Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

Why Arming The Rebels In Syria Now Is Way Too Little And Way, WAY Too Late

September 20, 2014

Some three years ago Obama blinked on arming the Syrian rebels who had Bashar al-Assad’s thug regime on the ropes in spite of the fact that his own advisors as well as pleading Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham urged him to do so while he had the chance.  Obama subsequently gave his “red line” warning against Syria using chemical weapons which they subsequently broke over and over again.  And then again Obama blinked because he is a weak tool.  After telling the world that he had the authority to order an attack on Syria, Obama instead punted and went to Congress.  And because he called for an “unbelievably small” strike, Republicans said why bother while gutless Democrats wailed that “unbelievably small” would still be much more than they had the courage to vote for in the face of their liberal base.  So Obama’s tough talk ended with him not only doing nothing but looking like a fool and a disgrace that the Iranians openly mock.

So Obama dithered in Syria and did nothing to help the pro-democracy rebels while Iran and Russia poured in weapons and advisors to bolster Assad.  And of course the much better armed and funded Islamist jihadist rebels quickly swallowed up the hapless moderates that Obama left twisting in the wind.

Now whatever moderates are still alive in Syria are far too weak to take on both Assad and ISIS/ISIL.

Analysts watched helplessly as Assad targeted the more moderate rebels knowing that eventually the United States would be forced to go after the incredibly radical and vicious ISIS/ISIL army.

Now Obama is acting as Assad’s air force.  And because Obama is too afraid to use American troops, when the US bombs an ISIS/ISIL position, it will be Assad’s “boots on the ground” that seize the territory.

Recently, Obama completed the mockery of his presidency by admitting he didn’t have a strategy to deal with ISIS/ISIL even though his advisors had been pleading with the fool to put down his damn golf club and pay attention for a good solid year if not longer.

After several fool’s attempts at articulating a strategy, Obama finally basically put together all his flops into one sentence and said he was going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS/ISIL.

Only that still isn’t a strategy; that’s an objective.

Obama’s “strategy” is to a) build a coalition that will b) put the troops on the ground that Obama himself refuses to send.  Obama is now relying as a fundamental to his “strategy” to arm rebels which he said only a month ago amounted to a “fantasy.”

“This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards,” the president said.

Now the very thing that Obama said was “unlikely to work and was never going to happen” is the centerpiece of his “strategy.”

So on Obama’s very own admission, it is now his very own “strategy” that is a “fantasy.”

It would be better to assert that our strategy is to rely on Batman and Iron Man and Captain America and the Marvel pantheon of heroes to save the day for America.  Because at least more people would realize that it is a whackjob “strategy” that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in August of working.

And at the very same time Obama was screwing up the universe in Syria he was just as busy screwing up the universe with a frankly morally insane policy in Iraq.

First of all, the Iraq War was WON as Obama took office.  Vice President Biden bragged:

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

And Obama boasted:

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

and:

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

The war had been won at great cost by our heroic warriors.  But our greatest fighting men are helpless in the face of a coward and fool if that coward and fool occupies our White House.

Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, without integrity, without virtue and without decency of any kind.  He now falsely claims that he tried to obtain some status of forces agreement with Iraq that would have enabled him to keep a residual force of US troops in Iraq back in 2011.  Bullcrap:

In point of fact, Obama is on the record specifically acknowledging that he did NOT want a status of forces agreement:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. “That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

We can go all the way back to the very beginning of Obama’s presidency to see that he is a liar for claiming that he wanted anything other than a complete cut-and-run from Iraq that his generals pleaded with him not to be fool enough to do:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Bush warned back in 2007 what would happen if America was fool enough and depraved enough to elect a depraved fool like Obama who would do the very thing that Obama vowed that he was going to do:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

Everything Bush warned would happen has in fact happened.  Everything that Obama promised has not come to pass.

Now the United States will ultimately have to fight a FAR and VASTLY larger war than the one we fought in Iraq.  Because now we will be fighting a much larger terrorist enemy who has much better funding, much better training, and far more territory than al Qaeda ever had.  Now instead of having to fight in Iraq, we’re going to have to fight in both Iraq AND in Syria.  And probably elsewhere as well by the time we finally get to doing what we should have been doing years ago before it was too late.  Or else we’ll get massively attacked again as these people are vowing to come after us and cut our heads off.

I have a feeling that Obama’s generals are telling him that if he doesn’t send US troops into the hellhole he created, that he will ultimately be impeached for high crimes.  I have a feeling that Obama – being nothing more than a cheap political ideologue tool – is waiting until after the election to start sending in American forces on a level that would outrage and frankly appall his liberal base.

The last sixty years has proven again and again and again that the only way anything happens for good against thugs and tyrants and terrorists is if America leads the way and provides the bulk of the combat force.  Nobody’s going to send in the troops that we must have if ISIS/ISIL will ever be destroyed if Obama doesn’t send them in.  We can’t win if we don’t have troops to first direct and coordinate the air attacks from the ground and next exploit the bombings with ground attacks.

Because Barack Hussein Obama has failed America and frankly failed the world, we will now have to fight what will amount to World War Three in order to defeat an enemy that admitted it was defeated when Bush was president:

General Jack Keane, former army vice chief of staff: “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.”

That’s right.  They admitted they were defeated.

It took a true traitor to America to steal defeat from the victory that American heroes had won with their blood.  But that’s precisely what happened as Obama handed our worst enemies victory from the ashes of defeat.

And the same defeat that Obama provided in Iraq he’s actually fixing to provide in the exact same manner in Afghanistan:

KEANE: The frustration level in the Pentagon among the military and in the central command headquarters who was overseeing the war with the president in the White House is as high as it has ever been. But this president has overruled our commanders time and time again from 2009 to the present, Megyn. And it’s been very frustrating for them. McChrystal and Petraeus wanted 40,000 troops to go into Afghanistan as part of the surge.  The president gave them 25 percent less, 30,000. They wanted the force to stay there for a couple years. The president pulled it out after 11 months over the objections of General Petraeus.

General Austin who is now central command commander when he was running the war in Iraq at the end of the war made a recommendation for 24,000 troops to stay in Iraq. The end result was nothing. General Dunford, the Marine Corps commander of Afghanistan and the Central Command commander now General Austin made a recommendation this year to the president to keep a residual force in Afghanistan. He has rejected that and said no. And now he’s rejecting their recommendations to win this war with ISIS. And also he’s rejecting what they absolutely need and what is the noise you heard out of General Dempsey, is that if this weak hand fails, we need U.S. combat forces to come in and take over.

By now you ought to see the pattern.  Barack Obama is a genuine fool and a genuinely depraved moral idiot.  We now know from his own handpicked CIA Director Leon Panetta that Obama ignored the UNITED advice of ALL his generals and top advisors on both withdrawing and abandoning Iraq and on arming the rebels in Syria when it would have made a difference.  I mean, look at this quote to see the stunning stupidity that is Obama:

That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

ALL of his generals pleaded with him not to leave Iraq and to arm the rebels in Syria; all of his own top handpicked experts pleaded with him not to pull out of Iraq and to arm the rebels of Syria; Obama overruled ALL of them.  Obama put his own wicked personal politics ahead of all other foreign policy and national security considerations and now Americans are about to pay DEARLY for it.  We know that Obama is doing the EXACT same thing now in Afghanistan as history repeats itself with a despicable fool overruling ALL of his generals yet again.  So the net result of that fool’s move is that Obama will broaden the already enormous size of the terrorist caliphate that he has already created and is personally responsible for.

And now Obama is refusing to send in ground troops when ALL of his generals are telling him that there’s no freaking way in hell his “strategy” is going to workThe word “revolt” is appropriate as generals publicly say their commander-in-chief is not only wrong, but is literally aiding and abetting our worst enemies.  Meanwhile, the terrorist army he allowed to come to life has tripled in size in a matter of weeks and it is picking up momentum at a terrifying rate.

Obama’s response has been to fire nine senior generals for the crime of being right in the face of his evil stupidity.  A quiet purge is going on and it is as terrifying as the  metastasization of ISIS/ISIL.

Now the American people are exhausted and our enemies are emboldened and stronger than they’ve ever been.  Obama has done NOTHING to try to rally them and frankly nobody gives him a shred of credibility any longer anyway.  And because Barack Obama has proven himself to be a worthless fool as well as a man who will not follow through with his commitments to his allies, we are going to be forced to fight all alone if anybody but the terrorists and the tyrants are going to do any fighting for their survival at all.

Obama just punted in an incredibly cowardly manner by first promising NOT to send ground troops in spite of ALL his generals and then by going to Congress for a vote.  If it turns out after December that we NEED ground troops in order to accomplish the objective of destroying ISIS/ISIL – and mark my words we WILL need ground troops in spite of Obama’s fifty promises to the contrary – how many Democrats will vote to do so after Obama promised NOT to send them in?  That vote will be necessary now because of this vote which was presented to Congress as Obama’s “strategy.”  And we’re in for an incredibly ugly mess and a pathetic demonstration of appalling lack of US resolve at a time when the world and our own national security desperately needs resolve.

What Obama did was set up a horrible mess in December (note: AFTER his precious election) for the sake of incredibly self-serving and short-sighted political expediency today.

Given that we also have Obama to thank for a nuclear Iran with the intercontinental ballistic missiles necessary to wipe out American cities – as WILL happen – I can say, “Thanks for Armageddon, Obama.”  Because when it happens it will have been YOU and EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR YOU who opened the gates of hell for it to come to pass.

 

Obama’s Outright, Apalling LIE As He Avoids Responsibility For HIS Appallingly Poor Decision Covered Up By Mainstream Media – But Here It Is

August 22, 2014

Obama is the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race, bar NONE.  NO HUMAN BEING in the entire history of the world has been seen by so many telling so many lies.

I stated that fact after Obama had “fundamentally transformed” America’s health care system based on lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.

But I’m going to add the word “treasonous” to “liar.”  Because when you lie about the national security of the United States of America, that’s what you are: a traitor.

It wasn’t that long ago that Barack Obama angrily denounced as a lie the allegation that he was responsible for the decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq - which of course facilitated the invasion from across Syria into Iraq by ISIS/ISIL:

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. — is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.

And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice — which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.

So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. [link]

Well, there is not only video after video after video after video of Obama claiming credit for ending the war in Iraq:

If you go to this recent article, I’ve got Obama’s “I got us out of Iraq” boasts ad nauseam.  And they SHOULD make you nauseous.  One of the quotes I cite is this one when Obama boasts that he is pulling out all forces from Iraq in 2011:

“I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.”

So we already knew that when Barack Obama claimed that it wasn’t HIS decision to pull US forces out of Iraq and leave a vacuum for the next terrorist organization to occupy, Obama was a liar without shame, without decency, without honor, without integrity, without courage, without virtue of any kind.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically wicked man.  And I believe that it is clear that he is a truly demon-possessed man.

But we have more now: which the mainstream media would have long since dug up had the president been a Republican liar rather than a Democrat liar.  We actually have Obama in a national debate specifically disavowing any status of forces agreement and arguing that he was hell bent on cutting and running and would not allow American troops to remain in Iraq:

In fact, Obama very clearly objected when Mitt Romney declared during a debate that both he and Obama would have preferred a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that left a residual force in Iraq:

“With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. “That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

So when Obama tries to disavow and duck his personal responsibility for his incredibly godawful, outrageous, immoral decision to pull our troops out of Iraq rather than leave a residual force that would have kept Iraq as safe and as secure as Obama and Biden BOASTED it had become after George Bush won the Iraq War after Democrats did EVERYTHING they could to thwart him and undermine him and demonize him and slander him for doing so, HE IS A LIAR.

Joe Biden said the following about the Iraq War that President Bush had won:

“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.”

So we have it on documented historical record that Obama and his administration weren’t just claiming credit for ending the war and pulling all our troops out; they were claiming credit for the safe, stable, peaceful Iraq that had been left behind as Bush left office.

We’ve got Obama’s own words to confirm that FACT from 2011 when he was pulling all our troops out:

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

and:

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

We also know that the military was BEGGING Obama to change his mind with his incredibly stupid, depraved and evil decision to pull all out troops out and piss away all the sacrifices we had made:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

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

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

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

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

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

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

The generals KNEW this disaster would happen as terrorists swept back in.  But Barack Obama, reckless, demon-possessed Democrat FOOL that he is, ignored them and overrode them.

One of the architects of the successful surge strategy that turned the war around in Iraq PREDICTED the following AT THE VERY TIME THAT OBAMA WAS ANNOUNCING HIS WITHDRAWAL:

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.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

How could Obama lie like this?  How could the Democrat Party so circle their wagons around such a clearly wicked and dishonest liar???

I submit to you that there is no possible way that Barack Obama and his Democrat Party and the media propaganda machine that protects him are all truly possessed by demons.  You cannot be that stupid, that blind, that depraved or even that dishonest without Satan owning your soul.

Barack Obama is the worst kind of coward there ever was.  He is a coward and a malignant narcissist who cannot face up to taking responsibility for his disgraceful decisions.

Now we’re back into Iraq and we can’t fight these brutally vicious people after Obama stupidly allowed them to gain a stranglehold over Iraq.

Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense just admitted this:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel dramatically upgraded the U.S. government’s estimation of the threats America faces from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday, saying its jihadi network represents ‘an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.’

ISIS is ‘as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,’ Hagel told a group of reporters during a joint press conference he held with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

‘They’re beyond just a terrorist group.They marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. …This is beyond anything we’ve seen, so we must prepare for everything.’

‘And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and – and – and get ready.’

Obama stupidly, arrogantly, narcissistically, had called this group “junior varsity.”  And they are so much better and so much stronger and so much better organized than we are – thanks to the pathological disgrace wicked, vile Democrats put in office TWICE – that it should make you want to scream and rip out every shred of your hair.

In the same article cited above, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also gave his input on the consequences of Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and pathologically evil decision to allow ISIS beheaders to first overwhelm Syria – which Republicans had begged Obama to contain – and then overwhelm Iraq:

Gen. Dempsey warned that America’s involvement in Iraq will continue for years to come, citing the intensity of hatred among ethnic, religious and tribal groups there.

‘The conflict against those groups – most of which are local, some of which are regional, and some of which are global in nature – that’s going to be a very long contest,’ he said.

‘It’s ideological. It’s not political. It’s religious in many cases. So, yes, it’s going to be a very long contest.’

At the same time the decorated general cautioned that the ‘required participation’ of the U.S. would remain one of coalition leadership ‘to provide the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all the capabilities’ – a suggestion that an unlimited release of military might to crush ISIS is off the table.

Dempsey added later in the briefing that ISIS can’t practically be contained in Iraq, since it also has deep roots and tremendous resources across the Syrian border.

The terror group ‘has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,’ the general explained.

‘Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.’

Do you understand this?  Obama caused this.  This is BECAUSE of Obama.  We had WON in Iraq.  We had a chance to defeat Assad in Syria and aid a pro-democracy takeover of that country.  Obama lost both for us.

Let’s go back to the could haves, would haves and should haves, to the president we COULD have had if we didn’t have demon-possessed people destroying the soul and body of America (Democrats), if they hadn’t elected a complete fool for our president (Obama).  Let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy for securing Iraq:

[Voter at forum dubbed "EH" by McCain due to his likeness to Ernest Hemingway]: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-

Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.

We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.

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

John McCain rightly pointed out that having won the war – which we did – we needed to secure and maintain what we had won.  That’s what we did in Japan.  That’s what we did in Europe.  That’s what we did in Korea.  That’s what we needed to do in Iraq.

The New York Times captured the exchange in a transcript form (same link as above).  The same “EH” had previously said:

E.H.: I want to say at the outset I’m not going to be voting for you. I’m going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I’ve heard you say we can’t leave Iraq.

And you see, the thing is that McCain was RIGHT and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were WRONG.  We CAN’T leave Iraq.  It is stupid and in fact morally depraved to leave Iraq after we fought so hard to win there.  Weakness invites thugs, withdrawal invites and literally incites terrorists.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might as well have said, “Please come in and take over and create a caliphate.”  Because that’s what their policy guaranteed.

The above discussion took place January 6, 2008.  At that time John McCain already understood that the corner had been turned in the war – which ultimately resulted in an exultant Joe Biden claiming victory in Iraq.  And McCain pointed out:

But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.

And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.

The Washington Post fact checker – a liberal paper, mind you – documented the disgraceful lies and frankly slander that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made of John McCain’s clearly wise policy.

John McCain was right.  The entire Democrat Party machine – including the Senate Majority Leader who had disgracefully said, “I believe the war is lost,” and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were united behind the defeat of America.  It is simply a fact that in hindsight anyone who isn’t a truly demon-possessed fool can see now.

And yes, ye demon-possessed Democrat who thinks Hillary is still anything other than a fool’s choice for president, Hillary Clinton JOINED Obama in betraying America in 2008 and slandering John McCain’s common sense wisdom regarding US policy in Iraq.

You need to understand that when you vote for the Democrat Party, YOU ARE VOTING FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL.  You are voting for evil to prevail in foreign policy and national security – as is clearly documented here.  You are voting for evil to prevail in the murder of more innocent babies (already surpassing 56,662,169 and counting) than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, throughout the entirety of the worst and bloodiest war in all human history (“only” 56,125,262 killed).  You are voting for homosexual sodomy which is the rock bottom low that the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 1:18-32 is the nadir of culture and guarantees the full wrath of God on that culture.  You are voting for evil to prevail in your socialism, which is the replacement of God with your State and the death of the dignity of the human spirit as you plunge people into government dependency when they should be dependent upon God their Savior and upon His people rather than your bound-for-hell Bureaucrats.  Your precious “separation of church and state” is nothing more than a perversion of everything that this nation has stood for and is nothing short of the separation of God from America.  And it shows in everything you do and in everything you stand for.

If you are a Democrat you have radically rejected Jesus Christ and you will scream in the fire of hell for all eternity for your wickedness.  And even eternal hell will not last long enough for you to suffer for all that you did on earth for the blasphemous crimes you committed against God and against the image of God and against humanity.

 

Barack Obama, The Worst Of Nixon, The Worst Of Carter, The Worst President In History – And You’re Going To Pay For It

May 30, 2014

Something occurred to me as I watched yet another massive Obama administration scandal develop and saw yet another dishonest, incompetent response to it.

Barack Obama is truly a historic figure.

But in a really, really BAD way.

Barack Obama manages to unite the very worst of the two worst presidents in modern America.  And in so doing he becomes easily the worst president we’ve ever had.

It occurred to me that Obama manages to combine the very worst of Jimmy Carter AND the very worst of Richard Nixon.

How so?

Well, Richard Nixon was corrupt, but he wasn’t incompetent.

Jimmy Carter was incompetent, but he wasn’t corrupt.

Barack Obama is easily every bit as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and easily far more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

As for Carter-level incompetence, all I have to do is say “ObamaCare website.”  Here was THE signature legislative accomplishment of Obama, and we find him to be completely uninvolved, completely ignorant, and completely incapable of reacting and making ANY changes.  The damn website is STILL fundamentally screwed up, with the “back end” nonexistent and all kinds of security issues.

Again and again and again, Obama has fallen back on the same pathetic strategy of essentially pleading ignorance and incompetence.  He was supposed to know, as president, but he was caught off guard by his own admission again and again.

Nixon merely TALKED about using the IRS to target his political enemies; Barack Obama actually DID it.  What we already know about the IRS scandal is that the orders DID come from Washington – contrary to Obama’s repeated lies – and in fact came from AN OBAMA APPOINTEE (one of only two in the entire IRS organization).  We know that the IRS targeted “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that this targeting was preceded by Obama bitterly demonizing the Supreme Court for its Citizens United verdict (because how dare they “open the floodgates” for the same kind of unholy billion-dollar-money that Obama himself had raised for his election when he was the FIRST presidential candidate from either party to refuse the public matching funds program that had been implemented BECAUSE OF NIXON’S CORRUPTION?

Barack Obama has been a more unholy WHORE for money than any of the last FIVE presidents combined.

Obama massively outspent McCain in 2008:

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.

Obama outspent Romney in 2012 by a 2-1 margin:

Obama spent $52,006,072 compared to Romney’s $26,230,293. The $52M Obama spent is about $12 million more than it cost to build the Lincoln Memorial and $26 million more than Romney spent.

But this demon-possessed man – the essence of “Democrat” is “DEMOn possessed burueaCRAT” – was rabidly furious that the Supreme Court would allow the Republican Party to be the same kind of whore for money that Obama had been.  And he set about to exploit his own power as the Führer-in-chief to countermand the Supreme Court’s verdict and punish his enemies for exercising rights the Supreme Court of the United States declared they had.

The result was the IRS scandal, in which hundreds of conservative groups were targeted and systematically threatened and harassed into silence.  No liberal groups were damaged, according to the Treasury IG.  I repeat, NO liberal groups.  Versus the 300 who were attacked for being conservative.  And “anti-Obama.”

Punish your enemies and reward your friends,” Obama advised his cockroach army.  That has been his political philosophy throughout his corrupt presidency.

Obama began this dishonest thug practice immediately upon taking office with his massive $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) “stimulus” that he ultimately admitted wasn’t “shovel-ready” after all as he had dishonestly promised the American people it would be when he sold the lie to them.  Call him “Captain Obvious” for that admission.  It is a sad and cynical fact of history that money overwhelmingly went to blue states and areas that voted for Obama and was denied to red states and areas that voted for McCain as a political club rather than as an economic engine.  Nixon never came anywhere CLOSE to that level of political corruption.

Similarly, eighty percent of ALL the money Obama doled out for “green energy” projects was nothing more than cynical and corrupt payoffs to LIBERALS who supported Obama:

The Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreen-SpectraWatt-First Solar-Solar Trust-Abound Solar-BrightSource-LSP Energy-Ener1-SunPower-Beacon Power-ECOtality-A123-Uni Solar-Azure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And few Americans have any idea whatsoever how transparently corrupt Barack Obama is.

Eighty percent of all green energy loans provided by the American people’s stimulus money were given to crony capitalist-fascist Obama donors.  Obama is using the American people’s money as a political slush fund to reward his friends:

A new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer details the startling extent of the cronyism that has pervaded President Obama’s “green jobs” push. According to Schweizer, 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”

“Nixonian” doesn’t BEGIN to describe the magnitude of corruption that has been business-as-usual in the Obama White House.

And as we speak, the Obama Department of Justice has been dishonestly targeting LEGITIMATE businesses they don’t like by exploiting a law that allowed them to go after corrupt business (see also here and here):

Back in March 2013, the Obama Administration unveiled Operation Choke Point, a collaborative effort between the Department of Justice, the FDIC, and the Federal Trade Commission aimed at rooting out bad money; think con artists, drug traffickers, and money launderers who have checking accounts. According to a report filed by the Washington Times, however, it appears that Operation Choke Point is now being used to target legitimate gun retailers.

Take for instance the case of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply, a Miami retailer that just got dropped by BankUnited N.A. last month. Then there’s the case of McMillan Group International, a successful 12-year-old firearms manufacturer from Phoenix that got dropped by Bank of America in 2012. This despite the fact that the company never missed a single payment or bounced a check.

So why is this occurring? The original goal of Operation Choke Point was to closely monitor “high risk” clients. It basically gives the government permission to use a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to request that a bank give up all the info it has on a particular client. Well, it just so happens that the mammoth regulation that is Operation Choke Point is a huge burden. As a result, bankers allegedly feel the need to choke off “high risk” clients to save themselves from any potential hassle.

Imagine the hell that would emerge if a conservative president were similarly dishonestly exploiting a law to attack pro-liberal businesses such as abortion clinics or ObamaCare businesses, etc.  Imagine Bush going after pro-liberal businesses.  If you are a Democrat, you frankly deserve to have your business seized, your home seized, hell, your children taken away as PAYBACK because of what you allowed your Thug-in-Chief to get away with.

This is THE most corrupt presidency America has ever seen, bar NONE.

We saw not only a cover-up, but a cover-up of the cover-up in the Benghazi scandal, where Obama falsely lied to the American people and claimed that he had broken al Qaeda (which we now know is stronger than its ever been and commands more territory than it has ever commanded, contrary to Obama’s dishonest, partisan ideologue lies from hell).

Obama KNEW he was lying:

As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.

And what’s happened since proves the FACT that he materially lied to the American people:

Such that:

Al Qaeda in Iraq’s ranks doubled after the Obama pullout. They have since increased fivefold.

Under Obama, Al Qaeda has not only rebuilt, it has made gains that put it vastly beyond where it was before September 11. All the sacrifices and hard work were undone in a matter of years by Obama.

And:

(CNN) — From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, according to English and Arab language news accounts as well as accounts on jihadist websites.

Indeed, al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.

Well, since Obama made his false and despicable lie to the American people in order to get fraudulently re-elected that al Qaeda was “on the run” and “decimated,” al Qaeda just held it’s largest meeting ever – and did so IN BROAD DAYLIGHT to mock a weakened America.

And what did Obama immediately do after cynically lying about national security – THE most sacred thing a president deals with?  He immediately framed ANOTHER lie to cover up his first gross and disgusting lie.  That the pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound was NOT because of a “broader failure of policy” but rather because of an American citizen who made a Youtube video that somehow caused a “spontaneous uprising” that the administration somehow couldn’t figure out was coming.  Even though it happened on 9/11 and terrorists LOVE anniversaries.

Obama and his entire administration claimed that the talking points they’d sent administration stooge Susan Rice out with had come from the CIA.  But we know that was a LIE:

Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows two days later and on each show, she falsely claimed that an internet video caused a “spontaneous” demonstration that eventually erupted into the deadly violence in Benghazi.

But that never made sense, because the CIA memo never mentioned anything about a video.

So where did she get that completely erroneous information?

Straight from the Obama White House, that’s where.

Mike Morell – a political hack who proved he is a political hack by working for a Hillary Clinton think tank -

Before Mike Morrell left the CIA, he disclosed to the Wall Street Journal his interest in “advising future presidential campaigns.” Morrell then joined Beacon Global Strategies, a firm founded by Phillippe Reines, who has been described as Hillary Clinton’s  “principal gatekeeper.” Morrell is currently a paid contributor for CBS News.

- was forced to admit that the “Youtube video” claim did NOT come from the CIA analysts (who also admitted had completely ignored ALL the field reports that flooded in):

Why, the letter asks, did “Susan Rice… claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?” (Source: CBS News)

In former Deputy CIA Director Morell’s own words:

“When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to.”

Mind you, in pretty much everything else, this dishonest political hack lied like the weasel he is.

We also know that, contrary to the White House’s ocean of lies, yes they WERE TOO the ones who edited the Benghazi talking points for cynical political reasons.

This was WORSE than Watergate because the last I heard, no one was abandoned and left to die horribly during Watergate, versus the first American ambassador since the failed CARTER years to be tortured and murdered along with three heroes who tried to do what Obama refused to do and save their ambassador.

It also shouldn’t therefore surprise you that this “government-as-God” president has spent more borrowed money and thereby risked the bankruptcy of the United States of America than all of America’s presidents COMBINED.  There are a lot of enemies to punish and a lot of friends to reward.  It costs money to be the most corrupt human being who ever lived in all of human history.

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years – spoke as a prophet.  He declared, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

We’re seeing a collapse of America in only a few years that is simply mindboggling.  I remember when I first became interested in Bible prophecy in the late 1970s/early 1980s that my biggest “sticking point” was the fact that America was nowhere mentioned in prophecy.  And how could the mightiest nation in the history of the world not be mentioned in the Bible’s description of the very last days?  And now I have the answer: because America is going down and going down HARD.

And this corrupt, incompetent, disgraceful LIAR is at the very heart of that collapse.

God is damning America.  It’s like the Book of Amos, where God declared that in judgment He would destroy one region with savage drought and another with terrifying floods  (and see here and here).

Now read Amos 4:7-8:

“I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.  People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Word of God declares.  Including divine judgment of a nation for the wickedness of the corrupt and incompetent and dishonest and disgraceful king who slanders God and His character in every act he undertakes as president.

Obama just gave a speech on national security that was universally panned as incoherent by the right and by the left as LUDICROUS.  He kept asserting that America had NOT become weaker, stupidly refusing to understand that if you have to say you’re not getting weaker, IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE GETTING WEAKER.  There is no country on earth that has a better, closer relationship with the United States than when George W. Bush was president; there are NUMEROUS countries that hate us more than ever.  And as you look across the Middle East, such as Syria – where more than 160,000 people are dead and millions displaced along with Obama’s “red line” fiasco – the entire region is in stunning disarray.  Meanwhile Russia and China are either seizing territory as has not happened since Hitler and Stalin and World War II, or they are threatening to do so as their militaries grow more powerful while ours grows weaker.  And the fool actually claimed that our greatest enemy was “climate change.”  When our greatest enemy is a stupid and arrogant commander-in-chief who has made GOD America’s enemy.

I have a feeling I know just how the end will come for America.  Because Obama has recklessly and wickedly and foolishly borrowed so much and devalued the dollar so much, and because he has economically and militarily weakened America so much, it is only a matter of a (probably short) time before America is replaced as the world’s reserve currency.  Already, most of the world’s economic powers are on board to dump the dollar.  When that happens, America won’t be able to print money any more than any other nation is – and we will catastrophically economically implode overnight.  It will be a fitting end to God damn America (see here and here for articles on that).

Realize that when you voted for Obama – and particularly when you voted to actually re-elect him – you voted for the wrath of God on yourselves according to Romans chapter one.  You participated in the holocaust murders of more than fifty-five million innocent human beings and the destruction of marriage and the family in your vote.  You participated in the reckless and demonic devaluation of America’s creditworthiness and military and economic clout that made us a force in the world that could not be bypassed until Obama ruined us.  And as Jeremiah Wright put it, “your chickens have come home to roost.”

As GOP Presidential Candidates Consider ‘Intractable’ Issues Like Immigration, They Have Obama’s Example To Consider Emulating (Just LIE)

April 10, 2014

Jeb Bush made some waves by taking a stance on illegal immigration (it was ‘love’ that drove them to flout our rule of law) that have many conservatives saying not in this lifetime to his nomination.

And we’re told every single day by the leftist-oriented media talking head propagandists that any true conservative has absolutely no chance of ever winning the presidency.

Mind you, we also have the same ACTUAL history being replayed on a regular basis: Republicans listen to these leftist talking heads and opt for a RINO – as in “Republican In Name Only” denoting a candidate who is nowhere even CLOSE to being a true principled conservative – for their nominee on the assumption that said RINO will be able to capture the hearts and minds of the morally idiotic undecided voters.  But once we have committed to the rationale that the left gives us that a more liberal candidate is a better candidate, the left does the “Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown” trick: they proceed to demonize our RINO and literally give him bloody fangs a la John McCain:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the floor of the United States Senate, assured America that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in years and he had the proof.  The fact that Harry Reid is a diseased liar and a truly demon-possessed creature was left out of the picture.

Democrats play the game of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” when it comes to destroying Republican candidates with lies.  Only of course it’s a TRILLION cuts as the lies and slander and lunatic demonization piles on and on and on.

That said, it truly IS a difficult problem that a conservative Republican nominee for president is in when it comes to issues such as immigration and homosexual marriage and the like.  It often seems, in our truly diseased culture, that the only way a politician has a chance is to be as evil and as toxic as the culture has become.

Ah, but we have an out now.  And we have it thanks to Obama.

If you’re a true, rabid, die-hard, vicious conservative and – for the sake of argument – you truly want to punish your enemies and reward your friends the way Obama has done to his enemies on the right and for his friends on the left – what can you do to get elected?

Just lie, lie and then lie some more.

How did Barack Obama resolve his problem with homosexual marriage in 2008?  He said something that everyone now knows was never true.  He simply lied like hell.  Homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency until homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency.

How about selling major economic plans?  Again, just lie.  Make stuff up.  Obama sure as hell did that with his boondoggle stimulus that promised the moon and delivered a mountain of bovine fecesObama added $3.27 trillion to the debt and gave the economy a shot of raw sewage in the arm.

Want to take over a sixth of the economy?  Lie like hell first and foremost.  Hey, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.  And my health plan will reduce costs by $2,500 for a family.  Even though it will do the exact opposite.

National security?  Hey, promise to restore America’s prestige and make the nation stronger and greater when in fact you’re going to do the EXACT freaking opposite.

Start your campaign by promising you won’t run – only to lie.  Assure the country that you “can unequivocally say” you won’t do what you will do.  Fund your campaign by promising that you’ll take federal matching funds.  And then break your promise.  Tell America you’re going to be a new politician and then hold more fundraisers than the previous five presidents COMBINED.  Raise more money than any politician who has ever lived while demonizing and slandering your opponent for the money he’s raised.  Just make sure that whatever the hell you say you’re going to do that you use the IRS as a thug agency to rabidly attack your opponents.  Because if being a dishonest liar without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency, without any virtue of any kind worked so well for Obama, why the hell not?

If you follow Obama’s example, you can say WHATEVER you need to say, get yourself elected, and then do whatever you’re going to do.  All the while demonizing everybody else around you.

So, yeah, say the Jeb Bush line.  Hell, say it at least 37 times on major venues.  And then after you’re elected, deport every damn ONE of the up-to 20 million illegal immigrants.  I mean, kick down every damn door in America and drag them out screaming by their hair just because it’s more fun to drag them out that way.

Here’s how a Republican candidate for president ought to campaign: just mirror Obama and be as dishonest with what you are actually doing as imaginable.  What did Obama do?  He’s a pathologically dishonest liar who wanted to present himself as caring for illegal immigrants on the one hand while dealing with the clear and present danger they posed on the other.  So Obama claimed he was only attacking CRIMINAL illegal immigrants.  When in fact he was doing no such thing: the cockroach was letting them go free to prey on Americans again and again.  And we now know that Obama was dishonestly inflating his deportation numbers all along - because he is the DEFINITION of “dishonest.”  Here’s that:

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. [...]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

You see, being a pathologically dishonest liar, Obama relied on the worst form of lie – cooked statistics (just like he has done with his health care takeover):

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

“Correct,” Mr. Johnson confirmed.

That would mean that in a one-to-one comparison with the final years of the Bush administration, deportations of those same people under Mr. Obama had actually fallen, according to immigration analysts who have studied the data.

So if you are the conservative mirror of Obama, with dishonesty being your common ground, here’s what you will do: you will kick down doors and you will drag out every single illegal immigrant in America by their damn hair while their children scream for their mommies and daddies.  But you will say you will do (are doing and have done) just the opposite.  That way, you can be like Obama and have your political cake and get to eat it too.

Just lie, lie, LIE like the devil Obama.  Say whatever you want.  Say illegal immigrants flooding into America is “an act of love.”  And then ruthlessly target them the way the Obama thug IRS targeted the tea party while announcing how loving you are.

There you go.  Intractable political problem solved.  And all it takes is the willingness to be the worst liar in the history of the human race (after Obama, who has set the bar of deceit and dishonesty so high no one will ever break his record).

If you have the spirit of Obama, you will promise to be a fundamentally different politician who will transcend politics and elevate America.  And then you will crush your enemies, break them, divide them, and drive them off the field.  Break America into fractured, divided pieces as long as you end up with at least one more piece than your enemies.  And ride on, you son of a gun.

Now, I write that knowing the future because I know the Bible.  It won’t happen.  It won’t happen because America has degenerated into a place where liars and their lies will win, and Democrats are just better at being liars while their base is better at tolerating lies.   Republicans can’t win that game any better than they can win the socialism game by promising to out-socialist the Democrats to buy whatever votes they need to buy.

I think – maybe even dare to hope – that Republicans will have a great 2014 midterm.  But by 2016, the consistent liars will win the day (in other words, President Hillary).

You see, there comes a point when a culture is so toxic that there are simply no good options.  We’ll have only “choices” like we had in 2012 (where we could either elect a man who believes that Christ Jesus is Lucifer’s brother or we could re-elect a man who actually IS Lucifer’s brother).  And given the choice between bad and worse, a wicked people will generally choose “worse.”  Until a Hitler comes and then until the end.

God knew and knows the end from the beginning.  He knew that America would rise on godly values and He knew that America would fall as the people became sufficiently wicked as to vote for a Democrat Party that would pervert and piss on every virtue the Word of God holds dear.  That’s why America is nowhere to be found in Bible prophecy as we literally vote to destroy ourselves in the suicidal and nihilistic act of cutting ourselves off from God’s blessing.  God knew that America was going to go down and go down hard.

Ultimately, big government liberals will transition to the ultimate big government liberal: the Bible calls him “the beast” and he will take over the global economy just as every liberal as dreamed about.  Like Obama, he will promise the world and make political progress by skillfully demonizing his enemies.  But he will lead the world into literal hell on earth.

 

Sarah Palin And Mitt Romney Completely RIGHT On Ukraine And Russia VS Barack Obama Who’s Just A Complete FOOL

March 1, 2014

Remember what a bimbo the mainstream media made Sarah Palin out to be (remember, it’s OKAY to trivialize a woman as long as it’s liberals doing it to a conservative).

But in 2008, Sarah Palin predicted something in which she turned out to be right and every liberal on earth turned out to be a morally idiotic jackass.

She predicted that if coward and fool Barack Obama were elected president, it would embolden Russia into invading Ukraine given the kind of idiocy and naïve weakness he displayed when Putin invaded Georgia:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Of course, the mainstream media savaged her for that.  What else is their mission if not a fools’ mission???

For the record, Russia seized two Georgian provinces.  And Obama allowed it.  And Putin has never given them back.  And now he’s going to help himself to what he wants out of the Ukraine – just as Sarah Palin warned would happen if Obama were elected president.

History records that Sarah Palin was wise and Barack Obama is an incompetent boob and a disgrace to the office of President of the United States.

Of course, four years later Mitt Romney demonstrated he had a shred of common sense.  Barack Obama demonstrated that as Pharaoh god king there is NOTHING whatsoever “common” about him, most especially “common sense.”

In their third presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney when he said that Russia remained a threat to the United States. Here’s what Obama said in the debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

“But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.“And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Here’s how Mitt Romney responded. Notice how Obama tries to cut Romney off before he can make his point:

MR. ROMNEY: I’ll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Number one —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same . . . paragraph, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone.

In an interview, Wolf Blitzer had asked Romney if he thought Russia is a bigger foe than Iran, China, or North Korea. Here was Romney’s response:

“I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors. Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world — and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them — who is it that always stands up with the world’s worst actors? It’s always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that’s on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe.”

It seems that Romney was ahead of the game when it came to understanding how Russia is still a major political player to be reckoned with while Obama was is in the dark. Will the media notice? Don’t count on it

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/09/romney-right-russia-obama-wrong/#8IeCoUCxoq3tjVfr.99

You need to understand that Barack Obama was operating under the worldview of a complete fool and moral idiot.  On Obama’s view the problem was George W. Bush who was poisoning American foreign policy, NOT Russia or Vladimir Putin.  Obama actually believed that with Bush out of the picture and a “reset” with Russia, that Russia would actually “reset” its entire foreign policy as Obama cowed Putin with his divine magnificence.

And Vladimir Putin has treated Barack Obama like his own personal roll of toilet paper and wiped his butt with Obama at every single turn.

And of course, again, the mainstream media, being demon-possessed jackasses, mocked Romney with their “Hey, Mitt. The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back!”

Where are we at now (because America was stupid enough to elect and actually RE-elect a complete failure)???

Russia just invaded Ukraine, just as Sarah Palin correctly predicted they would.  Because she knew that Obama’s weakness as a human being would be like catnip to Putin.  And Ukraine is begging America for help.

Fat chance of that happening.  They’re in this fix BECAUSE of America, or at least because of the naïve moral idiot America elected as president.

Barack Obama is exactly like Neville Chamberlain, as I corrected stated years ago (and see here).  Neville Chamberlain, like Obama, was absolutely RUTHLESS in domestic policy.  Neither man cared one damn about his nation, and they knew that they could use a socialist media and exploit the other side’s unwillingness to call their bluff as they took the nation to the brink of collapse to impose their socialist agendas.  But when it came to foreign policy, both men turned out to be complete weaklings and cowards and naïve fools.  And the reason they were so weak in foreign policy was precisely the same reason they could be so strong in domestic policy: because the same media that they could exploit so ruthlessly at home was useless to them internationally.  The Russian media couldn’t care less what the pathetic American media thinks.  The American propaganda mill can’t cow Putin the way it can cow Republicans.  Similarly, Republicans care enough about America to back down from Obama when Obama plays chicken with the nation.  For example, why did Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts blink and call what was clearly not a tax a “tax” in order to rewrite ObamaCare enough to “make” it constitutional?  Because Obama basically said he would demonize the Supreme Court and try to delegitimize it the same way we have now seen him delegitimize Congress – as I pointed back in June of 2012.  That’s why Republicans had to cave in on the debt ceiling to a man who had demonized George Bush for raising the debt ceiling and voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling as a Senator who then played the part of “Hypocrite-in-Chief” by demonizing the Republicans for taking the EXACT SAME POSITION that he had taken when Bush was president.

Obama is like the absolutely craven coward who would grab his own mother hostage and hold a gun to her head and threaten to blow the bitch’s brains out if the police didn’t drop their guns.  And the police drop their guns saying “Please don’t hurt her.”  Only in this case it’s America that Obama has held the gun to.  And it’s been Republicans backing down time and time again.  Obama has NEVER negotiated with the Republicans.  He’s basically said, “I’ll take this country right over the edge if you don’t give me what I want.”  And it’s worked for him.

But it won’t sure work with Putin.  To continue, Obama could play chicken with Republicans because Republicans are terrified of seeing their country be driven right off a cliff.  But that won’t play with Putin, anymore than the media demonization trick will play with Putin.  Putin just doesn’t care about America just like Obama doesn’t care about America.  And so Obama is exposed as the weak, trivial, cowardly incompetent fool that he is.

So Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry and then Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel “warn” Russia to stay out of the Ukraine.  But what is that?  Just a bunch of blathering words from inconsequential cowards and phonies who can be TRUSTED not to do a damn thing while America’s gets its face grabbed and has its nose rubbed in its own feces.  Vladimir Putin knows for a damn fact that Obama will do NOTHING.

What do you think are the odds that Obama’s gutless weakness to make the American military its weakest since before World War II was the inspiration for Putin in Ukraine to pull a Hitler in Czechoslovakia?  Try 100 percent.  What did I say?  Weakness is the ULTIMATE provocation.

And then Obama gives a press conference in which he says absolutely nothing worth repeating.  Both our allies and our enemies were frankly shocked at Obama’s weakness that was put on display.  Remember George H.W. Bush who said, “This will NOT stand!” when Iraq invaded Kuwait?  And it didn’t.  Because Bush TOOK a stand.  Obama just blathered on like the babbling idiot that he is.  And nobody is listening to him because he doesn’t matter.  Syria wasn’t listening to the disgrace when he gave his “red line” warning that he allowed Syria to cross about twenty damn times before caving in to Putin’s (Syria’s staunch ally, fwiw) negotiations.  And why the hell would Putin listen now after all the times he’s punked Obama?

I’d say the left aren’t mocking Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin now, but the left and the mainstream media who prop them up with their propaganda are so pathologically dishonest that they merely re-write history.  And they never ever have to apologize for having been so wrong because they never admit they were wrong in the first place.  That would take honesty and integrity, neither of which any liberal has.

So no matter how completely wrong and proven to be completely wrong they are, they don’t even skip a beat.  And most people never know what genuine fools we have leading us or what wise people we COULD have had leading us if we had only just not listened to the idiocy of the complete fools.

Just take this as yet another proof that to be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed fool and a liar without shame.

What would Ronald Reagan have done?  K.T. McFarland – a foreign policy expert under Reagan – channeled his wisdom.  Reagan would have recognized – as he recognized when he was president at the height of the Cold War – that Russia’s chief vulnerability is economics.  A couple of decades ago, Vladimir Putin wrote his doctoral dissertation acknowledging that the USSR collapsed economically.  Putin wrote that the key was to harness Russia’s vast oil and natural gas resources, make Europe dependent upon Russian oil and gas, exploit the political clout that would result from Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, and then use the revenues to rebuild the Russian military.  And that is precisely what Putin has done.  Reagan, McFarland says, would have targeted that.  Reagan would have rightly realized that Russia’s chief vulnerability is STILL economics: Reagan would have offered to sell U.S. oil and gas – which we could have FAR more of if it weren’t for Obama’s stupid policies – to undercut the Russians.  He would further have provided the fracking technology – that Obama and his whackjob liberal base is so deadly opposed to – to our friends to undercut the price of oil which would be devastating to Russia’s economy and FORCE Russia to fly straight or pay dearly.  And of course Reagan would have reinstituted the missile defense treaty that Obama stupidly rescinded after telling Putin that he would be “more flexible” to bowing down to Putin after Obama’s reelection.  Obama proceeded to follow through with his bowing down to Putin by reneging on the missile defense treaty in question.

Under Reagan, that treaty would be brought back to the table and Reagan would make Putin HOWL as the Ukraine was taken away from his dream of a return to empire for good.

Reagan would also invite Ukraine into the protection of the NATO alliance and simply let Putin know that if he didn’t get the hell out he’d be in a shooting war with NATO.  Reagan would punch Russia in the nose by freezing all bank assets held by Russians in the nation of every bank who will side with us (and Russia and Russians have HUGE assets in US and European banks).  Reagan would forbid all travel of Russian citizens and isolate the Russian people that way to pressure Putin to withdraw.  If there was a sanction that would really hurt Russia or really piss them off, he would issue that sanction.

You don’t HAVE to go to a full-fledged shooting war to show some resolve.  Reagan understood that.  And, interestingly, after the USSR collapsed we found out that the moment that shocked the Russians into fearing Reagan was when he fired the 11+ thousand striking air traffic controllers after ordering them to report to work or be fired.  They realized he would follow through with his threats and do what he said he would do.  Obama has long since squandered that kind of perception of integrity – but he did it with a giant exclamation mark when he gave Putin’s ally Syria a “red line” and then failed to do jack squat when they repeatedly crossed that red line.

Of course Ronald Reagan had four things Obama lacks: a wise worldview, strategic foresight, common sense and moral courage.

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I’ve been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary’s job – and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor’s salary – is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are “suckers” as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let’s leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor - IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here - they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read "Democrat"] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low - which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

CEO On Obama’s Own Jobs Council Says Vote For Romney If You Actually Want Any Damn Jobs

November 2, 2012

Ouch, this has got to hurt:

November 1, 20123:53 pm
CEO on Obama Job Council Endorses Romney

Mitt Romney picked up the endorsement of yet another chief executive officer of a major U.S. company—and one who is on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Intel chief executive officer Paul Otellini has endorsed the Republican nominee.

Despite his presence on the president’s job council, however, Ortellini has criticized the administration in the past pretty strongly, as noted by Human Events. In 2010, the Intel CEO blasted Democrats in Washington at an Aspen Forum event:

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

“They’re in a ‘Do’ loop right now trying to figure out what the answer is,” Otellini said.

As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

The CEO of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has basically come to the realization that the Obama administration don’t have one freaking clue about what they’re doing.  He had a chance to take a look under the hood and see what Obama was saying he was going to do – and Otellini didn’t like the idiocy he saw.

The Preference Cascade. How Close Is Romney To A Total Blowout Of Obama?

October 30, 2012

Just one of those pleasure-reading articles that are predicting that Obama will be blown right out of the White House.

The question is just how possible is it that the wheels will completely fall off the Obama campaign???

Watching the Collapse of the Obama Campaign
By Jack Kelly – October 29, 2012

The Navy needs more ships, Mitt Romney said in last Monday’s debate. It has fewer now than in 1916.

President Barack Obama pounced. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them … “

In the spin room, some journalists laughed and applauded. Liberals imagine themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to conservatives. They love to put them down.

But “sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker’s presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts,” said Pastor Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel.

Mr. Obama was wrong on both the thrust of his argument, and on the examples he used. Aircraft carriers need smaller ships to protect them, lest they be sunk. The military has many more bayonets now than in 1916. Marines think so highly of them they’ve designed a new one, modeled on the famous KA-BAR fighting knife. Special Forces soldiers on horseback were critical to ousting the Taliban.

The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn’t based on actual knowledge. Journalists declared the president the winner of the debate.

But facts and civility do matter to most Americans. A CBS panel of undecided voters in Ohio chose Mr. Romney, 6-2. A video of the dismay of CBS “This Morning” co-host Norah O’Donnell when this was reported is zipping across the Internet.

The Navy and shipbuilding are very important in southeast Virginia. With his wisecrack, the president may have kissed the state goodbye.

It isn’t just in Virginia where Mr. Obama’s fortunes are plummeting. When Missouri isn’t a swing state, but Minnesota is, Democrats are in big trouble. No challenger who’s cracked 50 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll has ever lost. Mr. Romney is polling better at this point in the campaign than did every victorious challenger from 1968 on.

It’s hard to see how the president can mount a comeback. His strategy of demonizing Mitt Romney collapsed when Americans saw in the first debate the GOP candidate has neither horns nor hooves. In an NBC/WSJ poll Monday, 62 percent of respondents said they want “significant change” from Mr. Obama’s policies, but he’s offered little in the way of an agenda for a second term. Instead he makes excuses, and ever more petty attacks. Voters now think Mr. Romney is just as “likeable” as Mr. Obama.

So the question may not be whether Mr. Romney will win, but by how much. When this dawns on Ms. O’Donnell, the video will be priceless.

Our politics are now so polarized I doubt that any candidate in either party — not even JFK or Ronald Reagan — could win much more than 52 percent of the popular vote. But law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) thinks the odds of a preference cascade are rising.

Economist Timur Kuran coined the term to explain why totalitarian regimes usually collapse suddenly. A preference cascade happens when people discover millions of others share their doubts about the Great Leader. Massive media bias has made the term applicable here, Mr. Reynolds said. The Barack Obama that Americans saw in the debates bears little resemblance to the heroic figure portrayed by the news media.

The crowds have been enormous at Romney/Ryan events this past week. If this is the start of a preference cascade, many Democrats may drown in the undertow. The Obama campaign has vacuumed up so much Democratic money there’s little left for other candidates.

In yet another fund-raising appeal on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he and Michelle would be fine if he loses. If the president’s friends are indeed buying him a $35 million mansion in Hawaii, as Chicago blogger Kevin Dujan (Hillbuzz) claims, that’s certainly true. But public employee unions, crony capitalists and others who feed at the public trough have reason to panic.

Underlings must wonder if there will be legal consequences for the laws they’ve broken. I predict an orgy of document shredding Nov. 7.

The biggest losers could be “mainstream” journalists. Their blatant bias has dropped trust in the news media to an all-time low. It’ll plunge further if more evidence of collusion with the administration emerges. Nobody trusts a liar. There will be bankruptcies.

//
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/29/the_obama_presidency_is_about_to_be_swept_away.html at October 29, 2012 – 10:25:20 PM CDT

You first need to understand what has been going on: we have seen a GIANT collapse of Obama to the tune of a well-into-the-double-digits implosion of Obama’s reelection versus just a few weeks ago.  One question that emerges is was Obama’s pathetic debate performance alone really that damning of him as a leader?  Was it because Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to build a despicable straw man caricature of Mitt Romney that Romney obliterated in that debate?  Is it that the American people now largely realize they can no longer trust Obama as his demagogic hate ads were confronted by the reality that Mitt Romney is NOT the bogeyman that Obama so dishonestly claimed?  Or was it that Obama never really had the kind of lead that the media assured us over and over again that Obama had – and that it was merely the propaganda of the mainstream media propping Obama up all along?

I honestly don’t know that answer to that; but I do know that the collapse of Obama has been breathtaking right before the election and that all the momentum at this point belongs to Romney who is surging EVERYWHERE that matters.  And Romney’s surging to over fifty percent is significant because no candidate has EVER lost election with a lead over fifty percent at this point in the race.

The mainstream media polls that have had – and in a few cases still have – Obama up have relied on models that counted on a +8 Democrat turnout for Obama; which is stunning given that Obama only had a +4 Democrat turnout in that 2008 election in which absolutely everything turned Obama’s way.  Those models are simply downright false given what Gallup just found:

Gallup quietly published some stunning data this morning. Based on surveys conducted from October 1 through 24, Gallup finds that 36% of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared with 35% who are Democrats. If leaners are included, the GOP advantage is 49%/46%.

How important is that? In 2008 the Democrats had a ten-point party ID advantage, 12 with leaners. If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7–or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.

Now, you factor that surplus of Republican voters this year along with a sixteen point advantage in Republican enthusiasm over Democrats, and then you factor those two details along  with the nineteen-point Romney advantage with independent voters (52% to 33% for Obama), and you’ve got the very real possibility of an historic asskicking that the media simply would NOT examine.

ABC News just moved Pennsylvania and Minnesota – two blue states – into the tossup column.  Key battleground states are beginning a tectonic shift toward Romney.  And perhaps in an even more powerful signal, early voting has favored Romney by a 52% to 45% margin after early mainstream media reports that declared just the opposite.  One could compare this campaign to World War II: The Germans held all the advantages over Russia until Stalingrad in 1942 – and then the tide turned and suddenly the Germans found themselves fighting a losing battle across a huge front that went from Russian ground to German ground.  That’s what’s happened this election to Obama, with his first miserable debate performance serving as his Stalingrad.

That last is huge due to the sheer sample size: 15% of registered voters have already cast their ballots in the United States, and they have voted for Romney over Obama by a 52% to 45% margin.  That news is huge because historically Republicans prefer to vote by absentee ballot and Democrats heavily favor early voting.  So again Republicans are not only fighting but winning on a Democrat battlefield.  And that seven-point margin even beats the giant six-point advantage Romney has according to Gallup’s latest polling before Hurricane Sandy hit.

What is Obama’s only advantage?  Well, here’s an example:

PolitiChicks.tv has just received confirmation that a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead.

Our source said:

“Yesterday I went to an early voting site at Centennial Center in Las Vegas, NV. I went with my 19 year old son who was a first-time voter. I went to an open machine and inserted my card. When the selections came up, all of the candidate pairings were listed and I touched the box for Romney/Ryan. The checkmark appeared next to President Obama’s name. I touched the check mark removing it and touched the box next to Romney’s name again. Again, the checkmark appeared next to Obama. I motioned for an observer to come over and showed him. I touched the mark next to Obama, removing it and again touched Romney’s name. The checkmark appeared next to Obama. At this point, the gentleman next to me was looking over my partition to see. I touched the checkmark, again removing it from Obama’s name and selected Romney. The checkmark appeared next to Romney. I double-checked the paper ballot to ensure that Romney was indeed selected and cast my ballot. I didn’t make a fuss but have called our local election department only to get recordings. I also wrote an email to the Clark County Election Department about the incident. My son said that he had no issues casting his ballot.”

I called the Las Vegas GOP office but haven’t gotten a response from anyone about this yet.

Please folks, check and re-check your ballots before turning them in. A similar case was reported earlier today in North Carolina.

And here’s the story on North Carolina.

The only chance Obama has at this point is massive voter fraud.  You just can’t overcome the following disadvantages: the other party is larger than your party AND has more enthusiasm to get out and actually vote; plus independent voters support the other candidate by nineteen points more than they support you.  Democrats only “hope and change” is to cheat and to cheat massively.

[Update, 10/31/12]: Just to make it official, Obama is cheating in Ohio, too:

Voting machine swaps Obama for Romney
Incorrect inputs irritate voter
6:51 AM, Oct 31, 2012

MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.

Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.

It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.

ddd


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers