Obama’s Utterly Failed Policy With Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan And The Entire Middle East Is A Clear And Present Danger

Regarding Syria, Obama’s abject failure is all over the news:

BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS, Feb 5 (Reuters) – Western and Arab states voiced outrage on Sunday after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power, and Washington vowed harsher sanctions against Damascus.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a “travesty”. It came a day after activists say Syrian forces bombarded a district of Homs, killing more than 200 people in the worst night of bloodshed of the 11-month uprising.

Russia said the resolution was biased and would have meant taking sides in a civil war. Syria is Moscow’s only big ally in the Middle East, home to a Russian naval base and customer for its arms. China’s veto appeared to follow Russia’s lead.

Washington’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice said she was “disgusted” by Russia and China’s vetoes on Saturday, and “any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands”.

In Syria, Barack Obama has simply failed. His cabinent-level United Nations ambassador has failed. It’s past time for people to get fired according to a man who served four UN ambassadors over eight years:

It’s time for Susan Rice to resign
By Richard Grenell
Published February 08, 2012 | FoxNews.com

One of the reasons the American public holds unelected government officials in such low esteem is that they are never held accountable for their failures.

Presidents and cabinet officials could send a strong message of accountability if they held senior appointees responsible for their performance.

President Obama should use this weekend’s UN failure to show Americans and Arabs alike that it is unacceptable to stand idly by while some 6,500 Syrians are killed by their government. Obama should ask for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s resignation and replace her with someone tougher and more effective. If she won’t voluntarily resign then she should be fired.

The case against Susan Rice has been building over the last few years.

This weekend’s embarrassing failure on a Syria resolution was the latest and last straw. Her diplomatic failures and silence have given the United States a weak representation at the United Nations.

Next month marks the anniversary of the Syrian uprising. But Rice, as she has on many issues, has ignored Syria’s growing problems for too long.

Rather than speaking out immediately when the violence started, she stayed silent.

Rather than calling for action, she did nothing.

Russia and China saw Rice’s passivity as a sign that Syrian President Assad’s removal wasn’t a priority.

By the time Rice started pressuring Security Council members to confront the growing violence and death, it was too late.

Once a draft resolution condemning Syria was introduced, Rice was too quick to negotiate changes that weakened it without insisting on a date for the Security Council to vote. Her constant agreement to changes seemed desperate. The frantic and late maneuvering left the United States at the mercy of Russia and China, who vetoed even the watered down measure.

On her post-veto media tour, however, Rice sought to blame Russia for not listening to the United States or other western governments rather than acknowledge her failed diplomatic skills – an ironic spin given that Rice and team Obama created this same new Russian resolve when they naively and dramatically called for a “re-set” to our relationship with Russia.

The “reset” Rice championed and spoke affectionately about has not only failed to deliver support for US national security policies but it has also exposed the dangers of an inexperienced team’s strategy of personal diplomacy.

This continues Rice’s pattern of failing at her own stated goals.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Susan Rice talked very openly about restoring America’s leadership at the United Nations and often derided President George W. Bush for acting without U.N. backing.

Rice cheerfully exclaimed that, unlike Bush, Barack Obama would engage in active diplomacy even with countries considered our enemies.

She was very critical of the US’s reputation at the UN and vowed to build better relationships with every country.

In her current stump speech Rice claims that her goal has been accomplished, “We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we’ve gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”

This past weekend shows just how disastrous Rice’s strategy has been.

Rice has been silent on important issues and ineffective when she does engage. She skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident.

Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab revolution last year.

Rice stayed silent when Iran was elected to the UN women’s committee, she didn’t call out Libya when it was elected to the Human Rights Council, she was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned U.N. vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. When she actually shows up, she is a miserable failure.

Take the crucial issue of Iran. Rice spent the last several years undermining and grumbling about the Bush administration’s increasingly tough measures but has only been able to pass one resolution of her own – compared with the Bush team’s five.

Rice’s one and only Iran resolution was 22 months ago. And it passed with just 12 votes of support – the least support we have ever seen for a Security Council sanctions resolution on Iran. In fact, Susan Rice lost more support with her one resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined.

In another example, Rice secretly negotiated with the Arabs on acceptable language for a possible U.N. resolution to condemn Israel’s settlement activity.

Rice’s engagement sent a strong message that making a new policy, rather than encouraging the two sides to negotiate directly, may not garner an automatic U.S. veto.

In February of 2011, the US abruptly changed tactics on the Arabs and vetoed a UN resolution on Israeli settlements.

The Palestinians were justifiably furious with Rice. After all, they had just spent weeks going back and forth with her on acceptable language to make Israeli settlement activity a violation of international law — something previous U.S. administrations had bluntly and immediately threatened a veto over. Rice’s negotiations suggested the U.S. was open to change, when in fact it was not.

Whether the issue is Sudan, Egypt, North Korea or Rwanda, Rice has been either missing in action or unable to deliver a quick and effective resolution.

Firing Rice may serve Secretary of State Hillary Clinton too. Clinton’s team has always viewed Susan Rice with suspicion dating back to the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, when Rice went on MSNBC to slam Clinton’s ad claiming she was best equipped to take the national security emergency call at 3 a.m.

“Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call,” Rice said. Secretary Clinton, one State Department diplomat told me, has tried to distance herself from Rice and her lackluster UN performance.

President Obama could show the Arab street that it is unacceptable for the United States government to sit idly by while the United Nations Security Council does nothing. What better way to show that things at the U.N. have to change than to fire the woman spearheading the failed U.S. efforts there.

Rice’s last diplomatic initiative should be putting the United States’ reputation above her own.

Richard Grenell served as the spokesman for four US Ambassadors to the United Nations. including John Negroponte, John Danforth, John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad. He is currently based in Los Angeles. For more visit his website at www.richardgrenell.com.

For the “disgusted” and “outraged” liberals who are so shocked that Russia and China would block such an effort, let me just say one thing as politely as I know how:

YOU QUIVERING, HYPOCRITE, ABJECT PILES OF FOUL-SMELLING TOXIC SLIME!!!  HAVE THE DECENCY TO THINK BACK TO 2003 WHEN RUSSIA AND CHINA (ALONG WITH YOUR BUDDIES IN FRANCE) DID THE SAME EXACT THING WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH WAS JUST TRYING TO GET REASONABLE WMD INSPECTIONS!!!  YOU ACTUALLY JOINED RUSSIA AND CHINA LIKE THE TRAITORS YOU ARE.  AND YOU GAVE BUSH NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER BUT TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ!!!

I tried to write a history of what Democrats did in joining Russia and China as a means to undermine Bush:

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

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

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

I also provided the FACTS about how truly treacherous and in fact blatantly traitorous the Democrats truly were in their before-and-after statements about Iraq:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

If Democrats had just been united with the rest of the nation, we could have presented a strong, united front to the world.  As it was, Saddam Hussein did not believe America would invade because Democrats had so fractured America, and Russia, China and France saw no reason to cooperate with the President of the United States when no DEMOCRATS in his own country would lift a finger to do anything other than stab him in the back.

In the end, it was basically the United States and its historic ally England standing against Iraq, Russia, China, France, the United Nations and the Democrat Party.

So now Russia and China are doing the same thing they did to George Bush for year after year and suddenly only NOW it’s “disgusting” and “outrageous”???

It obviously IS “disgusting” and “outrageous” what Syria is doing.  They have killed thousands of their own people.

WHY WEREN’T ALL THE MASS GRAVES IN IRAQ DISGUSTING AND OUTRAGEOUS TO YOU VILE LIBERALS???

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who just vanished under Saddam Hussein.  It’s the lucky ones whose remains were ever even found.

Try this paragraph on for size:

 Since 2003 in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of bodies have been discovered in more than 300 mass graves. The Ministry of Human Rights estimates that as many as 1,500,000 people remain missing and unidentified. The missing may have been captured, abducted, secretly detained or killed and buried en masse in unmarked graves. Iraqi Minister of Human Rights Mohammed S. Al-Sudaney stated “It is important for the future of Iraq that we engage in a sustainable effort to address this issue. Millions of Iraqis have been affected by decades of abuse and we must work on their behalf to find their missing relatives.”

You Democrats are on an eternal walk of shame.

As vile as Russia and China are for their veto of any resolution to help the people of Syria, it is no more than what the vile current president of the United States deserves.

And never forget that the Democrat Party stood for the rape, torture and murder of untold hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people.  Even as they falsely postured themselves as championing human values.

You need to understand the STAKES of what is going on in Syria as Russians and Chinese (along with Syrian thugs) sense weakness in a truly weak President Obama:

Syria raises spectre of proxy conflict for U.S., Russia
By Andrew Quinn | Reuters – 3 hrs ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – As the Obama administration weighs worst-case scenarios for Syria, one stands out: a civil war that develops into a proxy battle between Arabs and the West on one side, and Russia and Iran on the other.
 
U.S. officials stress they do not want to play a military role in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on protests has killed more than 5,000 people and raised fears of a protracted power struggle in a country at the heart of the Arab world.
 
But after U.S. and Arab-led efforts to craft consensus in the U.N. Security Council on Syria’s political transition were torpedoed by vetoes from Russia and China, some analysts say risks are growing that the international community will line up on opposite sides of a fratricidal war.
 
The volatile ingredients are already in place.
 
Resistance fighters known as the Free Syrian Army have pledged to liberate the country from Assad’s rule. Activists call for armed support for rebels. And Syrian security forces are ratcheting up the violence, vowing to fulfil their president’s threat to strike with an “iron fist” against the government’s opponents.
 
“”There is a risk of it could become a proxy conflict. It is already headed in that direction,” said Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Now think of Egypt and Obama’s massive failure there.

The Obama White House took credit for Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak’s toppling.

Obama downplayed the likelihood that the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood would take over if Mubarak were taken out of the picture:

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

Obama couldn’t have been more tragically – and dare I say criminally – wrong:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

And now, so soon after the Muslim Brotherhood took over the country contrary to fool Obama’s dismissals, we are already facing a similar moment to Carter’s hostage crisis with Iran.  Let’s call it “Obama’s hostage crisis”:

CAIRO — Ignoring a U.S. threat to cut off aid, Egypt on Sunday referred 19 Americans and 24 other employees of nonprofit groups to trial before a criminal court on accusations they illegally used foreign funds to foment unrest in the country.

Egypt’s military rulers had already deeply strained ties with Washington after their crackdown on U.S.-funded groups promoting democracy and human rights that the country’s leadership has accused of stirring up violence in the aftermath of the uprising a year ago that ousted Hosni Mubarak. The decision to send 43 workers from the groups to stand trial marks a sharp escalation in the dispute.

The 19 Americans include Sam LaHood, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s son and the head of the Egypt office of the Washington-based International Republican Institute.

“Threatening to cut off aid”??? What the hell business do we have giving the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AID?!?!?

But, yes, Obama was actually trying to INCREASE AID TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-DOMINATED EGYPT JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS AGO:

Obama set to speed aid to Egypt: official
By Warren Strobel
DAVOS, Switzerland | Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:52pm EST

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama plans to accelerate the pace of American aid to Egypt, a top State Department official said on Wednesday, as the most populous Arab nation reaches a critical stage in its uncertain transition away from autocratic rule.

Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats, part of a U.S. delegation that held unprecedented talks last week with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, said Washington wanted to provide “more immediate benefits” to Egyptians, who earlier this month conducted their first democratic elections in decades.

“During this period, we want to be as supportive as we can. This is an historic moment. Egypt’s a country of enormous importance,” Hormats said.

Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and a thug, but he was the best America and Israel were ever going to get in a region of evil nutjobs.  Now what do we have thanks to Obama???

If you haven’t already seen the magnitude of this president’s utterly contemptible and despicable failure, you are without excuse if you don’t understand it now.

As for Iran and the nuclear weapons that Obama will allow them to have, and the war Obama’s failure to that regard will create, I just wrote a piece about that.  Suffice it to say that George Bush TRIED to do something about Iran’s dangerous nuclear weapons program, but demonic Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton prevented him from being able to do anything.

Democrats were completely wrong; Bush was 100 percent RIGHT.

Every single Democrat who voted for Obama deserves to have an Iranian nuclear bomb shoved right up their anuses and detonated, but unfortunately they are going to take the rest of the world with them.

Remember Libya and Obama’s overthrow of Gaddafi?  And how Obama took all the credit in the world for that?

The political situation in Libya is falling apart:

I was pointing out that Obama had taken us from bad to far, far worse as far back as August of last year.  So it’s not like Obama couldn’t have known what would probably happen.

Here’s Obama’s Libya on the verge of succumbing to sharia law now:

Up to 3,000 Libyans demonstrated Friday in the eastern city of Benghazi, demanding that sharia be the source of the North African country’s future constitution.

“Islamic! Islamic!,” chanted the demonstrators, with some waving copies of the Qur’an.

A press statement distributed at the rally called for an article identifying Islam as the state religion to be added to the constitution.

That article should be non-negotiable and not subject to change in the forthcoming referendum on the constitution, it said.

Demonstrators also expressed opposition to any plan to make Libya a federal state.

What was it you said, Obama?  “The call to Islamic prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset“?

Please move to Libya then, Barry Hussein; because they’ll give you a LOT of pretty-sounding sharia over there.

I wrote about how Obama ignored even his own lawyers in violating the Constitution to attack Libya.  I also wrote about how Democrats demonized Bush for doing FAR less than Obama did in attacking Libya.  And  I wrote back when that if Libya went to hell, the same arrogant ass who took credit for it needed to take the blame; TAKE THE BLAME, Obama.  Or as Democrats gleefully reminded us about Bush and Iraq (you know, before his successful surge policy that they demonized WORKED and we WON), “If you break it, you own it.”

OWN Libya, Obama.  OWN IT.

I have mentioned Obama’s blatant moral hypocrisy before in addition to the utter failure of those hypocritical policies:

Can we talk about Libya? Obama said, “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,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq. It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him. And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy. Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now: Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act. Domestic Eavesdropping. Rendition. The Surge Strategy. The Iraq War. The Iranian Nuclear Threat. Military Tribunals. And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country. Or not. There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another. Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so. Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians? Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want. And - disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel. And Obama is willing to take his non-existent “standard” and play political games with it. Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Then we come to Obama’s colossal and inexcusable failure in Iraq.

Remember that Iraq was going so successfully as Bush left office that Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden actually claimed credit for Iraq:

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.

Aside from the fact that it is naked chutzpah that the same two men who demonized George Bush for his successful surge strategy and tried to do everything they could to undermine and backstab Bush during his efforts to prevail in Iraq, it at least serves to prove that Iraq was a huge success for Bush as Obama took office.

Listen to the general who directed that surge speaking of Obama’s disastrous and disgraceful failure in Iraq:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

We also learned that Obama’s decision to not even TRY to negotiate for U.S. troops to stay to safeguard what we had won was KNOWN to be a huge mistake even as Obama was MAKING that mistake:

(Reuters) – U.S. intelligence agencies warned that security gains in Iraq could degenerate into sectarian violence after a troop pullout that some officials say left the United States with little leverage in a country it occupied for nearly nine years.

A wave of bombings that killed at least 72 people in Baghdad on Thursday provided further evidence of a deteriorating security situation just days after the last U.S. troops left Iraq.

“This should be a surprise to no one that this is happening,” said House of Representatives intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers.

“Most people believed, the assessments that were coming out believed, that the sudden rapid withdrawal with no troop presence on the ground was going to leave this vacuum that would be filled with the kind of problems that you’re seeing,” Rogers, a Republican, said in an interview with Reuters.

Rogers said the troop pullout reduced U.S. influence and that a chaotic Iraq plays into Iran’s desire for increased influence in that region.

And now, under Obama’s completely failed and depraved leadership, the headline is, “Iraq Stands on the Brink of Disaster.”  It is poised to fall under the influence of Iran because Obama was too much of a coward and a weakling to stick around like America did in Germany and Japan and Korea and a whole bunch of other places.

Even the New York Times writes about “a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.”  It describes US State Department officials as being “confined to the embassy because of security concerns” after we pulled all of our troops out of the country.  And the obvious result is that we are going to lose everything we fought so hard for and sacrificed so much for to win in Iraq. 

And Barack Obama is criminally responsible for that complete disaster.

That leaves us with the dismal failure of Obama in Afghanistan.

Obama demanded a timetable for withdrawal so that our friends in Afghanistan would know they couldn’t count on us to stay and our enemies the Taliban would know that they could wait us out.

We find that Obama never bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan dating back to when they wanted 40,000 for their surge and he decided not to give them their request after humming and hawing FOREVER.

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

And what is the result of Obama in Afghanistan?

Taliban ‘poised to retake Afghanistan’ after NATO pullout, leaked U.S. report claims
Hamid Shalizi and Mirwais Harooni
Kabul— Reuters
Published Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2012 1:57AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2012 11:13AM EST

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war.
 
Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the existence of the document, reported on Wednesday by Britian’s Times newspaper and the BBC.

Which is EXACTLY what conservatives predicted would happen if we followed Obama’s incredibly stupid and immoral policies.

When we elected Barack Obama, we elected a truly evil and vile man to lead us.  Obama’s wicked reverend Jeremiah Wright spake as a prophet concerning the Obama presidency when he said, “No, no, no.  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America.”  And this IS God damn America.

Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to America, to the American people and to the world.  And if we don’t wise up and vote him out of office, we deserve every catastrophe that his presidency will create.

The Bible forewarned us that the beast is coming.  And Obama was the useful idiot who has done so much to prepare the way for Antichrist.

If Obama Takes Credit For Ouster Of Libya’s Gaddafi, He Also Accepts Blame For Whatever Happens As A Result

The news of the day (Sunday) is that the rebels have finally prevailed in their struggle to overthrow Libyan strongman dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama has not yet interrupted his vacation to speak about the development, clearly waiting until more information comes in.

I don’t doubt that Obama’s first impulse will be to crow about Gaddafi’s ouster in a “This justifies my actions over the last several months” victory speech.

But don’t forget that it took 155 days -here’s an article detailing the chaos and embarrassment of the mission at day 100 - for a clearly nearly useless US-backed NATO to do something that Obama promised the American people would take, “days, not weeks.”

Also don’t forget that Obama ran roughshod over Congress – and over even his own previous demagogic anti-Bush rhetoric – when he undertook this action without ever bothering to get congressional approval for this action.

But let’s put all that aside, as truly bad as it all is, just for the sake of argument.

If Muammar Gaddafi is truly overthrown from Libya, who or what is going to take his place?  A worse regime?  A French-Revolution-style bloodbath of mob-rule and executions galore?  Terrorist Islamist groups like al Qaeda? A pro-Iranian puppet state like Lebanon?

It shouldn’t surprise anybody if the factions that fought alongside one another to depose Gaddafi begin to fight against each other for control over the oil fields and political control.  There are the Berbers versus the Arabs, and a whole bunch of tribes versus a whole bunch of other tribes.

Just remember that if Barack Obama assumes the credit for the wonderful day that Gaddafi is overthrown, then he should assume every single particle of blame for Libya turning ugly.

Colin Powell famously told Bush regarding Iraq, “If you break it, you buy it.”  And liberals threw that in Bush’s face – even though Bush got Saddam Hussein and won the Iraq War.  If a crisis develops – which I think it will – shouldn’t Obama be held accountable for his substantial role in buying Libya???

I imagine his advisers are probably informing Obama of that as further information comes in.  It will be interesting to see what Obama says.  Frankly, the less Obama crows, the more concerned we should be that Libya might become a chaotic bloodbath.

The Dow had been predicted to open down in the triple digits due to bad economic news prior to the developments in Libya being announced, and the futures are currently moderately down some eight hours before the market opens.  It will also be interesting to see how the market reacts to what they are seeing from Libya.  But also remember that the Dow – like Obama – could surge on seemingly good news, only to plummet miserably later if anarchy begins to take hold.

Obama Rejected His OWN LAWYERS When He Waged His ‘Not-War’ With Libya And Ignored Congress

When Bush – during the tense crisis-aftermath of having just been horribly attacked by terrorists and having no idea if we’d be attacked again – asked his lawyers what he could do and what he could not do, HE LISTENED TO THEM.

Obama, the self-righteous hypocrite, denounced Bush for listening to the conclusions of his top laywers.  Obama and his legal puppet Eric Holder actually wanted to criminalize the men who did what they had to do during an incredibly dangerous time for our nation.  They actually sought to politicize the war and hold the previous administration criminally responsible basically for not being as foolish as the Obama Administration and it’s “man-caused disasters” instead of “terrorism” and it’s “overseas contingency operation” instead of “war on terror.”

But now we Obama is greater than his lawyers, and certainly far greater than the Constitution, in his own diseased mind.

Obama rejects top lawyers’ views on war power in Libya
Key figures in administration’s legal team questioned continuation of air war without Congress’ OK
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
June 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnsen advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

That position has attracted criticism. Jack L. Goldsmith, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, has written that the administration’s interpretation is “aggressive” and unpersuasive, although he also acknowledged that there was no clear answer and little chance of a definitive court ruling, so the reaction of Congress would resolve it.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, said that while “this is not an easy question,” Mr. Obama’s position was “both defensible and consistent with the position of previous administrations.” Still, he criticized the administration’s decision-making process.

“Decisions about the lawfulness of major presidential actions should be made by the Department of Justice, and within the department by the Office of Legal Counsel, after consultation with affected agencies,” he said. “The president always has the power of final decision.”

Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, “Our views were heard, as were other views, and the president then made the decision as was appropriate for him to do.”

This article, “Obama Rejects 2 Top Lawyers’ Views on War Power in Libya,” first appeared in The New York Times.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond outraged for Obama’s contempt for the truth and for basic reality:

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.”

Democrats denounced the two wars Bush waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Obama is still in both countries, but in addition he is now bombing three others.  WE ARE NOW IN FIVE WARS UNDER OBAMA.

And now we learn that we is circumventing the normal proces and not even bothering to listen to his own top lawyers.

What we are finding out is that Democrats are the quintessential essence of hypocrisy, with way too few exceptions.  Where are all the damn liberal protestors shouting about all these outrages?  They crawled out from every rock when Bush was president.

Barack Obama should be impeached according to the standard of 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 [on December 20, 2007].

Unlike Barack Obama, George Bush NEVER ACTED IN SUCH A MANNER.

If Democrats had any honor or integrity whatsoever, this would not stand.  The problem is that they don’t.

We have a fascist for a president.

Update, 6/18: Headline: “NATO bombs Tripoli, sending Khadafy into rage.”  Strange, this.  It seems that Qaddafi is under the clearly completely false impression that Obama constantly bombing his country somehow qualifies as “hostilities” or mayhap even “war.”  I’m sure it’s all just a complete misunderstanding, one that the Teleprompter-in-Chief could lay to rest with one of his long speeches.

Obama – Who Demonized Iraq And Afghanistan During Bush Administration – Now Warns Against Sending ‘Mixed Messages’ In His ‘Kinetic Action’ In Libya

Obama’s mouthpieces are warning Congress not to send “mixed messages” over Libya:

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the more than 30-page report and analysis will be sent to Congress Wednesday afternoon.

Carney also issued a warning, saying it is “important for Congress not to send mixed signals about a goal… we all share.”

Maybe he could stop doing that himself by finally calling the damn thing he’s doing what it clearly is: a WAR.

The problem is that Obama is a liar, a demagogue and a hypocrite without shame.

Even DEMOCRATS are now beyond pissed with Obama’s lies and deceit:

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.”

Of course, if Democrats actually believed the stuff they’re saying, they would impeach Obama and vote him right out on his butt.

But let’s spend a little time on the profound hypocrisy that characterizes Barry Hussein.

This was our Hypocrite-in-Chief when he didn’t give a rat’s ass about sending “mixed messages” when he condemned Bush for Iraq:

“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.

I’m sure that Libyans parachuted into your neighborhood just like they did in mine.  We’ve got the whole “Red Dawn” thing playing out here, only its Libyan paratroopers invading us instead of Russians.  I’m actually typing this in the hills as I partiicpate in the heroic resistance being led by our brilliant president Barry Hussein.  Either that, or Obama is so full of fecal matter that he could fertilize Brazil all by himself.

It also didn’t matter if President Bush had Congressional approval for that war.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about the Constitution OR Congress.

Obama also didn’t have a problem undermining President Bush or sending plenty of “mixed messages” when he said about Afghanistan:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

And of course he was doing everything he could to send mixed messages and undermine the Iraq War when he said things like:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obviously he was 100% wrong about the surge strategy that turned the Iraq War around.  But why should a lying weasel like Obama worry about being right, or worry about being a hypocrite???

And Obama also said things like -

“Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world”

- to send mixed messages galore.  Again, he couldn’t have been more wrong.  Which is why this loathsome weasel later tried to take credit through his vice president for what he had spent all his time undermining and condemning:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

This little weasel is not only still in Iraq and Afghanistan after running as the fraud who would messianically end all our wars and bring our troops home; he is now in FIVE wars, having added Libya, Pakistan and Yemen to his total.

Because Obama is the kind of fool who thinks he can eat his cake and have it too – with the full cooperation of a mainstream media that might as well be under Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda to keep us distracted while he does it.

Obama is ignoring the War Powers Act which was PASSED BY DEMOCRATS IN 1973 to restrain Nixon’s adventurism.  He is a fascist who doesn’t give a damn about our Constitution or our laws as he “fundamentally transforms” America into something it never has been and never should become.

Obama’s dishonest argument is that he doesn’t have to give Congress a voice because he already surrendered American sovereingty to NATO.  Not only was that utterly depraved to begin with, but it is also cynical and dishonest: because NATO is merely the politically correct version of American military power.

In his speech, Defense Secretary Gates excoriated NATO as a hollow sham.  It’s not Europe leading while America supports in Libya, because Europe is too cowardly, weak and weaselly to take responsibility for anything under the sun.  Just like Obama himself.  Defense Secretary Gates pointed out that without MASSIVE US involvement, NATO not only wouldn’t exist, but can’t even provide the resources for a TINY military campaign.  Which is to say that Obama using NATO as a cop-out to dodge the law is about as lame as lame can get.

Pajama’s Media has a nice piece detailing the sheer moral fraud of the Democrat Party.  After playing videos of Democrats – including Obama – being treasonous little vermin while Bush was president – they point out:

No, heavens no, they’re whining about Libya, a war they won’t call a war which has nothing to do with our national interests. The Democrats were cool with sending all kinds of mixed signals when we were battling a fierce Islamic insurgency in the heart of the Middle East. But on the fringes, in the NATO kinetic whatever against Daffy the Dictator? You’d better watch what you say.

I’m past sick of this crap.

You want to hear my Middle East policy?

It consists of three parts: 1) We support the only democracy in the history of the entire region as well as the people with whom we share profound moral and spiritual heritage - Israel.  Any attack on them is an attack on our vital national security interests.  2) any country we deem a threat to our security will be bombed into the stone age.  No “hearts and minds” campaigns, no “nation building,” no aid and most definitely no costly rebuilding campaigns that will drain our treasury and cost our lives.  And if they threaten us again, we will come back and bomb the pieces into even smaller pieces.  And if they threaten us a third time, we will “fundamentally transform” their country into a lake.  And 3) that means YOU, Iran.

Liberals Saying Obama Sounds Like A Fool Because He’s Just So Darned Brilliant

Do you remember how liberals went off on Bush as stupid for eight years (not including the primary season leading up to the 2000 election) because of the way he talked?

Bush and the word ”nuclear” was a favorite, of course.  And there were always a few awkward sentence constructions from a president who - unlike Obama - wasn’t slavishly attached to a teleprompter:

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

.

The same left that ridiculed George Bush over his every verbal slip are now rushing in with “intellectual” defenses as to why Obama sounds like a babbling fool every single time he can’t read his lines off a screen.

Case in point from today’s Los Angeles Times:

Meghan Daum: Obama’s fast brain vs. slow mouth
It’s not that the president can’t speak clearly; he employs the intellectual stammer.

Apparently, a lot of people consider President Obama to be bumblingly inarticulate. “The guy can’t talk his way out of a paper bag!” a reader wrote to me recently. “Sarah Palin is a brilliant speaker. It’s the president whose sentences are undiagrammable,” said another in response to a column I wrote about Palin. It’s not just my readers, nor is it exclusively conservatives, who hold this view. A Google search of “does Obama have a speech impediment” turns up several pages of discussion among the president’s supporters and critics alike.Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, “uhs” and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective “soaring” is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense.

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

If you’re not, chances are you find yourself yelling “get to the point already!” at the television screen every time Obama’s search for the right word seems to last longer than the search for Osama bin Laden. And thanks to its echoes of the college lecture hall, you may think it comes across as ever so slightly (or more than slightly) left wing.

That’s kind of ironic, given that the godfather of the intellectual stammer is arguably none other than the paterfamilias of the conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. With his slouch, his glazed-eyed stare and a speaking style that suggested the entire Oxford English Dictionary was flipping through his mind while he searched for a word like “dithyramb,” he makes Obama’s extemporaneous speech seem canned — not to mention pedestrian — by comparison. In fact, if the people critiquing Obama’s meandering speech patterns were to see an old “Firing Line” segment, I daresay they would think Buckley was drunk or otherwise impaired.

Granted, Buckley didn’t hold political office (he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of New York in 1965). He was more an observer than a decider, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be to lead a nation. Obama, as much as his critics might hate to admit it, is more than a phlegmatic egghead. He’s proved he can act decisively; whatever his faults, he’s leading the nation far more effectively — albeit less colorfully — than Buckley would have led New York. (When asked what he’d do if he won the mayoral election, he famously responded, “Demand a recount.”)

Obama’s problem is not that he’s an intellectual (for the sake of argument let’s define it as someone who is scholarly, broadly informed and distinguished as a thinker). It’s that he sounds like an intellectual. Unlike other presumed political brainiacs — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, for example — he isn’t able to bury his ideas behind a folksy regional accent or good-old-boy affectations when he wants to. Nor is he effective at “keeping it real” when he falls into traditionally African American cadences that he clearly never used when he was growing up.

By speaking as though he hails from everywhere, he ends up being from nowhere. The result is that people look at him and see not a Hawaiian or a Chicagoan or even a black man, but a university man.

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you’ll have to find another adjective. And take your time. The right word is usually worth waiting for.

Okay.  I understand.  Obama sounds so stupid because he’s so damned BRILLIANT.  And here, look.  There’s a conservative out there who did the same thing.

Or not.  I don’t recall William F. Buckley Jr. having moments like this one:

But that is a fact.  And such things are hindrances to most of the mainstream media’s “narratives.”

I don’t recall Buckley telling us about the 57 states (with one left to go) he’s visited in those sophisticated tones of his:

Nor do I remember Buckley making a visit to Westminster Abbey and getting the date wrong by three years as Obama just got through doing:

I don’t remember Bush – who of course was a moron (just ask any liberal) doing anything this braindead either.

Nope.  It’s brilliant, intellectual “university men” who ascend to such marvellous heights of intellect.

One fellow pointed out that “Bush could not pronounce Nuclear but he knew what it was (Iran, Obama).”  And, of course, that stupid Bush was right, and those “brilliant” Democrats were all wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But why should it matter that Bush was right, and we are now facing a disastrous crisis that it’s just a damn shame that liberals basically ENTIRELY created with their abject REFUSAL to deal with a crisis, and their DEMONIZATION of anyone who tried?  Bush said “nuclear” funny, and that’s really all that matters if you’re properly sophisticated and, you know, professorial.  Bush was stupid even though he was entirely correct and the liberals who attacked him (including the three top liberals of the Obama administration with VP Biden and Secretary of State Clinton) were entirely wrong.

It doesn’t matter how many times we’re right and how many times they’re wrong.  Because they won’t acknowledge the truth and because the facts don’t really matter worth a damn to them.

There’s a concept in psychology called “accommodation and assimilation” that fits liberals in their steadfast refusal to follow the rules of normal learning.  In normal psychology, one assimilates new information into one’s worldview and accommodates one’s worldview as new facts come in that run contrary to the picture one has of the world.  Liberals don’t bother with that nonsense.  Rather, they rigidly adhere to their doctrines and simply paste-over whatever reality happens to get in the way.

I think of Harold Camping and his followers.  It didn’t matter than he falsely predicted the end of the world before in 1994.  It didn’t matter that the Bible that he’s doing all his “calculations” from specifically says no man can know the day or the hour of such things.  It doesn’t even matter that his prediction for the end of the world on May 21 turned out to be wrong.  Such facts don’t work, so so much the worse for the facts.  Now we’re assured that the world will end on October 21.  Really.  Better get ready.

Like Harold Camping and his followers, liberals are immune from any genuine learning.  They simply lack the character to deal with reality in an honest way.

Obama is brilliant because he graduated from Harvard, but Bush is stupid even though he graduated from Yale.  Previous Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was brilliant because he graduated from Yale, even though Bush had also graduated from Yale and even though Bush actually had a better accumulated grade average (77 versus 76) than Kerry.  Oh, and by the way, even though Bush also actually had a higher IQ than Kerry.  But so what?  Kerry had that arrogant Massachusett’s tone that just sounded so… so smart.  And of course, Bush was stupid because he had a few gaffes; ergo sum Obama is brilliant whenever he’s off his teleprompter because his gaffes are supposedly somehow kind of similar to brilliant people’s.

Or Bush was evil because of Gitmo, and rendition, and the Patriot Act, and domestic eavesdropping, and indefinite detentions, and military tribunals, etc. etc.; ergo sum, when Obama goes back on his demagogic rhetoric and pursues all the same policies that he demonized when Bush did them, it is Obama magnificently adapting his foreign policy.  Bush was evil for using enhanced interrogation and Obama was righteous to dismantle the CIA program that relied on such intelligence – even though Obama should get all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and even though enhanced interrogation and the CIA program that Obama dismantled were absolutenly essential to getting Osama bin laden.

Or Bush was a poor leader because he wanted to raise the debt ceiling versus Obama showing his magnificent leadership in demanding that we raise the debt ceiling.  Or Obama standing for the Constitution when he attacked George Bush for wars that he got congressional approval for, versus being the bold defender of human rights when he launches a third war in Libya without bothering to get congressional approval.  Or Bush was a partisan hack and a failure as a leader because he divided the country, but the fact that Obama divided the country far more than Bush EVER DID after promising to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “end the partisan and ideological wars “ is entirely due to conservatives.  Because Democrats have a moral obligation to attack a Republican president, but Republicans have a moral obligation to bow down before a Democrat messiah.  That sort of thing.

One has to wonder how their heads don’t just explode from containing all the contradictions.  But it turns out that when you live in your own little world – and particularly when you get to control the media and shape the “narrative” for society to consume - irritating things like facts and contradictions just don’t really matter.

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

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 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?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry - who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all -

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” - at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of ”discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word ”Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers.  Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL ”polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title ”PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology^[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world^[4].

[...]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[...]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. ”fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[...]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[...]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  ”collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and ”collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

- We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

- We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

- We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

- We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

- The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

- The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

- We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

- We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine“ long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year - more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “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,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And - disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin - openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue- which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home - the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.

Obama Orders Spec Ops To Go Barefoot Into Libya (No Boots On The Ground)

Associated Press, March 18: Obama has declared that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in Libya or use force beyond protecting people.

New York Times, March 31: “President Obama’s top two national security officials signaled on Thursday that the United States was unlikely to arm the Libyan rebels“

Reuters, March 30:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”

A couple of things. 

1) Obama said “the US will not … use force beyond protecting people.”  He said that on March 18.  Less than two weeks later, Obama signs a “secret order” (note to self, see if the meaning of ”secret” includes having four White House sources blabbing about it to the press) “seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”

Conclusion #1: Obama is a gigantic liar.  But anyone who’s been following this weasel’s career has known that since he began his run for the presidency by breaking his personal promise to fill his entire six-year Senate term.

Conclusion #2: Obama is also a rather awful secret-keeper.

2) “President Obama’s top two national security officials signaled on Thursday that the United States was unlikely to arm the Libyan rebels.”  Compared with, “no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”

Conclusion #1: Wtf?!?!

Conclusion #2: Eventually somebody over there is going to get some kind of clue as to what is going on in the “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride” of Obama’s brain.

3)  ”Obama has declared that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in Libya” compared to the “presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency“

Conclusion #1: Does anybody not realize that a lot of military guys are military one day and “CIA” the next?  It’s called “TDY,” temporary duty.  And even the CIA guys who will be performing these “secret operations” are going to almost certainly be Special Activities Division guys.  And the SAD doesn’t get its applicants from clown school: they get them from the baddest Delta, SEAL, Special Forces, Force Recon and sniper guys.  And these guys tend to wear boots.

There might be a few tweed-jacketed agent-man types going in.  But most of them will be special operations guys.  France and Britain have openly acknowledged that they’ve got their military spec ops guys.  Contrary to our Liar-in-Chief, our guys are in there, too.

That’s in addition to the 2200 Marines who were ordered to float around off the Libyan Coast, btw.

It’s also in addition to the boots that were already on the ground rescuing the pilots who bailed out of a U.S. Navy fighter.

Conclusion #2: Maybe we can get Obama to sing us the rap song “Boots on the Ground” to a tune with a similar name and beat:

Democrat Dick Durbin Gives His ‘Legitimacy’ To Terrorists

We are at a point where Democrats ought to have zero credibility, and the worst thing that should ever happen to someone’s reputation would be getting caught with your face in the same picture as a known or suspected Democrat.

But while we OUGHT to be there, we’re certainly not there yet.  There are fools and communities of fools who actually respect Democrats, and stupidly and naively believe they’re decent people.

So, as asinine and in fact as outrageous as it might seem, Democrats can add their “credibility” to others.

But being truly despicable people, Democrats have a tendency to lend said “credibility” to the very worst sorts of people.  Like terrorists.

For the record, I added the labeling to make it easier to identify both the terrorists and the dumbass in the photo.

Here’s a quick description of these guys Dick Durbin says are A-OK in his book:

Pictured with Senator Durbin [that's the dumbass in the middle] is Jamal Said [the terrorist on the left], an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case that led to criminal conviction. Said also reportedly raised money 11 years ago at an Islamic conference by asking for donations in name of a suicide bomber. More recently, he told a gathering of Muslim leaders in 2009, “We need to raise our children to know the martyrs of Gaza.”

Also in the photo [the terrorist on the right] is another unindicted terror trial coconspirator named Kifah Mustapha. According to the IPT, Mustapha serves as an imam for the Illinois Mosque Foundation. Last year days after becoming Illinois first state police chaplain, his appointment was revoked after ties to terror groups became public.

According to IPT, the Mosque Foundation has a long history of ties to terror organizations, even sponsoring a rally for a Hamas operative arrested in Israel. 

So we’ve got the cheerleader for suicide bombers and a guy who wants to radicalize our rapidly growing Muslim inmate population.

The guy who wants to raise money for suicide bombers’ families so terrorists can murder away knowing their families will be taken care of, the guy who wants the children to know these “martyrs” as heroes so the hate can continue to the next generation, is part of a murder plot against Israel’s innocent children going back decades.

And the guy who sought to be a “chaplain” so he could radicalize our prison population is part of a long effort to get the hate of Allah into our prison systems.  From an article in the Oxford Journal titled “Prison Islam in the Age of Sacred Terror“:

Research indicates that Islam is the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Western nations. In the United States, roughly 240,000 inmates have converted to the faith since the 9/11 attacks. According to federal law enforcement, Saudi-backed Wahhabi clerics have targeted these prisoners for terrorist recruitment.

An article on how state prisons are a breeding ground for radical Islam begins:

The four men accused of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down a plane all did stretches in state prisons – a major breeding ground for Islamic radicalization.

At least two of the suspects, James Cromitie and Onta Williams, entered the system as Baptists and were paroled as Muslims.

The concern about prisons incubating jihadists has been heightened in the debate over releasing Guantanamo terror suspects to facilities across the U.S.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called America’s prisons “fertile ground for extremists.”

A 2006 study called “Out of the Shadows” found “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”

And the entire organization for which Durbin is lending his “credibility” is waaaaayyy beyond merely dubious.

Confronted with this, Durbin was unapologetic.  These people are perfectly fine.  What they’re doing is great.  And if you don’t want to be murdered in a giant explosion by a suicide bomber, you’re just a racist anti-Muslim bigot.

So just why do Democrats want to legitimize terrorists who want nothing more than your hot sticky jugular-vein blood all over their filfthy hands?  I now say “dumbass Democrats” rather than just “dumbass Dick Durbin” because this is just so par for the Democrat course.

Here’s Durbin’s rationale, complete with it’s own refutation:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in an attempt to address what he claims is an increase in anti-Muslim bigotry, is relying on questionable statistics and a witness with a record of opposing virtually all law enforcement attempts to deal with Islamist-inspired terrorism.

In a statement, Durbin said his hearing Tuesday on the state of Muslim civil rights in America comes “in response to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year including Quran burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination.”

While hate crime data for 2010 has not yet been released, FBI reports in recent years show no spike in anti-Muslim attacks. Those statistics show 107 anti-Islamic incidents reported in 2009, compared to 156 anti-Muslim crimes in 2006. In both reports, race related crimes dominated, and religiously-targeted attacks involved Jews as victims about nine times more often than Muslims in 2009 and more than five times more in 2006.

Durbin is literally championing the violent Muslims who are victimizing Jews at nine times the rate in America and calling the victimizers the “victims.”

Which is to say, Democrats are consistent, in that they are always fools all the time.

And what is the Fool-in-Chief up to?  He’s joining Osama bin Laden in siding with the Libyan rebels which include al Qaeda fighters, and who are led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi – a man who fought Americans troops in Afghanistan. 

No one knows a whole lot about these Libyan rebels, and everything we do know is bad.  Jonah Goldberg quipped yesterdat that this Libyan rebellion is kind of like Pelosi’s approach: “We have to pass this rebellion so you can find out what is in it.”

A Politico story covering Durbin’s hearing said:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it wasn’t a response to Republican Rep. Peter King’s hearings this month on post-9/11 Islamic radicalization and terrorism — but it sure felt like it.

And that’s exactly what it was, of course.  And all King’s hearings tried to do was ask a question about the domestic radicalization of American Muslims.  And even the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that Democrats embarrased themselves in their coming unglued over simply asking a question and seeking information.

This is not just an unfortunate moment immortalized in a picture.  This is a demonstration of the morally bankrupt philosophy of not only Dick Durbin, but the entire Democrat Party.

And as usual, the mainstream media propaganda does not want you to know which side is right and which side is wrong.

10 Questions Obama Won’t Answer In His Libya Speech

1. How is your Libya policy not more “Bush-ish” and hawkish than George W. Bush’s with your unprecedented standard of intervening in the Middle East whenever non-American lives are threatened?  How is this not “humanitarian imperialism” and far worse than anything Bush did given the undefined and open-ended nature of it?

“By almost every metric you can use in terms of being a muscular executive – acting alone without congressional authority, extending the Bush policies overseas, particularly in the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq – he’s been more hawkish than George Bush,” Halperin remarked.

2. Why are we in Libya when even your own Secretary of Defense clearly states that it is not in the United States’ vital national interests to do so?

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States. but it was an interest.”

3. Why are we in the middle of Libya’s civil war, given that the man leading the rebels actually fought against American troops in Afghanistan and his fighters have al Qaeda links?

… Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. [...]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…

4. Why shouldn’t you be impeached using your own or now Vice President Biden’s standard that you used to demonize George W. Bush when you were both Senators?

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.

Joe Biden: “This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that – I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.”

5. Will we get involved in other wars as dictators dictate?  What about Syria and the Sudan and so many other regions where leaders routinely brutalize their own people?  Will some dictator carefully reading over your speech understand what your policy is?  Will such a dictator realize he’d better not do “x” because he will have to deal with the power of the United States?

6.  How will the mission in Libya not be a complete failure and embarassment to the United States given your announcement that “Gaddafi must go“?  And is it or is it not our policy for Gaddafi to be forced out of power?

7. When exactly – and I mean when exactly – are you planning to leave Libya?

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

8.  Just when did U.S. intelligence say that Libyan tanks and trucks aquired the capacity of flight, such that they are being annhilated by the dozens in your no-fly zone?  Should the inability of American M1-Abrams tanks to fly not be seen as a crisis given this development?  If our vehicles could fly like Gaddafi’s apparently can, wouldn’t that help us with global warming?  And if Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks AREN’T flying, just how does this not exceed the stated U.N. mandate?

9. Why did your Secretary of State just call a clear dictator in Syria who is gunning down his own people in the streets for protesting a “reformer”?  And just why have you personally refused to give the oppressed protestors and people of Syria so much as a single nod of verbal support?  Why is your administration literally supporting a violent terrorist dictator over the oppressed Syrian people?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” this weekend, despite Assad’s atrocious human rights record and the regime’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, which has resulted in over 60 deaths in the past week alone. According to Clinton:

”There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer,” she said.

10. Will you personally apologize to George W. Bush, given that you endlessly demonized him, only to then turn around and go further than he did?  How about your criticism of Bush’s acting unconstitutionally when Bush had far more constitutional support (such as Congress’ authorization) than you did?  how about your criticism of Bush for Gitmo when you haven’t bothered to close it?  Etc.?

[From the Washington Times]: Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery – which makes no sense.

Here’s another set of questions that Obama undoubtedly will not even bother to try to answer in his speech tonight.

There’s a reason Obama’s Libya war has less American approval than any military act in the last four decades.

I know this is actually an 11th question, but it would also be nice if Obama delivered his speech under a giant blow-up of this photo and explained just WTF made him damn fool enough to be the first U.S. president in history to shake hands with Muammar Gaddafi?!?!?