisoners in the video are wearing orange shirts and pants, similar to orange jumpsuits worn by detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A similar outfit, believed to be a jihadist symbol of the prison, was worn by Nicholas Berg, an American businessman kidnapped in Iraq in 2004 whose execution by an Islamic State precursor organization was recorded on video and posted online.

- realize that Barack Obama is very obviously far too much of a damn coward to put terrorists in orange jumpsuits (which scream GITMO), but our terrorist enemies have no such fear of putting Americans in them.

In the same manner, consider how liberals came completely unglued over “the scandal” of Abu Ghraib and terrorists being “abused” and “humiliated.”  And of course it was all Bush’s fault.  But of course the even worse scandals that happened under Obama WEREN’T his fault.  But forget about the leftist abject hypocrisy and simply contrast our Abu Ghraib with how the same people who were such “victims” act when THEY get power: they strip them to their underwear, march them humiliated into the desert and mass-execute them.  The Islamic jihadist terrorists view us as weak because we don’t have the stomach to impose our power the way THEY clearly have.  And liberals are literally morally incapable of saying which is worse – Abu Ghraib where nobody died or ISIS where they slaughter their prisoners like sheep – because their hatred of Bush is only surpassed by their hatred of Truth and Objective, Transcendent Morality.

We’ve got a very firm and clear pattern established: Republicans fight evil and liberals surrender to it.

You look at the disastrous cuts of the 1970s under Carter.  You look at the disastrous cuts under Clinton in the 1990sYou look at the disastrous gutting of the military under Obama now.  And you realize that Democrats are pathologically stupid people because they are pathological moral idiots who cannot understand the nature of the world because at their core they do not believe in good or evil due to their abandonment of God.

We had the weak disgrace Jimmy Carter.  And then we had Ronald Reagan who had to pick up the pieces of Carter’s disgraceful weakening of America.

Then we had George H.W. Bush’s “This will not stand” contrasted with the Bill Clinton subsequent legacy of disgraceful policy toward terrorism.  Bill Clinton’s legacy was to leave America both weak militarily and blind due to his crippling of our intelligence capabilities.  As I’ve documented more than once:

Why did we get attacked on 9/11? Let’s find out in the words of the man who attacked us after Bill Clinton’s abject fiasco commonly known as Black Hawk Down in Somalia:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Our military was weak as a result of Clinton’s cuts. How about our intelligence that is tasked with seeing an attack coming??? Clinton gutted that too:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately
.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The 9/11 attack was the result of the joke that the military had become as a result of a Bill Clinton who gutted the military budget. Bush I took Reagan’s mantle and won the Cold War and defeated the Soviet-armed Iraqi regime; Bill Clinton tore that great, powerful military apart. And we paid dearly for it. And every single penny that Clinton saved by dismantling our military and our intelligence Bush had to pay a thousandfold.

As Bill Clinton turned over the presidency to George Bush, he turned over a nation that had already been infected with the 9/11 attack.  Every single 9/11 attacker was ALREADY IN AMERICA while Bill Clinton was president.  They already had most of their training.  They already had their funding.

And now we’ve got George W. Bush contrasted with Barack Obama.  Carter tore the military down.  Reagan built it back up and won the Cold War that had begun under the presidency of Harry Truman in the aftermath of World War II.  Bush II continued the military build-up to confront the new threats that were arising in the Middle East; Clinton said a strong military was obsolete and tore it down again.  Bush II built the military up because Clinton had failed America and ignored the warnings of the cancer of terrorism.  And now Obama has gutted it again.  Our military is a shambles under ObamaThree calendar years ago I was pointing out how evil was spreading like  cancer in the Middle East under Obama.  That is simply a fact and has BEEN a fact that our enemies have noted just as they have taken Obama’s measure and noted his personal weakness.  And if you want to tell me that Obama’s putrid weakness has worked better for us that Bush’s policy of FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES, please don’t write to me, because weaklings and cowards make me sick and I’m sick of being sickened by people like you.

Bill Clinton said the right things when it was politically expedient for him to do so and then denied the very things he said when it was politically expedient for him to do so.  He stood for nothing.  And it was just hollow words, much like when Obama calls ISIS/ISIL a “cancer” and then refuses to stop its spread and kill it.

A liberal writer writing for the liberal Daily Beast and quoted by a different liberal publication framed the rise of al Qaeda from the dust of death it had been in thus:

The regeneration of al Qaeda in Iraq and its expansion into Syria is a warning to American decision makers. Few al Qaeda franchises or associated movements have ever been permanently destroyed. They can be disrupted and dismantled and yet fully regenerate once the pressure subsides. [Daily Beast]

Let me simply ask you: who kept the pressure on and who took the pressure OFF?  It was OBAMA who took the pressure off these terrorists and allowed them to rebuild.  Who on the other hand has been screaming to keep the pressure ON and been repeatedly demonized for doing so?  The Republicans who have the courage to face reality while the Democrats are COWARDS to their cores.

Which is why Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines.”  As they New York Times put it in describing how these two nations took matters into their own hands (because Obama was cowering in a corner when he wasn’t strutting around on a golf green) and bombed ISIS in Syria.  We are now completely irrelevant, even to our closest ALLIES in the region.  We spent the last century building our power and our alliances so that we could shape events.  And one weak, cowardly petty tyrant has squandered all of our influence and prestige and ability to project power away from us.

There is something chilling about the execution by beheading of James Foley that you need to understand:

A video posted on YouTube, later removed, purported to show the execution of James Foley after he recited a statement in which he called the U.S. government “my real killers.”

Foley gave them what they wanted.  He said everything they wanted him to say, did everything they wanted him to do.  And then they slaughtered him anyway.

You can’t appease these people.  You can’t compromise with them.  You can’t negotiate with them.  You can’t “seek to understand them.”  Tolerance is a form of suicide.

The Democrat Party has not understood that since 1968.

You either fight and defeat jihadist terrorism or you knuckle under and surrender to it.  And history has now proven again and again that Democrats will surrender to terrorism every chance they get.  Because they are moral idiots who are incapable of truly believing in good and evil and therefore have an innate tendency to seek to compromise with evil and negotiate with it and ultimately to surrender to it.

There is a simple formula of wisdom or common sense: when it comes to a strong military and reliable intelligence, would you rather have when you may not need – as conservatives have been arguing we should have since we were caught completely flat-footed and weak when we were attacked to start World War II – or would you rather desperately need when you do not have as Democrats desire?  That formula has led to disaster over and over again.  And it has led to disaster now.  Conservatives want a greater projection of strength to DETER aggression; Democrats want more welfare, more dependency, fewer people with jobs, a weaker America, an America that will bare its throat to the scimitar.

There are TWO forms of evil that are both working in concert to destroy America today: one is the evil of ISIS terrorists and the other is the evil of the Democrat Party that has enabled them to so gain the upper hand and which continues to be the only barrier to America having the resolve to fight them and destroy them.  And interestingly both forms of evil are mutually parasitic upon the other: the terrorists cannot win without the Democrat’s movement of cowardly appeasement and surrender; and the modern Democrats need to have Republicans take a strong stand against evil so they can backstab and undermine and demagogue and demonize and fearmonger that strong resolve as they whine, “They’re going to drag you into another war if you vote for them!”

Your vote in November, in 2016 and beyond will be a historic affirmation of whether you have courage or whether you are a true coward.

When Did Women Become So GODLESS That ‘Religious Freedom’ Is Somehow Tantamount To ‘War On Women’???

July 3, 2014

If you allow the left to frame the narrative for you, women NEVER had reproductive freedom until Barack Obama – their lord, their master, their savior and their god – GAVE it to them.

And of course now – because of conservatives and mostly of course because of conservative men who clearly hate women unless they’re a) barefoot and b) pregnant – just took it away from them.

Hillary Clinton’s tirade borders beyond idiotic and reaches evil:

Hillary Clinton Sees “Elements” Of Hobby Lobby Ruling In Treatment Of Women In Islamic World…

Does this woman ever think before she speaks?

Via BuzzFeed:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday called the Supreme Court’s ruling that employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for insurance coverage for contraception “deeply disturbing.” […]

During her remarks on the topic, Clinton said “this element” is seen in foreign countries where women are deprived of rights. “Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families,” she said. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism.”

“Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury but as a central issue, is because they’re often the canaries in the mine,” Clinton said. “You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights, some of them never have them, some of them lose them. Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism. Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever. So to introduce this element into our society… it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

I want to point out a very important fact: to the extent that this Supreme Court decision is truly sweeping – as many liberals are claiming it is – they have only THEMSELVES and their false messiah Barack Hussein Obama to blame.  Because Hobby Lobby IN POINT OF FACT – demon-possessed liberal liars to the contrary – OFFERED CONTRACEPTION in its generous health coverage for its workers.  In point of fact, they offered SIXTEEN DIFFERENT FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL.

If you claim that Hobby Lobby was denying birth control to women, you are simply a LIAR without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity of any kind.  You are utterly immune from reality.  It is so false it’s evil.

The ONLY thing they refused to pay for was abortifacients that aren’t “birth control” but rather kill babies.  These drugs that Hobby Lobby opposes don’t prevent conception; they end pregnancy by terminating the baby.

The drugs Hobby Lobby opposed do NOT prevent a woman from releasing eggs (ovulating); they do NOT prevent sperm from reaching or fertilizing an egg; they act on the zygote – read BABY – AFTER conception.

Hillary Clinton is a mentally- and morally-diseased LIAR for claiming that Hobby Lobby denies contraception.  And that is precisely what she did:

“it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Is Hillary Clinton simply ignorant?  Does she not know that Hobby Lobby provided every actual form of legitimate contraception that WASN’T an abortion-causing drug for their employees???  I don’t think she’s stupid; I THINK SHE’S A LIAR.  She KNOWS what she is saying is false – just as most of the talking heads on the left know what they are saying is false – but then she and they dishonesty say it anyway.

Because in fascism – as in ALL godless systems – the ends always justify the means.  And it is only out of “religious values” that include the sanctity of human life that keeps someone from lying out of their ass whenever it aids their self-centered cause.

I am so beyond sick of the pathological dishonesty and wickedness of the left.

Do you want to know something else?  To whatever extent this case has the sort of sweeping, draconian results that the left is screaming about, there is ONE PERSON to blame: Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama should have allowed Hobby Lobby and businesses which share Hobby Lobby’s moral and religious values to provide the abundant birth control that they WERE ALREADY PROVIDING and simply granted them the waiver from the abortifacients that they requested.

Had Barack Obama been willing to listen to reason, been able to reach compromise like a grown-up rather than being the rabid ideologue he has always been, there would have BEEN no Supreme Court decision and there would have BEEN no sweeping decision that the left is weeping over.  But Barack Obama is a demon-possessed Nazi fascist who MUST have his way and pushed it to beyond the breaking point.

Which is why Obama now stands ALONE in the entire history of our republic as the ONLY president who has suffered THIRTEEN UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AGAINST HIM.  That’s right: thirteen times, the Supreme Court has told America that Barack Obama is a rabid ideologue fascist who violated the Constitution again… and then again… and then again…. and then again… ad nauseum.

But, nope.  Obama was as Nazi with this case as Hitler was Nazi with his invasion of the Soviet Union.  And so he just suffered the “major blow” that liberals are now whining about as they weep and wail in their sackcloth and ashes.

If these businesses start denying ALL birth control, and that upsets you, you make damn sure you take it out on THE DEMOCRATS WHO CAUSED THE CRISIS by their rabid fascist refusal to compromise with morality or reality.  But wheat liberals will do instead – as we can see from all the lies and slander and propaganda – is to try to depict the people whose “crime” has been trying to make a rabid ideologue president listen to REASON for once in his bubbled life.

But it is the question as to how liberal women burned their Bibles when they burned their bras that I really want to talk about.

I want to know when the hell “women” decided that to allow ANYONE else to worship the God of the Bible and protect the sanctity of human life constituted a direct attack upon their “womanhood.”  I want to know when “godless” and “woman” became synonyms – as they very clearly are to this particular demon-possessed liberal woman, Hillary Clinton.

When did being a “woman” mean hating God, hating Christ, hating the Holy Bible, hating religion and hating babies???

How is it that women have morally degenerated to this point, when they have become such idiots that they are incapable of distinguishing between the FACTS that someone ELSE not being forced to pay for something is NOT equivalent to criminalizing the thing that they can on their own still go out and buy if they want it???  When did women become so evil that like Hillary Clinton they can’t differentiate between people who want to preserve the sanctity of human life by following the Judeo-Christian worldview as well as the Hippocratic Oath that shaped culture (“I will not give to a woman a pessary to procure an abortion“) with the murderous Taliban???  Since when did women become such complete moral imbeciles that they cannot tell the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Hippocrates and a Taliban terrorist???

I know the above isn’t true simply because I know that N.O.W. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with most actual WOMEN.  I know a lot of women in my church, for instance, who are every bit as outraged by the baby-massacring left as I am.  But from the point of view of the Democratic Party, from the point of view of the secular humanist, progressive liberal ideology that Democrats embrace and from the point of view of the mainstream media that serves as the propagandist for the aforementioned political party and the aforementioned worldview, it IS true.  So I ask from their perspective, when did women become so stupid, so ignorant and so evil that they are little more than the mindless herd animals that liberalism essential says they are???

Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

June 27, 2014

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

  • SHARELINES
    3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
    As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
    More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[...]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon[citation needed], the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease – and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

June 25, 2014

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

June 24, 2014

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOESObama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

June 18, 2014

This is almost funny it’s so sad.  Iran has mastered how to defeat America by watching the master at defeating America at work: Barack Hussein Obama.

Analysis Iran maneuvers to win blame game if nuclear talks collapse
By Paul Richter
June 17, 2014, 4:46 AM|Reporting from Vienna

Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has come to this city hoping to seal a deal on its disputed nuclear program that will finally remove the international sanctions crippling its economy..

But just in case they don’t win that diplomatic victory, they are carefully positioning themselves to come away with a valuable second prize: a win in the ugly blame game that would follow the collapse of negotiations.

Tehran’s team wants to make sure that if its talks with six world powers collapse, many nations would conclude that Iran had been prepared to compromise and the obstacle was the maximalist demands of the United States and its hawkish Israeli and Persian Gulf allies.

The Iranians hope that if many countries come to that view the countries will begin to shed sanctions, allowing Tehran to sell its oil again, and to continue pursuing a nuclear program.

What happens to the sanctions, the world’s great point of leverage on Iran, “depends on who wins the blame game,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who follows Iran for the Eurasia Group risk consulting firm.

Iran’s last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, liked to project an image of thunder and fire. He didn’t look reasonable to the world audience, and didn’t much care.

But the smiling team of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seek to come across as reasonable representatives of a country that deserves more than pariah status.

In the run-up to this fifth round of talks, Iran’s nuclear negotiating team has put considerable effort into convincing the world that they are not the threat to a diplomatic solution to the 2-decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

At a news conference last Saturday, Rouhani stressed Iran’s “goodwill and flexibility” and his hopes that a deal could still be wrapped up by the current deadline of July 20.

He seemed to signal that he was prepared to set aside Iran’s longstanding enmity with the United States, saying it might cooperate with the U.S. on the struggle against Sunni extremists in Iraq. Of course, as a responsible world power, any Iranian step would be consistent with “international law,” he emphasized.

Rouhani also argued that the sanctions are unraveling anyway. “Conditions will never go back to the past,” he said, in an apparent effort to convince oil-consuming nations they will soon be able to resume oil purchases.

Foreign Minister Zarif, meanwhile, has been building a case that Iran’s goals in the nuclear negotiations are reasonable and that the West’s are extreme.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed article last week, Zarif wrote that in 2005, he and Rouhani floated a plan to the West that would have allowed an international panel to regulate Iran’s nuclear program based on whether they thought it was peaceful. Instead, the George W. Bush administration demanded a halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, undermining diplomacy and leading to a huge expansion of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They were mistaking our constructive engagement for weakness,” Zarif wrote.

He argued that “small but powerful constituencies” in the West have been calling for tough action against Iran by saying that the country is only a couple of months from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Zarif wrote, Iran would still need “several years” of work to complete all the complex processes needed to turn the fuel into a bomb.

He pointed out that 2005 and 2012 National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the U.S. intelligence community consensus, concluded that Iran wasn’t trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian team is hoping that if the talks collapse, the defection of a few non-Western oil-importing nations, such as China, Turkey or India, might begin an accelerating unraveling of the sanctions.

Obama administration officials contend the sanctions have remained strong since the signing of an interim nuclear deal last November that eased some of the penalties on Iran.

Many countries remain wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in part because of evidence that Iran for years was secretly expanding the program.

Yet the administration has some vulnerabilities in the public relations battle.

One is that many countries are increasingly skeptical of the U.S.’ heavy use of its powerful economic sanctions, which the White House this spring has imposed on Russia because of the dispute over Ukraine.

Many countries, including some in Europe, see Congress’ use of sanctions as excessive.

A senior administration official, asked in a briefing this week about Iran’s efforts to win over world opinion, may have bolstered its argument by warning that if Tehran didn’t yield in negotiations it would be clobbered by more sanctions legislation.

“If Iran does not feel it can make the choices that are necessary, I have no doubt that Congress will take action,” warned the official, who declined to be identified under administration ground rules.

We’ve never seen such a demagogue in the White House.  EVER.  This wicked man ran promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Obama deceived and lied his way into office, pure and simple.  And dug in like a disease-bearing tick, he proceeded to “fundamentally transform America” by abandon any and all compromise and ramming home his Stalinist partisan ideology by whatever means necessary (usually Stalinist means through “executive orders” and simple lawlessness, mind you).

Everything was Bush’s fault.  And as that myth started to wear out, everything was the Republicans’ fault.  Obama is a one-trick pony, and the blame game is his one trick so he keeps doing it over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Our enemies have taken notice of how pathologically weak and cynical Obama is.  And they have taken note of how to be like Obama and use rhetoric to delegitimize truth.

Obama demonized George Bush over EVERYTHING.  Except the way Bush won the Iraq War.  Obama didn’t demonize that; nope: he tried to take credit for it (as I documented in a recent article).  Joe Biden put it this way when Bush was long out of office and everything seemed to be going so, so well:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Obama BOASTED in 2011 about how wonderfully HIS plan had worked to produce a stable Iraq:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

Of course, NO ONE in the Pentagon had agreed with Obama’s plan.  They had BEGGED Obama to keep the sort of residual force in Iraq that John McCain had described America as needing to ensure true long-term security:

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that — is that –

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea — we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans –

QUESTIONER: So that’s your policy?

McCAIN: — As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.

Had we remained in Iraq the way we remained in South Korea and the way we remained in Japan and the way we remained in Europe, WE WOULDN’T BE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

And where we are now is a complete disaster, with Iraq collapsing to terrorists who are – get this – WORSE than al Qaeda while we beg our ENEMY Iran – which is responsible for one third of all American deaths and casualties suffered in Iraq – to help us because we are too weak to help ourselves now.

Let’s look at the timeline of what the military said was wise and what they said was idiotic.  Let’s start with Feb 2, 2009 only days after Obama took office:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Obama was a fool.  He still IS a fool.  He will ALWAYS be a fool.

Note that we DID have an end-run around the just-as-stupid-as-Obama Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: just re-categorize the troops as “support troops.”  And there are PLENTY of such end runs if Obama had wanted them: for example, now, if Obama sends in ANY troops, he could provide cover for them by declaring them to be under the protections of embassy personnel.  He could have ALWAYS played such games had he wanted to.  The fact of the matter is, Obama wanted OUT of Iraq.  He cut and ran, just as we said.  He never TRIED to negotiate anything but his ass not hitting the door on his way out.

Note that back in 2009, literally one day after taking office (January 21), Obama was already IGNORING the superior knowledge and wisdom of the military and frankly even his own experts in his own cabinet that he had chosen.  And he imposed his idiot liberalism on America and now we’re paying for it and will pay far MORE for it soon.

Note that American military commanders ALWAYS assumed that Obama wouldn’t be such a fool as to do what he did, as this article underscores:

Despite Obama’s declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that “military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years.” Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama’s orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy. Then there’s the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.

The fact is this: the military demanded that we need to have at least 20,000 men as a residual force; Obama refused to listen to wisdom and ordered the military to draw up a new plan.  So the military scratched their heads at Obama’s arrogant idiocy and returned, asking for at least 10,000 troops.  Again, Obama refused common sense.  Obama was only going to allow a way-too-small force of 3,000.

And when Obama came to the Iraqi Prime Minister with that clearly-too-small-to-do-any-good number, Nouri al -Maliki understood that Obama had absolutely no intention of truly remaining as a stabilizing force in Iraq, that he was cutting and running, that America under Obama was useless, and that he would need to run to the Iranians instead of relying on the Americans.

In other words, Obama lost the war right then and there.  Obama – who wanted OUT – offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that al-Maliki could use, which made it easy for al-Maliki to refuse Obama’s “assistance.”  Hence no status of forces agreement.

Let’s go to a period – April 10, 2011 - after the Obama-King-Dumbass-of-the-Universe policy on Iraq is on the verge of being implemented:

WASHINGTON — Eight months shy of its deadline for pulling the last American soldier from Iraq and closing the door on an 8-year war, the Pentagon is having second thoughts.

Reluctant to say it publicly, officials fear a final pullout in December could create a security vacuum, offering an opportunity for power grabs by antagonists in an unresolved and simmering Arab-Kurd dispute, a weakened but still active al-Qaida or even an adventurous neighbor such as Iran.

The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace. This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

Note how the media slants and distorts the story.  The military wasn’t having “second thoughts” about this idiotic move by Obama; THEY HAD ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

Also, note that they feared not only terrorists taking over Iraq, but the terrorist State of Iran taking over Iraq.  Under Obama’s wicked, demon-possessed stupidity, BOTH ARE NOW HAPPENING.

We learn – if we care about history rather than liberal’s fact-warping rhetoric – that:

Obama’s plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to “conditions on the ground,” meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama “assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B.”

In other words, Obama made the call.  He made the call AFTER Bush had secured victory.  And Obama foolishly made THE WRONG CALL.  And now the Middle East is melting down around us as a result of our Idiot-in-Chief.

Of course, we now know what Obama’s “PLan B” was: to blame Bush for Obama’s idiotic failures and count on the mainstream media to sell it.

As another example of how the Fool-in-Chief annihilated American influence in the Middle East, consider how Obama – after his “red line” debacle - refused wisdom in sending aid to the pro-democratic rebels in Syria as John McCain and Lindsey Graham begged Obama to do a good two years plus ago.

We had a chance to topple Syrian dictator Assad AND install a government friendly to us, but Obama dithered too long and blew any chance we had.  And then – because Obama is a true fool – he involved Russia and Putin who takes Obama to school every time they negotiate.  And Putin maneuvered Obama into literally NEEDING Assad to remain in power to secure a WMD deal that Putin and Assad held over Obama’s head like a carrot while Assad murdered now well over 160,000 of his own people.  And while a vicious terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS – metastasized first across Syria and now into Iraq.

These are all just facts.  It is what happened.

But the way Obama – using his “Iran Plan B” strategy as per the top article above – has handled his debacle is to blame Bush for it.  If Bush hadn’t started the war, we wouldn’t be here.

You know, just like “If I didn’t have an opposable thumb, I wouldn’t have smashed my finger with this hammer.”

It is significant that BOTH of Barack Obama’s Secretaries of State – first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry – voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq.  Because they looked at the clear and present danger that Iraq posed and they looked at the intelligence evidence that Bush was also looking at, and they came to the same decision that any rational human being would come to faced with such overwhelming evidence.

History records THAT as a fact as well.  It also records the fact that nearly sixty percent of DEMOCRATS in the United States Senate (29 of 50) supported Bush’s policy on Iraq in the form of something called “the Iraq WAR Resolution.”  That’s right, kids: “The Iraq WAR Resolution.”  Only to turn on him like treasonous dogs the moment that politics and unbelievable dishonesty and cynicism on the part of the Democrat Party entered into the picture.

Again, note that the two people who served as Obama’s Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – both voted “YES.”

Democrats are demonic, backstabbing traitors.  And if you give them power, they will undermine America every single time.

So Obama is trying to play games and blame pretty much all of the scandals that HIS administration is responsible for on Bush.  Like the VA scandal.

Now Obama’s – OBAMA’S – failed policy is coming home to roost.  And the man who just a few years ago was claiming total credit for Iraq is now using his army of media cockroaches to suggest that Bush so screwed up Iraq that it’s wrong to blame Obama.  BULLCRAP.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush secured victory in Iraq and handed off a safe, stable, secure nation to Barack Obama.  Barack Obama claimed credit for what he received and in so doing claimed ownership of it.  Had his policy not been so wrong, had he not so completely and so arrogantly IGNORED his wise military advisors, we would not be in this mess.

Don’t let Obama play his “Iranian strategy” on this one.

 

A New Term For Your Lexicon: ‘Bergdahling.’ We’re Seeing Lots Of It In Iraq Right Now As Aftermath Of Obama’s Cut And Run

June 13, 2014

First the pronunciation: remember Eva Gabor in Green Acres?  Good.  All you’ve got to do is say “dahling” the way she did and then put a “berg” in front of it and you’ll nail it.

Second, the definition: it involves 1) removing your uniform and 2) deserting your position, your unit and your buddies.  Technically, in Bowe Bergdahl’s case, it also involves 3) seeking out the enemy and likely collaborating, but to seek out and join terrorists the way Bergdahl did is either so stupid or so evil or so BOTH that it’s just too far out there.  I mean, that’s the trifecta, and as the Miami Heat appear to be discovering in the NBA Finals right now, such a three-peat is not easy.

So let’s just agree to define “Bergdhaling” as removing your uniform and deserting your position in time of war.

Well, okay, you could also go another way and define “Bergdahling” as a president selling out his nation’s national security for chump change out of an idiotic belief that it will politically benefit him.  So like other words, it’s got a range and the precise meaning depends on context.  If you’re talking about a president betraying America, he’s “Bergdahling” in this latter sense.  And if you talk about a soldier “Bergdahling,” he’s doing it in the former sense above and removing his uniform and deserting his buddies.

This is – I believe – an important term today.  Because thanks to Barack Obama’s utterly disastrous and disgraceful foreign policy, we’re seeing a TON of “Bergdahling” going on in Iraq:

Gunmen seized Iraq’s second-largest city Tuesday as troops threw away their uniforms and abandoned their posts, officials said, in another blow to the authorities, who appear incapable of stopping militant advances.

Because of this contagious phenomena of “Bergdahling,” a splinter group that is actually so bad even al Qaeda says they’re too vicious has overrun three Iraqi cities, already carved out a caliphate for themselves to launch new deadly attacks against the Great Satan America, and are swearing they will take Baghdad next.  Well, to be precise, because Barack Obama GAVE them free reign to reorganize and regroup and because of “Bergdahling,” anyway.

I mean, it’s amazing, this group taking over Iraq, ISIS, was established by a rabid killer who even al Qaeda viewed as “too extreme.”

Now, according to official White House doctrine as espoused by Barack Obama’s either most or least capable liar-liar-pants-on-fire Susan Rice, the fleeing Iraqi troops are, like Bowe Bergdahl, “serving with honor and distinction.”

From the reports, 800 terrorist fighters overran tens-of-thousands of Iraqi “Berghalers.”  Don’t forget to praise their honor or their distinction as they flee.

Because, you see, when your president is a Traitor-in-Chief, treason becomes a GOOD thing rather than a BAD thing.

While Barack Obama and his former opponent become former stooge Hillary Clinton can’t comprehend it, this is very, VERY bad for America.  In a letter intercepted between al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri to his chief lieutenant al-Zarkawi, al-Zawahiri identified four stages to the terrorist strategy: 1) Drive the Americans out; 2) establish a caliphate; 3) attack the Americans; and 4) destroy Israel.

Al Qaeda and organizations like the lethal ISIS, stronger than they have EVER BEEN thanks to the graphic, monumental failure of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, now have their caliphate in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.  And they’re going to be going back on the offense against the United States – whom they now know are the “paper tiger” we WEREN’T under George Bush – and attacking us and our interests.

It’s an interesting thing, how our enemies rightly view us as ripe for attack when Democrats occupy the White House.  Because it was under the pathetically weak cut-and-run response of Bill Clinton that Osama bin Laden first boasted -

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

- and began to plot his giant strike against the paper tiger that culminated on 9/11/2001.  Note that every single one of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us with our own airplanes and used them as flying bombs had planned their attack, infiltrated the United States, received their financing and had their training under the presidency of Bill Clinton.  Bush stepped into the job and didn’t have time to say much more than “how do you do?” before al Qaeda took advantage of the fact that Bill Clinton left America both weak and blind to punch us in the mouth.

I pointed this out years ago:

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America. Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993. In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living. In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists. And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole. And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us. They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability. And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind. And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers. And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry. Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Maybe it’s time for more of you idiot Democrats to realize how wrong you’ve been.  Because Obama has completely failed on every front imaginable.  In Iraq, Obama rushed out of their and “ended the war.”  He wasn’t interested in bothering to even TRY to negotiate an American presence to safeguard what America had sacrificed 4,500 lives and 32,000 wounded along with billions of dollars to achieve.  The military warned Obama that his policy would end disastrously, the Republicans warned Obama that his policy would end disastrously, but Obama pulled the plug.

Just so you know how well things were going after Bush won the war, VP Joe Biden boasted:

“[It] could be one of the great achievements of this administration,” he said. “You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

So anybody who tries to blame this on Bush is a diseased-infested liar and if you don’t just slap some sense into that fool, don’t bother trying to talk any sense into him because he’s BEYOND sense.  Because Bush handed off a victory.  And it was such a victory that Biden tried to claim credit for it.

Since becoming president, Obama has done precisely what Osama bin Laden boasted a weak, pathetic “paper tiger” America WOULD do: we cut and ran.  Obama boasts of “ending wars” when all he did was fled and leave our enemies in a strong position to attack us again and again until we are dead and gone.

Anyway, President George Bush’s response to 9/11 so awesome and so lethal that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- after his capture and yes, after his waterboarding – acknowledged that the American response was so massive and so overwhelming that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

But he failed to realize how truly weak and truly pathetic a mighty nation like the United States could become if just one true liberal fool were ever allowed to become our president.

And now they’re right back in our faces.

And what’s Obama doing in response?  Why, he’s trading our “Bergdahlers” for the equivalent of five four-star generals.  Obama’s response is to weaken America and strengthen her enemies.

And our enemies know it.

Obama’s response – now AFTER FOUR MONTHS he’s finally even been bothered enough after all his dithering to even offer one – is “to do our part” – which he basically defines as doing NOTHING.  After Obama walked away for his weekend golf, none of our allies had any more assurance that Obama will stand by his allies and none of our enemies had any fear whatsoever.

I think of our troops who fought so hard and for so long and I just want to vomit.  Just reflect on the past week: first it blows up that our soldiers are getting the “benefit” of the bureaucratic, socialized medicine that Obama wants to impose on ALL of America when it doesn’t even work for the relatively small number of America’s veterans.  We find that our enemies in Gitmo are getting FAR better care than our troops are getting.   Then we have the Bowe Bergdahl fiasco explode, in which a deserter and very likely a TRAITOR is said to have “served with honor and distinction” while that same demonic White House demonizes every other member of Bergdahl’s unit who DIDN’T desert and who served their country.  And now we find out that Obama has blown EVERYTHING our soldiers spent the last ten years fighting for.

I am so disgusted.  So much sacrificed to win and Obama has so pissed it away that we are negative ZERO.

 

 

 

 

New Revelations About THE Most Dishonest White House EVER: Treasury Sec Geithner Reveals He Was Instructed To Lie To The American People

May 13, 2014

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal.  Or in the Benghazi scandal.  Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care.  That is a documented fact.  He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact.  And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’T believe the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue.  The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal.  Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public about social security being behind the deficit
In his memoir, out today, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to mislead Americans about the long term costs of Social Security
 ‘I objected when  Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ Geithner writes
By Francesca Chambers
Published: 09:20 EST, 12 May 2014  | Updated: 17:45 EST, 12 May 2014

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that.  What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows

It reminds me of ANOTHER White House prep session before – heck, FIVE Sunday talk shows in which Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency.  He has proven more than ANY HUMAN BEING who EVER LIVED that he is wiling to look his people in the eye and lie to them right to their face – as he did at LEAST 37 times when he kept emphatically promising something he KNEW full damn well was an outright lieNBC documenting that Obama knew for at least THREE YEARS he was lying - and which even the Clintons dating back 20 YEARS AGO knew was a lie:

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

The Clintons' first term in the White House was marred by the failure of 'Hillarycare,' an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

'Over-promising': A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

‘Over-promising': A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans 'the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor' -- 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board.  Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days.  And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark.  And burn in hell for it.

I’m speaking with the full authority of God’s Word behind me: you’re going to get yours, you baby-murdering (55 MILLION!!!), homosexual sodomy-loving, government-worshiping Democrat.  Obama – you know, the Obama who demonized Bush for a $9 trillion debt - has jacked up that debt to over $17.5 trillion.  Consider this to see yet again how viscerally and rabidly dishonest and hypocritical your false messiah truly has been.  Well, let me assure you, in 17.5 trillion years you will STILL be screaming in the agony of being burned alive forever and ever and EVER for what you did on this earth, Democrat.

You still have time to repent.  But your day is coming.

Why Would Anybody Consider Hillary Clinton For President? From Benghazi To Her Role In Keeping Boko Haram Safe

May 9, 2014

Democrats are amazing in their determination to be utterly hostile to the truth and to simple decency.

The world has been outraged at the incredible hate and contempt displayed in the Muslim group Boko Haram’s abduction (and I have no doubt gang-raping) of nearly 300 innocent girls (some of whom escaped on their own, thank God) whose crime was 1) being Christians and 2) trying to go to school.

The leader of Boko Haram (Abubakar Shekau) released this message:

“I abducted your girls…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women.”

Who do we have to blame for this outrage?

Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Democrat candidate for president:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
Josh Rogin
05.07.14
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.

The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”

“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”

Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)

“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.

The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.

“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring—in partnership with Nigeria and others—broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”

Representatives for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The media is asking a few questions (but don’t worry, in a few months it will all blow over and the media will yawn over this and every other outrage of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence or personal viciousness).  CNN had this:

Washington (CNN) — Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but some people may need backwards-looking glasses in debating whether the State Department under Hillary Clinton erred two years ago by not designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.

The question arose Thursday as part of the international focus on last month’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by the jihadist group in northeast Nigeria that threatens to sell them into slavery

The CNN piece becomes more of a cover-up than an objective piece.  It lists all the reasons Hillary was loathe to add Boko Haram to the FTO list.  But it very quickly gleans over the fact that Republicans were demanding that the organization be added to the list as early as 2010 after a SERIES of terrorist attacks:

A few months later, amid increasing violence by Boko Haram, the top Republicans on the panel wrote Clinton to urge its immediate terrorist designation.

In a letter to the secretary, Reps. Peter King of New York and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania cited support by the Department of Justice and military intelligence for such a step.

State Department officials opposed the move, as did 24 academics with expertise in African affairs.

You have to guess that in spite of a major effort to get Boko Haram designated as a terrorist organization, Hillary dithered and did NOTHING.

“Hindsight is 20/20,” CNN tells as us they introduce their piece.  So please don’t blame the Clinton News Network’s pick for president in 2016.

But yeah, BLAME her.  Had she did what was right and called a terrorist a terrorist when she and Obama were calling terrorism an “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” this outrage could have and likely would have been avoided.

Who kept Boko Haram off the terrorist list so they could be free to unleash all the Islamist evil in their hearts?  Just remember:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

There is a statement in the above-quoted article that directly links the present U.S. failure with Boko Haram to the gross failure of Benghazi:

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

It was the same mindset based on the same dishonest Obama political narrative: we’ve got al Qaeda on the run.  And any facts that prove otherwise are to be ignored out of sheer cynical political expediency as Obama runs for re-election and Hillary awaits her turn four years later.

So let’s talk about Hillary and Benghazi:

When the murdered ambassador and the other victims were pleading for help in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack in Benghazi, where was Hillary Clinton?

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

When every other Western nation removed their diplomatic outposts from Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attack against our compound, where was Hillary Clinton?

Others, like the British government and the International Red Cross, were aware how dangerous Benghazi was and pulled their personnel out, but Clinton insisted on pursuing a diplomatic U.S. presence in Benghazi, but left them practically undefended

When a terrorist attack took NINE HOURS to unfold and American warriors were orderered to “stand down” and violate the American tradition to leave no man behind, where was Hillary Clinton?

All we know is that when it was time to offer up a pure LIE as an excuse for criminal incompetence in an obvious political cover-up, we DO know where Hillary Clinton was: right in front saying “Blame the video!”

We know that Hillary Called Barack Obama minutes prior to releasing a statement that turns out to be nearly identical to the one White House staffer Ben Rhodes crafted for Obama’s own dishonest deception campaign two months before his re-election.

We don’t know where Obama was during the nine-hour-long attack either.  All we know is that he NEVER SHOWED UP at the situation room that night.  But that he was quickly whoring for campaign money the very next day.  I actually believe Obama’s whereabouts during the attack are still unknown because Obama was fundraising AS THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE.

Here’s a good summary of what happened in Benghazi.  And it is frankly stunning how the media has yawned because it proves a DEMOCRAT to be corrupt and dishonest rather than the Republican they would have rabidly torn into.

We now know for a FACT that the Youtube video story had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what happened in Benghazi.  We now know for a FACT that the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department knew this for a fact within MINUTES of the attackWe know the Libyan president said that from the moment he first heard the ridiculous suggestion.  And we now know for a FACT that Obama and Clinton teamed up to pass off THE most cynical political cover-up in the entire history of this republic.  The result was, when Hillary Clinton should have gone on those five political Sunday shows, Obama sent Susan Rice (who had nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with a terrorist attack) to claim that there had been no pre-planned terrorist attack, but rather nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration over a video made by a U.S. citizen that got out of hand.  We know that what Susan Rice said FIVE TIMES was manifestly untrue.  We now know that the White House TOLD her to pass off this lie.  Even though they KNEW that was a pure lie.

These are desperately wicked people who do not have as much as a “scintilla” (to quote Obama over his next cover-up of his ordering his IRS to persecute conservative organizations AND their donors) of integrity, decency, virtue, or honor of any kind.

And neither do those who vote for these people.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers