Archive for the ‘Russia’ Category

Russia Looking Better Than ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America: Obama Has Truly Poisoned America And Poisoned the WORLD To The USA

July 14, 2014

It wasn’t that long ago that I was watching a Fox News exchange between a liberal contributor and a conservative (you don’t get to see those on most other networks simply because they REFUSE to have conservatives to actually HAVE an “exchange”).  The conservative demanded that the liberal name ONE nation that Obama has improved relationships with rather than making relations WORSE.

And the liberal dodged the question three times before finally responding with “Canada.”

And I immediately thought, “That’s bull.”

Keystone decision a setback for U.S.-Canada relations

Canada May Sue U.S. Under NAFTA Over Keystone XL: Report

So yeah, as usual, liberals are either ignorant fools or moral idiots or both.  Obama has literally “fundamentally transformed” the entire WORLD against failed America.

Our enemies are emboldened and our friends are dismayed under this failed, cancerous presidency.  All over the world, America’s historic allies are now either gone – such as in Egypt, where Obama literally spearheaded the ouster of a vital strategic ally for more than three decades to replace him with the a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood – or they have been weakened and undermined.

How do you think Ukraine feels?  They made a deal to give up their massive nuke arsenal – which common sense told them they needed to protect themselves against Russian aggression – on the promise of US president Bill Clinton that the U.S. would secure Ukraine’s borders.  How did that idea to place trust in an America run by Democrat Party fascists go?  About as well as could be expected of the party of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…”

It is a fatal, lethal mistake to EVER trust Democrats, as Ukraine learned to its horror when Russia invaded – as Sarah Palin predicted they would when Putin understood what a truly weak and pathetic fool Barack Obama is - and the US did NOTHING to honor its commitment.

It is stunning to read the article below and find that as evil as Russia is, Barack Obama is so evil and so completely untrustworthy that our historic allies are choosing the lesser evil (Russia and Putin) over the greater evil (the United States and Obama).  That’s how depraved this fool is.

Now Israel is on the list of nations that are learning that to trust the United States is tantamount to suicide.  Because Democrats are craven liars and there is no relying on craven liars.

Ultimately, the Bible warned us 2,600 years ago that in the very last days, the Tribulation described in Revelation would be inaugurated when an abandoned Israel will sign a seven-year pact with the Antichrist, the beast of Revelation.  And they will do that because of the wickedness, the cowardice and the betrayal of one man – Barack Hussein Obama.  Now that Israel realizes that the United States is far more enemy than friend, they will have no place left to turn BUT to Antichrist.

It is a sad and loathsome fact that as hundreds of rockets rain down on Israel from Hamas-controlled Palestine, FIVE world leaders actually reached out to Israel before Obama paused in his endless fundraising long enough to give Bibi a call.  That’s when you know that your historic closest ally and friend in the world has abandoned you.

You ought to realize the eternal hell that awaits you because of what you voted for when you voted for Obama, Democrat.  Because when you voted for Obama, YOU VOTED FOR THE ANTICHRIST – whose useful idiot Obama truly is.

Add Germany to the list of nations that Obama has destroyed relations with, as an article in even the liberal Los Angeles Times points out:

The German-American breakup
By Jacob Heilbrunn
July 10, 2014

When candidate Barack Obama spoke in July 2008 in Berlin near the Brandenburg Gate, he told a rapturous German audience that peace and progress “require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.” It was supposed to be the opposite of George W. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, which alienated the Federal Republic of Germany and much of Europe. Yet six years later, relations between Washington and Berlin are more mistrustful than ever.

The main problem is that President Obama has been listening all too well to Germans — spying on them from more than 150 National Security Agency sites in Germany, according to secret NSA documents that former contractor Edward Snowden leaked to the weekly Der Spiegel.

Germans, who acutely remember the totalitarian surveillance of Nazi Germany and East Germany, cherish their strict data protection and limits on state monitoring. The pervasive spying on one of America’s most valuable partners — including the snooping on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone from a rooftop listening post at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin — has enraged the German public.

Now, with the fresh revelation that the CIA recruited an intelligence official as a spy, and the possibility of a second spy in the Defense Ministry, the fury is reaching a tipping point. U.S. Ambassador John B. Emerson was called on the carpet by the German Foreign Office on July 4 about the first incident. On Thursday, Germany ordered the CIA station chief in Berlin to leave.

And the brouhaha isn’t going away. German President Joachim Gauck, widely revered for his years as a Protestant pastor and human rights activist in the former East Germany, said that if the spying allegations were true, “enough is enough.” Karl-Georg Wellmann, a prominent member of Merkel’s Christian Democratic party, is calling for the expulsion of any and all U.S. agents.

What’s more, leading German politicians are calling for reassessing negotiations with Washington over a transatlantic free-trade agreement that could be vital to the economic futures of both Europe and the United States. And Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere announced that Berlin would terminate a no-spy agreement it has enjoyed with the U.S. and Britain since 1945 and begin monitoring them in Germany. As Stephan Mayer, a spokesman for Merkel’s party, put it, “We must focus more strongly on our so-called allies.”

So-called? Such statements, unthinkable only a few years ago, accurately reflect a broader antipathy toward America among the German public, which largely sees Snowden as a hero, particularly for his revelations about the extent of American surveillance in Germany.

Ever since the Bush administration launched the Iraq war in 2003 — which then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder vehemently opposed — many Germans have come to view America as a militaristic rogue state, more dangerous even than Russia or Iran. Indeed, a recent Infratest Dimap poll indicates that a mere 27% of Germans regard the U.S. as trustworthy, and a majority view it as an aggressive power.

The result is that Germany is undergoing a fundamental transformation. After the Nazi defeat in 1945, the republic’s first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, emphasized that Germany had to end its tradition of trying to maneuver between East and West as an independent power. Instead, it had to bind itself to the West, economically and militarily. Only Washington could guarantee a free and democratic West Germany. But it is precisely this tradition that is coming to an end as Germany begins to act on what it perceives as its new national interests.

Already Germany is much more sympathetic to Russia than the United States. Schroeder, the former chancellor, serves on the board of Gazprom and is a buddy of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Another former chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, said that it was “entirely understandable” that Putin would annex Crimea. What’s more, German business interests dictate that Berlin seek to maintain a friendly stance toward Moscow.

Similarly, Germans are allergic to any military confrontation with China, which has emerged as one of their most important trading partners.

It shouldn’t be entirely surprising that decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reunified Germany is moving from docile Cold War ally to a sovereign power that feels less inhibited by its Nazi past and less indebted to the United States.

But there’s no reason for the U.S. to antagonize a longtime ally, either. The two sides need to forge new ties based on mutual respect. They continue to have many common interests in trade, in deterring Russian aggression and in combating terrorism in the Middle East.

In trampling on German civil liberties, the Obama administration is besmirching America’s image and allowing Germans to feel morally superior to their former conqueror.

If Obama is unable to rein in spying on Germany, he may discover that he is helping to convert it from an ally into an adversary. For Obama to say auf Wiedersehen to a longtime ally would deliver a blow to American national security that no amount of secret information could possibly justify.

It’s buried in an article that tries repeatedly to assert that “good liberals need to remember not to forget to blame Bush,” but here’s the key paragraph:

The result is that Germany is undergoing a fundamental transformation. After the Nazi defeat in 1945, the republic’s first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, emphasized that Germany had to end its tradition of trying to maneuver between East and West as an independent power. Instead, it had to bind itself to the West, economically and militarily. Only Washington could guarantee a free and democratic West Germany. But it is precisely this tradition that is coming to an end as Germany begins to act on what it perceives as its new national interests.

One of the things that leaps out was very likely completely unintended by this liberal intellectual: the phrase “undergoing a fundamental transformation.”  I mean, that is positively funny between the hysterical crying jags as we weep for America.

Allow me to remind you of Obama’s promise (and the only one this pathologically wicked liar has kept):

“Fundamental transformation” that breaks the spine of America’s strategic policy that has prevented World War III for sixty years, CHECK.

Thanks, Obama, for snatching defeat from the hands of a victory America won at great cost DECADES ago but that you have now pissed away with your stunning incompetence and your pathological fascism.

Just as he more recently pissed away all the gains we won in Iraq and WILL piss away all the gains we won in Afghanistan due to his same utterly weak and utterly failed strategy.  Because this fool just doesn’t LEARN.

At the rate we’re going, Obama is going to piss away the Revolutionary War before the fool is out of office.  [Frankly, given the fact that in our Declaration of Independence our founding fathers grounded our right to separate from Britain in the fact that GOD gives us our rights, we are now so secular humanist that we have crossed that threshold where if we had any integrity we would apologize to Britain and return to servitude to them because WE have rejected as a nation the very foundation upon which we separated ourselves from England in the first place]

I’ll just say this: the TEA PARTY knows EXACTLY how Angela Merkel and Germany feels as the Obama thug Internal Revenge Service attacked Obama’s enemies.  If you don’t understand by now that it is simply what this fascist thug does, you’re a fool.

The funny thing is that we need Eric Snowden for that one, too, given that Obama has launched a cover-up that dwarfs ANYTHING that Nixon ever tried.

As I write this, 38 news organizations are decrying Obama’s “politically-driven suppression of news.”  What this fascist thug is doing and has done is stunning.

Whether it is the freedom of the press or the freedom of religion - THE two most sacred freedoms this nation bestows - this fascist Obama has pissed all over EVERYTHING that America stood for.

It’s really no surprise that Russia – as wicked as that country under Putin clearly is – looks a hell of a lot better to the rest of the world than America under Obama.

 

 

Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)

March 25, 2014

Was Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s territory (Crimea) a big deal?

The NATO Secretary-General thinks it is:

(CNSNews.com) – Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of its Crimea region is “the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War,” NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.

“We have seen Russia rip up the international rule book,” Rasmussen told an audience at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “Trying to redraw the map of Europe, and creating in just a few weeks the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War.”

The only real country left in Europe thinks that it is:

The Ukraine crisis is the worst in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall and diplomacy is now essential to avoid military escalation, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

Russia’s intervention means “the threat of a division of Europe is real again,” Steinmeier said as he arrived for an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.

This ought to be a much worse crisis – and a much bigger deal – than it actually is: because the fact of the matter is that we signed a treaty to protect Ukraine and to keep this very thing from happening.  And we are more obviously weaker now than we have ever been now that we have dishonored ourselves by abandoning our commitment.

Every nation on earth will start to scramble to acquire nuclear weapons to protect their borders and there will be NOTHING we can do to persuade them to give up those weapons.  Because we have now proven that our word is no good and we will ultimately renege on whatever we promise we’re going to do.

This is a crisis that will continue to build and build long after Ukraine leaves the media’s ADD-style attention span.  You know, while the mainstream liberal media is micro-fixated on that Malaysian airliner that nobody has any idea whatsoever happened to.

But please don’t think Barack Obama did anything stupid while all this was going on: he still spent his usual countless hours formulating his NCAA brackets.

Of course the same Democrats who had demonized George Bush just for playing golf while there was a war going on only to hypocritically shrug their shoulders while Barack Obama has played more than seven times more golf than Bush did (164 rounds compared to Bush’s 24).

I noted in my obtaining of the above facts on presidential golf that the U.S. media that criticized Bush so heavily for golfing have been strangely silent about Obama’s “love for the game.”  It has been the FOREIGN media that has attacked Obama for his golfing as the classic evidence of an absentee president who fiddles around on the golf course while the world is burning.

When we compare Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama we get a bare-chested man riding a stallion compared to a weasel-thin, dumbo-eared metrosexual riding a bicycle while wearing mom jeans and a geeky helmet.

And don’t think the world – and particularly all of our enemies – haven’t noticed what the man who has gutted the American military is: weak.

I have on numerous occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain was, like Obama, a ruthless tyrant when it came to domestic policy.  Because of the power of his office, he could simply dictate.  And dictate he did.

But when it came to dealing with aggressive and even hostile foreign governments, the world sat in stunned horror as Chamberlain proved himself to be an empty suit.  He couldn’t dictate to Hitler with an executive order.  So he did nothing while Hitler grew stronger and stronger and bolder and bolder and more and more aggressive.  Until it took a war to stop him.

That’s where we’re at now.

Democrats want to tell us that Putin invaded Georgia and seized their territory when Bush was president.  And that is true.  But please consider two things that make that meaningless: 1) George Bush TRIED to avert the Russian seizure of Georgia in April of 2008 when he proposed that Georgia AND UKRAINE be allowed into NATO.  That move would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks.  Don’t tell me that Bush didn’t wisely see what completely blindsided Obama coming.  But weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism is weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism both here and in Europe.  And liberals wouldn’t tolerate such a “provocative move.”  Oh, no.  The spirit of Obama is the spirit of weakness and appeasement.  If we bare our throats and demonstrate to our enemies by our nakedness that we are not a threat, their reasoning goes, we will avert war and live in a Utopia of peace and harmony.  You’re seeing more of the same as we speak with Obama’s giveaway of the internet to countries that are hostile to us.  And 2) Putin seized Georgia with less than three months left in Bush’s presidency – and you tell me if you have any honesty whatsoever what Democrats would have done had Bush moved aggressively to respond to Putin after Obama and Democrats had spent basically eight years demonizing him as a warmonger.

What was Obama’s response to Putin over Georgia once he got into office?  Did he stand up to Putin?  Did he push for the rest of Georgia not yet seized and Ukraine that had not yet had its territory seized to become part of NATO like Bush had done?  Nope.  He was pretty good at spending time with his NCAA brackets between rounds of golf then, too.

Bush TRIED to solve the problem in Georgia and Ukraine before either happened.  What did Obama do???

In fact what Obama did was issue his infamous “reset” button with Russia.  He and Hillary Clinton, being as incompetent as they are morally stupid, botched that horribly, of course.  But it sent a crystal-clear message to Putin: America under Obama is weak.  They will let me get away with murder.  And so murder I will.

More evidence (and more conservatives who saw Putin’s aggression coming): Sarah Palin:

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???

And Mitt Romney:

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.

Mitt Romney didn’t have “rose-colored glasses” when it came to Russia and Putin.  History records that Barack Obama had the most asinine-looking rose-colored glasses ever devised when it came to them.  And Democrats have the naked dishonesty to stupidly try to argue that nobody could have seen Putin’s seizure of Ukraine coming.

And, oh, yeah, that “flexibility” thing.  Remember that?

How did I title my article on that one?  “Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

Obama’s open-mic moment with Russia:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir

And what do we have now?  The “worst crisis since the end of the Cold War” being played out after Obama has “more flexibility” to appease our enemy whom Obama went very much on the record to say was NOT our enemy at all.

How “flexible” are you feeling now, I wonder, Obama, you jackass?

So here’s the deal now that Obama has pulled America’s pants down and bent over for Russia and begged to have our national security and our prestige butt-raped: just like in World War II, we’re going to have to fight a world war to get our prestige that our weak, cowardly, gutless puke pissed away.

Obama’s “strategy” – if you could call his doing nothing a “strategy” – is this: where the world became outraged after Hitler’s second violation of a sovereign nation, what if instead of fighting the world had done NOTHING?  What if we’d just allowed Hitler to have what he wanted and not do anything about it?

You see, THAT’S “peace” to a liberal.  There is no war because we won’t fight.  No matter what.  And no matter what Hitler – or Putin – or any other thug does, we won’t fight.  So we have “peace.”

Here’s the really funny thing about this: I’ve been reading liberals’ op-eds on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and the consistent theme is that Republicans don’t really have a solution now, either.  So you can’t blame Obama for being weak because Republicans don’t want to go to war, either.

DAMN THESE PEOPLE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST.

Here’s the simple fact: as I already documented above, the “Republican response” would have begun going on six years ago back when we truly could have DONE something short of going to world war three.  The “Republican response” would have began with Sarah Palin’s wisdom – and then after that Mitt Romney’s wisdom – that Russia and Putin were true threats.  Which is something our failed Disgrace-in-Chief STILL doesn’t understand.

The “Republican response” would have been NOT to gut America’s military so that we are clearly too damn weak to do a damn thing about much of anything.  That probably would have stopped Putin right there.

The “Republican response” would have been to follow through on what Bush started and LEAD by insisting that Georgia and Ukraine become protected by NATO membership.  That DEFINITELY would have stopped Putin.

We never would have BEEN in this situation had there actually been a “Republican response.”

There comes a point when idiots have so destroyed something that it cannot be made right again.  And don’t try “spin” reality such that Republicans who CLEARLY saw this disaster coming and SAID it was coming wouldn’t have done anything different to avert it.

Now the same media that literally mocked Sarah Palin for seeing the Russian threat and mocked Mitt Romney for “stealing a [functioning] national security policy from the 1980s is dishonestly trying to say that Republicans should have to fix the world that Obama has damn-near singlehandedly broken beyond repair.

Remember Obama boasting of how he would restore America’s prestige?  Where is it now after Obama has repeatedly issued “red line” warnings and then done NOTHING and countries like Russia push us around like we’re the pussies that we have become under Obama?

It aint over.  Putin gave a speech justifying what he did in Crimea by talking about his duty to protect ethnic Russians wherever they may be.  And the thing is that following the collapse of the former Soviet Union – whose territory Putin wants to reclaim for Mother Russia – there are “ethnic Russians” all OVER the place.

Putin gave himself the carte blanche right to invade and seize virtually every single country in eastern Europe.

And now he’s massing Russian troops in a very possible move to invade Ukraine and seize the rest of it.

And Obama has already promised that there is no possible way that he will respond militarily.  Because he is a weak and stupid man who lays all his cards down on the table to make sure his enemies know his vulnerabilities in advance.

You wonder what Hitler would have done had Neville Chamberlain said, “Do whatever you want.  I won’t stop you.”  Probably nothing good.

Here’s one on that: Vladimir Putin has built his new hegemony primarily upon his exporting of Russian oil and natural gas and his ability to shut the tap on any European state that would oppose him.  What has Barack Obama done to counter this hegemony?  Has he promised to increase American oil and natural gas exports and essentially taken Putin’s power away without firing a shot?  That would counter his “oil is evil” philosophy, wouldn’t it?  And so while Putin is lording it over Europe and Europe is cowed into refusing to go along with any tough sanctions against Russia as a consequence, Obama STILL won’t allow the Keystone oil pipeline which he has kept shut down for YEARS.

This isn’t even about going to war – although Obama was nothing short of a FOOL to simply take war completely off the table and signal Putin his abject weakness in advance – it’s about simple reality and Obama’s inability to understand it.  OIL IS REALITY; Obama’s alternative energy is magical unicorn fairy dust.  Obama’s refusal to harness reality makes him a weak fool.

Meanwhile, China, which like Russia and very much unlike America has also been strengthening its military, ALSO has territorial ambitions.  Because weakness is the ultimate provocation.

And like Russia, they know we will do NOTHING.

World War II was the result of European and American weakness.  World War III will result from the same liberal weakness in Europe and America.

And you can lay the blame for that coming global war ENTIRELY on Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s feat.

A nation that allows tyrants to become emboldened has a death wish.  And America proved that it has a death wish when it stupidly elected and then even more stupidly re-elected Barack Obama.

I have long marveled at the precision of Bible prophecy in the last days.  The Bible rightly predicted that Israel would miraculously and against all odds be regathered as a nation.  It foresaw the rise of Russia as a world power which it had never been in history.  It described a last days confederation of countries led by Russia and Iran (Persia) that EXACTLY matches the Islamic states relative to their enmity to Israel today.  It anticipated the coming together of a European union which had never in history happened.  It knew that one day China and the kings of the east would be able to assemble an army of 200 million soldiers when at the time the prophecy was given there weren’t two-hundred million human beings on the entire planet.

The Bible prophecies all of these things and many, many others which have come to pass in these the last days of human history before the coming of the Beast.

But it never once mentions America.

That used to bother me greatly: how could it be that the mightiest nation in the history of the world isn’t even mentioned in Bible prophecy?

The answer is terrifying: the United States isn’t mentioned because it either won’t exist at all – having catastrophically imploded – or it will be so weak and so irrelevant that it won’t matter at all in the last days.

When you voted for “God damn America,” you voted to go extinct like the Dodo bird.

In the end, a leader will come in fulfillment of every Democrat’s and every liberal’s and every socialist’s fondest dreams.  His government will so take over the world that literally no one will be able to buy or sell anything without the government’s approval.  He will promise a Utopia but deliver the whole world into hell on earth.

And Barack Obama – along with the Democrat Party and everyone who supports them - is his useful idiot.

You won’t be able to stop him politically because Democrats and liberals all over the world will vote for him.  You won’t be able to fight him because liberals will take away all of your guns.

The coming of Antichrist and his mark of the beast didn’t have to happen, but the God who knows the end from the beginning knew 2,000 years ago – knew in fact before the foundation of the world – that the terminal generation of Americans would be a stupid and depraved one.

 

 

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.

The Fascist Hypocrite-In-Chief Says He’ll Finally Stop (A Little Of) The Spying After Demoning Bush WHO SPIED LESS THAN OBAMA

January 20, 2014

I looked at a headline in the Los Angeles Times featuring something on Validmir Putin and almost vomited.

I almost vomited because I had had a thought that I never thought I would have in my lifetime: I envied Russia for its political leadership.  I mean, yes, the guy is a former communist KGB thug, but Barack Obama is a CURRENT communist thug who has turned his FBI and his IRS into the KGB.  And of course whenever Obama and Putin have crossed swords, Putin has made Obama look like such a chump it is beyond unreal.

The United States before Obama USED to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.  And the president of the United States was OF COURSE the most powerful man on the planet.  Not so anymore: the most powerful man in the world is Gog of Magog (the way the Bible describes the leader of Russia in the last days), Vladimer Putin.

Obama is Putin’s poodle:

According to the magazine [Forbes], Putin has replaced US President Barack Obama in the top spot because the Russian leader has gained the upper hand over his counterpart in Washington in the context of several conflicts and scandals.

Indeed, at the moment, Putin seems to be succeeding at everything he does. In September, he convinced Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. In doing so, he averted an American military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad and made Obama look like an impotent global policeman.

In late July, Putin ignored American threats and granted temporary asylum to US whistleblower Edward Snowden, a move that stirred up tensions within the Western camp. The Germans and the French were also outraged over Washington’s surveillance practices.

Since then, Putin has scored one coup after the next. In the fall, when meaningful progress was made in talks with Tehran over a curtailment of Iran’s nuclear program, Putin once again played a key role.

Obama doesn’t even look THIRD rate as a leader advancing the cause and power of his people compared to Vladimir Putin over Syria.  He made Obama look like an organ grinder’s monkey when he got Obama to fold over his stupid “red line.”  And what has Syria done since to fulfill it’s promises to Obama?  Try “zero.”  Now Syria has all of its WMD and Assad – thanks to Obama – has an iron grip on power over the rebels whom Obama flat-out betrayed.  The joke is on Obama and of course the hapless American people who are screwed by this idiot’s “leadership.”  In the same way, Obama fails to rank as a FOURTH rate leader compared to Vladimir Putin over Iran.  Right after Iran – and Putin – got everything they wanted out of the Chump-in-Chief, Iran announced the truth to the world: that Obama had “surrendered.”  Oh, the media likes to say “the West surrendered,” but of course as the so-called “leader of the free world,” it was Obama who LED the West to surrender to Iran.  And now Iran is already on the rapid economic mend and will be able to pour more funds into its ballistic missile program – immediately after the success of which they will announce that they have become a nuclear power.

I never in my wildest dreams ever believed that I would prefer a Russian president to an American one.  I mean, even Jimmy CARTER didn’t make me think that.

Friday Obama gave his NSA speech.  And of course it was just like all of his other speeches: Obama the great and grand impartial listener has heard all sides, has not yet made his infinitely wise decision, and will punt all unpopular decisions to Congress in the meantime until he imposes his totalitarian godhood without any accountability via executive orders later.

The New York Times in one of its mostly drivel articles began this way:

WASHINGTON — As a young lawmaker defining himself as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama visited a center for scholars in August 2007 to give a speech on terrorism. He described a surveillance state run amok and vowed to rein it in. “That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens,” he declared. “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”

It pointed out that:

Mr. Obama’s 2007 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars came after the revelation that President George W. Bush had authorized warrantless surveillance in terrorism cases without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. A presidential candidate, Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Bush’s “false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

Oh, and my favorite line:

He was surprised at the uproar that ensued, advisers said, particularly that so many Americans did not trust him, much less trust the oversight provided by the intelligence court and Congress. As more secrets spilled out, though, aides said even Mr. Obama was chagrined. They said he was exercised to learn that the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany was being tapped.

It took a traitor named Snowden to expose the treason and abject hypocrisy of our traitor-in-chief.  And so it was Snowden, now basically a Russian citizen (that’s just one of the many ways Putin has OWNED Obama) who pointed out the fact that no president in American history had ever built up such a large spying system on its own citizens.

Of course we also know that this same president used his IRS to target 292 conservative organizations plus a couple of liberal ones (who used “anti-Obama rhetoric”) so that liberals would say Obama went after both sides.

And we know that the FBI under Eric Holder refused to investigate this political crime and didn’t even bother to INTERVIEW any of the victims and get their stories to find out what actually happened.  Nope, they just listened to that lizard lady who pled the Fifth because the truth would have incriminated her.

Tyler Durden asked a good question this way:

Who said it?

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.

That is not who we are. It’s not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works.

Our constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary.

This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.

There are no shortcuts to protecting America.

- August, 2007

Confused? It is the same guy who said this back in 2006:

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  

Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’

Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  

Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Still confused? Here he is:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocrite without shame, honor, decency, or virtue; he’s a liar without any shame, any honor, any decency or any virtue.

Do you remember Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney, Obama’s UN ambassador and a host of other Obama cronies repeatedly told us that Benghazi was NOT a terrorist attack and that it was the result of a video that even the Democrat-controlled SENATE says had nothing whatsoever to do with this Al-Qaeda-sponsored and linked terrorist attack???  And how they LIED???

Do you remember Obama’s top national security appointee Clapper who answered, “Not wittingly” to the question as to whether the NSA was keeping information on Americans that it was VERY MUCH “WITTINGLY” KEEPING???  And do you remember how he ADMITTED he lied and said he gave “the least untruthful” answer possible???  Which is of course exactly what I did every time I told a woman in a bar I was a Navy SEAL or whatever it took to get in her panties, right???

Yeah, he’s STILL on the job.  Because Obama has SURROUNDED himself with liars to cover and shelter his administration.  That’s why he also hasn’t done a damn thing about the fiasco at Benghazi where he and many of his cronies also lied, about the political attack via the IRS where his cronies pled the Fifth Amendment rather than telling the American people what they’d done, etc. etc.

Why wouldn’t we trust this abject liar???

Why wouldn’t we trust “the liar of the year” who promised if we liked our health plan we could keep it and if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor and that health care would be less expensive after his ObamaCare and basically be wonderful for us when it turned out that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS PROMISES TURNED OUT TO BE ABJECT AND OUTRIGHT LIES???  Why wouldn’t we trust a man who demonized his predecessor for violating civil liberties only to himself be the worst violator of civil liberties in American history???  Why wouldn’t we trust the man who demonized Bush for increasing the national debt by $4 trillion but then increase it $8 trillion AND COUNTING himself???

I don’t know: why don’t we trust THE MOST DOCUMENTED LIAR IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE PLANET???  That is, unless you can show me which leader has had his lies literally heard and seen by more people than have heard and seen Obama’s lies.

The Washington reporters – and most of these guys are LIBERALS - say Barack Obama was the least transparent president since NIXON.  They point out that Obama is WORSE than Nixon when it comes to viciously targeting anyone who leaks anything that damages him.

And Obama’s pathological dishonesty, his political viciousness and frankly the demons screaming in his ugly little soul are why his approval ratings are the WORST SINCE NIXON.  As in Nixon mired in the Watergate scandal as his lies were exposed.

Barack Obama is a pathological liar.  To put it in Obamaesque terms, Obama is a pathological liar.  Period.  End of story.

History Repeats Itself Yet Again: Obama The Uberliberal Has GUTTED America’s Ability To Defend Itself

December 4, 2013

So here is the state of American defense five years into the president Obama who applied his mastery of taking over the health care system to perfecting our defense:

Is the military still ready for war _ or should you be worried?
Article by: PAULINE JELINEK , Associated Press
Updated: November 29, 2013 – 3:00 AM

WASHINGTON — Warnings from defense officials and some experts are mounting and becoming more dire: The nation’s military is being hobbled by budget cuts.

“You’d better hope we never have a war again,” the House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said of the decline in what the military calls its readiness.

So should Americans be worried?

A look at what the Pentagon means by “ready” and where things stand:

READINESS

It’s the armed forces’ ability to get the job done, and it’s based on the number of people, the equipment and the training needed to carry out assigned missions.

As an example, an Army brigade has a list of the things it would have to do in a full-level war, called its “mission essential task list.” And a 4,500-member brigade is deemed ready when it has the right supplies and equipment, is in good working condition and pretty much has that full number of people, well-trained in their various specialties, to conduct its tasks.

Military units are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best, or fully ready. Typically, a unit freshly returned from a tour of duty would carry a 5 rating, since it’s missing people because of casualties or because some are moving on to other jobs, and it’s missing equipment that was battered or worn in the field and is in for repairs or must be replaced. A unit can be sent out in less-than-full ready status, but officials warn that would mean it could do less, take longer to do it, suffer more casualties, or all of the above.

THE U.S. MILITARY RATING NOW

Detailed information on that is classified secret so adversaries won’t know exactly what they’re up against. But because of ongoing budget fights, officials in recent weeks have given broad examples of readiness lapses in hopes of convincing Congress and the American people that cutbacks, particularly in training budgets, are creating a precarious situation.

For instance, an Air Force official says they’ve grounded 13 combat fighter/bomber squadrons or about a third of those active duty units. And the Army says only two of its 35 active-duty brigades are fully ready for major combat operations. The service typically wants to have about 12 ready at any given time so a third of the total can be deployed, a third is prepared for deployment and a third is working to get ready.

Analysts say a decade of massive spending increases have built a strong force superior to anything else out there. “We could certainly fight another war on the order of the first Gulf War (1991) without any problems; the Air Force could do air strikes in Syria,” said Barry M. Blechman of the Stimson Center think tank. “We wouldn’t want to get involved in another protracted war (like Iraq and Afghanistan), but in terms of the types of military operations we typically get involved in, we’re prepared for that.”

THE PROBLEM

Even those who believe the situation is not yet dire say that eventually these budget cuts will catch up with the force. Some analysts say another two or three years of training cuts, for instance, will leave the U.S. military seriously unprepared.

As an added wrinkle, the cuts come just as the military had planned a significant re-training of the force. That is, the bulk of U.S. forces were organized, trained and equipped over the past 12 years for counterinsurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan and now need to sharpen skills needed to counter other kinds of threats in other parts of the world.

For instance, much of the Air Force focus in recent years has been on providing close air support for the ground troops countering insurgents and not on skills that would be needed if the U.S. were involved in a conflict with a foreign government — skills like air-to-air combat and air interdiction.

A SOLUTION

There’s broad agreement in Washington that budget cuts should be tailored rather than done by the automatic, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration over the next decade. There is not agreement on politically sensitive potential savings from closing and consolidating some military bases, holding the line on troop compensation that has grown over the war years or drawing down more steeply from the wartime size of the force.

Finding replacement cuts for sequestration is the priority of budget talks led by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his Senate counterpart, Patty Murray, D-Wash., who are facing an informal Dec. 13 deadline to reach a deal. Any agreement that they negotiate could still be rejected by their colleagues.

For the official record, I document that OBAMA was responsible for “sequestration.”  It was HIS idea from HIS White House:

Barack Obama has now repeatedly said that sequestration – which he now says is a “meat cleaver” that would have “brutal consequences” that would destroy America - was “Congress’ idea” (with the implication that it was therefore the Republicans’ idea.  He said back on October 22:

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

But Barack Obama is a documented liar in claiming that.  Because WHO actually proposed sequestration again?

Let’s see what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was forced to concede during an interview with Fox News anchor Brett Bair (note: I added the first remark by Jay Carney to the transcript after transcribing it from the video):

Jay Carney: Somehow, what they [Republicans] liked then, they don’t like now and they’re trying to say that it was the president’s idea.

Bret Baier: Fair to say, but it was the president’s idea… You concede that point, right?

Jay Carney: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build the mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas yes put forward, yes, by the president’s team.

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

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

It is a documented historical fact that it was BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S White House that proposed sequestration, NOT Congress and most certainly NOT Republicans.

So, yeah, it was the president’s idea.  It was Obama’s plan that Obama put forward.  If the Republicans agreed to it in order to get something done on the last debt ceiling fight.  And after all  the time you’ve spent labelling Republicans as “obstructionists” for not agreeing with you, NOW you demonize them as evil after they DO agree with you???

So anybody who wants to blame Republicans for this mess is simply demon possessed.  You hold a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF responsible for the defense of our nation, and NOBODY else.  Especially when it was aforementioned commander-in-chief’s damn idea to begin with.

Okay, let’s remember: Jimmy Carter was a liberal president who gutted the military and left America weak – and therefore our enemies aggressive and belligerent – which set us up for the Iran Hostage crisis.

Bill Clinton was a Democrat president who gutted both our military capability and our intelligence capability and set us up for the 9/11 attack which took place less than eight months after his eight years in office.  Every single one of the 9/11 terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans was already in the country and funded and trained during Bill Clinton’s blind watch.

I’ve written about Slick Willie’s impact on our military and our intelligence:

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Tenet had this to say as he testified about what he found when he took over the CIA:

By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

I remember watching TV news programs like “Nightline” and seeing coverage of the war going on in Bosnia.  The same Clinton who sent them there had so gutted their capability that fighter wings were reduced to desperately trying to cannibalize the parts from aircraft to keep the increasingly few that were still flying in the air.  And what Clinton publicly did to the military – fully 90% of the cuts Clinton made to the federal payroll were from the military (286,000 of the 305,000 employees cut were military).  And according to George Tenet, the rest of them were in the CIA and NSA.

And then 9/11 happened as our enemies literally SAW our weakness and began to salivate.

Where are we now?

Consider China:

China sends warplanes to newly declared air zone

and the resultingly bold Obama response to China’s aggression?

U.S. Advises Commercial Jets to Honor China’s Rules

Obama can say whatever he wants to, but his words don’t mean squat when the REST of the world – and in particular our airlines – are bowing down before China’s power.

I submit that Obama didn’t merely “dangerously dither” in his ad-hoc policy in the Chinese belligerence toward Japan – he outright turned his back on yet another ally in order to appease an enemy.

China is deliberately provoking conflict with the United States because they know that Obama isn’t a strong leader and that he will back down.

What’s going on in socialist paradise North Korea?  They just seized an elderly Korean war veteran and they won’t give our American back to us.  They say Obama is a weak little coward and they can do whatever they want.

I think of the glory of Rome when NOBODY messed with a Roman citizen because Rome would lay waste to their country if they did.

Another American – Alan Gross – just “celebrated” his third year of Obama not giving a damn that an American was imprisoned in Cuba.  Oh, I’m sorry, that’s dated: MAKE THAT HIS FOURTH ANNIVERSARY.

Alan Gross’ wife says that Obama has done NOTHING to help her get her American back.  I heard her state on Fox News this morning that she had NEVER HEARD ONCE from the Obama White House.

Given the experience of the mother of one of the Benghazi attack victims, though, if Obama is ignoring you AT LEAST HE’S NOT LYING TO YOU.

In Afghanistan, Obama is repeating his own history of abject weakness.  Just as George Bush won the war in Iraq and then Obama lost the peace, Obama in his utter, pathological weakness and cowardice is about to lose Afghanistan the very same way he lost Iraq (and see here).  We are on a trajectory to completely leave Afghanistan after all of those years fighting to have a role there.  Why?  Because the Karzai in Afghanistan realized what the leaders of Iraq also realized: that Barack Obama would be a weak and untrustworthy “ally” and it would be better to turn elsewhere than turn to America.  And as this article itself documents, they’re right – because Obama simply cannot be trusted.

Meanwhile, the deals an incredibly weak, cynical and desperate Obama has made first in Syria and now in Iran simply shocks anybody who has so much as a single clue.  Obama has guaranteed that Syrian dictator and mass murdering thug Assad will stay in power.  In fact Obama in his weakness has guaranteed that Assad MUST remain in power in order for the wmd deal to work.  Which means Syria and Russia just got everything they most wanted while they spend the next years playing America for the fool it is.  As for Iran, Obama has guaranteed that Iran will be in an economically stronger position to announce that they have joined the nations with nuclear weapons as soon as they have successfully developed the ballistic missile system they need to give their nuclear threat any real teeth.  There is frankly no reason for Iran to develop nuclear weapons until they have the means to deliver those weapons especially to Israel and the United States.

The Iranian president announced that the deal Obama made allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.  And of course it does because Obama won’t do a damn thing to stop it.

Another true statement is that Obama’s deal – again in the Iranian president’s own words – isolates Israel.

Obama is a “leader” who leaves America’s allies twisting in the wind while he makes desperate deals to appease our enemies.  And as a result he will have “peace in our time.”  A completely false and naïve peace just like the last damn time we had such a “peace,” but Obama couldn’t give less of a damn as long as the world doesn’t blow up until he’s out of office.

Interestingly, the Great Tribulation officially begins when Israel signs a seven year covenant with a soon-coming world leader the Bible calls the Antichrist or “the beast.”  What we just saw was Israel being so isolated and so desperate that it will have no one else to turn to BUT the Antichrist.  Because her one great ally America abandoned her in her time of greatest need.

There’s something called “going down for the third time.”  The first two times you go under weaken you and leaves you less able to stay above the water line; it’s the third time that drowns you.  Stupid, pathetic, weak American sheeple elected Jimmy Carter, only to suffer massive decline and erosion of confidence in the minds of our allies while emboldening our enemies.  And we suffered terribly as a result.  Stupid, pathetic, weak American sheeple elected Bill Clinton, only to suffer the same fate in a series of terrorist attacks that culminated in the massive 9/11 attack.  And now we’ve really gone and done it.  I truly don’t think America will ever truly emerge from the damage that Barack Obama will have done by the time he finally finishes disgracing the office of president of the United States.

Note that I have never said that Barack Obama is the Antichrist; what Obama IS is the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.  If you voted for Obama, you VOTED for the Antichrist to come – and you will almost certainly just as enthusiastically vote to take the mark of the beast when the coming big government leader imposes the mark as he promises the ultimate economic big government Utopia.

I’ve pointed out the simple historic FACT that Democrats SAVAGED George Bush when he said Iran was a nuclear threat.  Iran WILL HAVE nuclear weapons as a result of Democrats and Obama.  And the world will be a far more frightening place that careens even faster toward Armageddon when they get the bomb and the missile to deliver it.

And we can’t do a damn thing to stop it, thanks to the man we wickedly made our president.

Obama – The Prez Who Says He’ll Screw America To Help Russia If They Wait Till He’s Reelected – Demands Europe Not Save Itself By Booting Greece Until After Election Day

August 25, 2012

I’ll just re-post the whole article for you on what Obama said to the Russians first:

You want to talk about a hard punch right in the gut of American national security.

Allow me to sum this up for you: Obama is telling the Russians, “I assure you that I’m going to cave in to you like the pandering weakling that I am. But I can’t do it yet. If I sacrifice American security before the election, the American people will rightly turn on me and I’ll be out – and you’ll have a strong leader to deal with who will confront you as an obvious opponent rather than the Neville Chamberlain-style Appeaser-in-Chief that you have in me. If you give me ‘space’ to get re-elected I promise you I’ll bow down before you the same way I’ve already bowed down so many times before. I’ll even apologize to you for America’s ‘aggression’ if you want me to. Heck, I just got through apologizing to the people who murdered American soldiers! So you KNOW I’m good for it!”

Hot mike moment: Obama overheard telling Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense
By NBC News’ Shawna Thomas

SEOUL, South Korea — It was a comment not intended for public consumption, and another lesson for President Barack Obama on the importance of being careful about what you say around microphones, especially in an election year.

At the end of a 90-minute meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, journalists rushed in to hear remarks from the leaders about the content of their talks.

Journalists spied the two leaders leaning close together and talking in hushed tones. According to those in the room, the conversation was difficult to hear but the videotape revealed Obama asking the Russian leader to wait until after the November election before pushing forward on the topic of a planned missile defense shield.

“Pool” videotape provided more information about the conversation between the two leaders:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

While most journalists didn’t catch the rest, one Russian reporter managed to record the context with his equipment.

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

The planned anti-ballistic shield system has been one of many sore spots between the two world powers in the last few years.

Obama says US can reduce nuclear stockpile

Moscow says it fears the system would weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent. It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system.

That’s actually NOT what Moscow wants. Yes, it is their rhetorical posture to make them sound “reasonable,” but the reality is that Russia doesn’t just want some “contract.”

Moscow wants the United States to abandon this missile defense system altogether. Moscow wants to throw a monkey wrench into the entire system that the United States says is necessary to protect America from the now very real prospect of a nutjob Iranian ballistic missile attack.

You need to understand what current American policy is. And then you need to realize that Obama is signalling the Russians that he is going to abandon his own policy and undermine American security if Russia just gets off his back so he can get re-elected. Because getting re-elected is all that Obama cares about. And he’ll violate any trust no matter how sacred if it will purchase enough votes.

To frame it in terms of the title below, if Obama was going to “stick” to the missile shield as is official US policy as of just a few months ago (December 2011), he wouldn’t have anything to be afraid of. Which is to say that Obama is already planning on appeasing Russia; he just needs “space” to betray America:

U.S. sticking to missile shield regardless of Moscow
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:37pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama Administration plans to complete an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect European allies against Iran ”whether Russia likes it or not,” the U.S. envoy to NATO said on Friday.

Moscow’s objections to the project, which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain, “won’t be the driving force in what we do,” Ivo Daalder, the ambassador, told reporters at a breakfast session.

The U.S. estimate of the Iranian ballistic missile threat has gone up, not down, over the two years since President Barack Obama opted for a new, four-phased deployment to protect the United States and NATO allies, Daalder said.

“It’s accelerating,” Daalder said of the U.S.-perceived threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles, “and becoming more severe than even we thought two years ago.”

“We’re deploying all four phases, in order to deal with that threat, whether Russia likes it or not,” he added. At the same time, he urged Moscow to cooperate in both to deal with Iran and to see for itself that, as he put it, the system’s capabilities pose its strategic deterrent force no threat.

If the perceived threat from Iran ebbs, “then maybe the system will be adapted to that lesser threat,” Daalder said.

[...]

Daalder said the sides remain at odds over, among other things, Russia’s demand for the legally binding pledge, before any cooperation, that its nuclear forces would not be targeted by the NATO elements.

“They have gotten themselves quite hung up on our unwillingness to put this in legally binding writing,” he said.

The administration was not convinced that such a pledge would be ratified by the U.S. Senate, he said, nor should Moscow be convinced that even if it were, “we wouldn’t necessarily at some point walk away from it,” as the George W. Bush administration did from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the only U.S.-Russia missile defense pact.

That withdrawal opened the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense shield that the U.S. government says is designed to protect the United States from countries like Iran and North Korea.

Daalder said that if the United States ever were placing interceptors to counter Russia’s nuclear missiles, “we wouldn’t deploy them in Europe. We would deploy them in the United States.”

The physics of missile defense intercepts make it “easier and better to approach an incoming missile from the opposite side than it is to try to chase it down.” he said. “That’s the way that it works.”

Russia knows full-well that we wouldn’t build a system designed to protect America from Russian missiles in Europe. What Russia is trying to do is create difficulties that will make the missile shield politically impossible to build altogether. The Russians also very much like the idea (which is why Russia has helped Iran develop its nuclear program to begin with) of America being vulnerable to Iran which very obviously gives Russia more influence and power over US policy. At least unless we build a missile defense shield.

And ask yourself whether the threat from Iran has gone up or down given that Iran was just caught red-handed scrubbing evidence of a nuclear weapons program at its Parchin facility.

But Barack Obama is worried about the Iranian threat. Obama isn’t worried about millions of Americans being murdered. Obama is looking out for #1. Obama is worried about his re-election and he will betray America if that’s what it takes to keep his job so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America from a constitutional republic into a Marxist banana republic.

This has always been a nation that was determined to protect itself. Barack Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” that. He just needs “space” to do it so he can betray the American people with impunity.

You see, it really isn’t about 320 million Americans or their pitiful national security.  It’s about Obama and his election.  You suck; Obama actually is a messiah and ergo sum Obama is the only being that is worth a damn on Obama’s view.

The current news item about Iran is that they have massively expanded and progressed on its nuclear weapons program.  And they are just as feverishly working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.  But what is silliness like that compared to the re-election of the most marvellous being who ever existed or who ever will exist? 

Obama supporters assure their fellow liberals, “After November, Obama can do anything he likes without bothering to care about the pitiful American people or worry about their stupid votes.”  We’re not talking about some mere “president,” people.  We’re talking about an emperor – a Führer!  Who are you, you insignificant little pissant gnat, to stop such greatness?

And so this same Obama is telling Europe, “With all due respect, please remember that only I matter.  You can save your continent and preserve the hundreds of millions of peasants who live there, but just don’t do it until AFTER I’m re-elected:

 Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President’s election hopes
Oliver Wright  Friday 24 August 2012

The Obama administration will pressure European governments not to let Greece fall out of the eurozone before November’s Presidential elections, British Government sources have suggested.

Representatives from the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission are due to arrive in Athens next month to assess Greece’s reform efforts.

They are expected to report in time for an 8 October meeting of eurozone finance ministers which will decide on whether to disburse Greece’s next €31bn aid tranche, promised under the terms of the bailout for the country.

American officials are understood to be worried that if they decide Greece has not done enough to meet its deficit targets and withhold the money, it would automatically trigger Greece’s exit from the eurozone weeks before the Presidential election on 6 November.

They are urging eurozone Governments to hold off from taking any drastic action before then – fearing that the resulting market destabilisation could damage President Obama’s re-election prospects. European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.

The President discussed the eurozone crisis with David Cameron during a conference call on Wednesday and both welcomed statements by the European Central Bank that it was “standing firmly behind the euro”.

The ECB is expected to present a plan in the next few weeks to help indebted countries like Spain and Italy by buying their government bonds.

Today, Prime Minister Antonis Samaras will travel to Berlin to meet Chancellor Angela Merkel, and to France tomorrow for talks with President François Hollande. He is asking that Greece be given more time to meet its deficit targets and implement its reforms as its economy is struggling through a fifth year of recession.

But Germany’s Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said it was only months since creditors drew up a second bailout package and agreed on a massive debt write-down for Greece.

Britain is understood to have pressed the Germans to ensure that if eurozone leaders decide Greece’s position is unsustainable the financial “firewall” around Spain and Italy is made stronger. Officials are worried that if Greece was to exit the eurozone, the move could result in dramatic increases in the cost of debt for other weaker eurozone members – making their financial situation unsustainable.

Allow me to translate that part that says, “European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.”  It’s pretty much the same thing as saying that Obama has assured Europe that he’ll promise to screw the American people to give Europe whatever bailout it wants as long as Europe doesn’t interfere with his re-election.  It’s pretty much the same promise Obama gave to Russia to screw American national security if Russia didn’t do anything to interfere with his re-election.

Greece, of course, has long-since proven that it is a giant black hole of bailouts.  Greece is a country that will promise anything to get the next bailout, then completely renege on its promises, then come begging for another bailout.  And given that it’s already worked so many times for them before, they’re going to keep doing it until Europe is a dry husk.  Greece is one of those cancers that has to be surgically removed or else the patient dies.

Not that Obama cares.  Obama is worried about the most important thing that ever existed or ever will exist: Obama.

I frankly don’t know whether Obama didn’t get his ass kicked nearly enough when he was a kid, or whether he got his ass kicked way too many times.  It was clearly one or the other, given the malignant narcissist he’s become.

Greece’s economy, Europe’s economy, hell our own economy, are all teetering and will very likely go over the brink.  But what matters any of that if Obama is re-elected?  His sheer wonderfulness is really all that ought to matter to anyone with the proper perspective.  All of the rest of us are but dust before him, and we ought to remember that.

Why Are Iranian, Syrian, Russian And Chinese Warships Planning ‘War Games’ In The Middle East? I Think I Know.

June 22, 2012

First, the report which was first revealed by the Iranian Fars News Agency:

Arutz Sheva

Iran, Russia, China and Syria are planning to hold
the largest war games exercise in the Middle East in less than a month, Iran’s
Fars media reported Tuesday.
Citing “informed sources,” the report said
that 90,000 soldiers from the four countries are to take part.The
massive war games drill will include air defense and missile units as well as
ground, air and naval forces. It is scheduled for early July.

A total of
400 planes and 1,000 tanks are said to be taking part, among them “12 Chinese
warships… Russian atomic submarines and warships, aircraft carriers and
mine-clearing destroyers as well as Iranian battleships and
submarines.”

All of the above are to arrive shortly in Syria, according
to the report.”

Russia denies that any war games will take place.  While it is certainly possible there won’t be any 90,000 troops and hundreds of ships, etc. flooding the Syrian coast, I personally don’t have much more trust in Russia (especially under Putin) than I had for the U.S.S.R.  So allow me to entertain the notion that the FARS report is accurate.

Given the environment (I mean, Syria has now brutally murdered way, WAAAAAY over 14,000 of their own citizens while Egypt is in political meltdown), why on earth would anybody be doing a war game?

Consider one other rather massive “elephant-in-the-room” development: Iran has clearly used the just-suspended-as-futile UN talks as nothing more than a way to keep stalling for time while developing their nuclear weapons program – a program that never would have existed in the first place without Russia and China.  Which of course is exactly what Israel and American conservatives said was the case from the very beginning.

And Syria is nothing more than a puppet state of the Iranian regime.

So let me answer my question: why on earth would Iran, Syria, Russia and China conduct “war games” while war that is very definitely NOT a game looms everywhere?

Because they want to deter Israel from launching its attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, that’s why.  How could Israel attack Iran with the Russian, Chinese, Syrian and Iranian navies massed off her coast???

Heck, it may have been Obama’s idea.  Obama is more desperate to stop an attack by Israel that could hurt his re-election campaign than he is about Iran getting the bomb.

I wrote an article back in February of 2009, shortly after Obama took office, titled, “It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.”  As we speak, Iran is racing toward nuclear weapons, and by all accounts already has the uranium to make at least five bombs whenever it wants to under Obama’s regime.

The fascist powers that be - Syria, Iran, Russia, China and the United States of God damn America under Obama – do not want Israel to be able to defend her right to exist.  Fortunately, God has other plans.

The Bible amazingly predicted 2,600 years ago that in the last days Russia would lead a massive invasion of armies that incredibly correspond to most of the Islamic states against Israel.  And we’re getting closer and closer to the kick-off of violence.

One of the few Old Testament prophecies that was never fulfilled – YET! – is that the city of Damascus would be utterly destroyed.  I look at the incredibly wicked state of Syria today recently murdering over fourteen thousand of her own people as a puppet state of Iran, and the one thing I can tell you as a certainty is is that Damascus has it coming to them.

Russian Journalist Stabbed 20 Times For Insulting Islam (Which Is Precisely Why American Journalists Will Only Insult Christianity)

May 31, 2012

Poor  Sergei. If he’d only stuck with the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc. script and only attacked Christianity, he’d be fine now.

Fox News, of course, is very much hated by Allah for playing by a different script.

Journalist Assaulted In Moscow
11:39 29/05/2012
MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti)

Famous journalist and radio presenter Sergei Aslanyan has been assaulted late Monday night, Moscow police reported.

According to police, an unknown man called Aslanyan at 11.30 pm and asked him to come out for a talk. As soon as the Aslanyan left his house the man attacked him, hitting the journalist on the head and stabbing him on the chest, neck and an arm, before disappearing.

Aslanyan himself managed to call police and was later hospitalized at a major Moscow clinic where he was operated on. “The patient was brought last night to the operating room, now he is in intensive care,” said at the hospital.

Moscow police initiated an investigation over assault and seized CCTV footage hoping to establish the identity of the attacker.

It is believed the crime may be related to Aslanyan’s work. Newspaper Izvestia suggested it may be connected with provocative remarks by the journalist on religious themes

On May 14 on a live radio show on Radio Mayak, Aslanyan discussed the question of choosing a new car, and used the expression, “from rags to riches,” in the context of a discussion about the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, in a manner which has drawn condemnation from some parts of the Muslim community, with some pro-Islamic media publishing negative articles referring to the remarks.

The imam and the congregation of Kazan Zakaban Mosque and the Tatarstan community wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General of Russia, in which they stated that they were offended by Aslanyan’s comments.

The Islamic community is sensitive about perceived attacks on Islam, and its founder. The 2005 publication in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a wave of protests and threats directed towards the newspaper.

In Russia, the November 2009 murder of Moscow priest Daniil Sysoev, who had been converting Muslims to Christianity, in St. Thomas’ church in southern Moscow has also heightened religious tensions in some sections of the community.

Sergey Aslanyan, who previously worked with liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, has been with Radio Mayak since 2008, taking part in a range of programs. Radio Mayak confirmed that Aslanyan had been assaulted.

If 43 Muslim organizations had sued the George Bush administration, you can damn well bet that every mainstream media “journalist” in America would have “courageously” devoted their lives to making sure every voter knew what a horrible human being Bush was.

Cardinal Wuerl expressed the essence of the story the media are refusing to cover in a way that helps you to understand why the media is refusing to cove it:

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.
 
The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.
 
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.
 
WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.
 
So, when you say, don’t worry, we changed this and only the insurer has to pay. And we are the insurer, there is no accommodation.
 
WALLACE: But they’re saying, well, over the next year, we are taking public comment on this. And we will tweak that regulation so that the self insurers will not have to provide the birth control.
 
WUERL: Last time the government said we are going to hear from you, 200,000 suggestions went in and not one of them was accepted.
 
What was in the presentation before the request for suggestions was exactly what the administration reported out. By the way, it’s a law. It’s a law right now.
 
All of this conversation about we’ll find a way around it, that’s conversation. What’s law right now, is that that definition is what we are going to have to live with. And that’s why we went to court, because in the United States, if there is an impasse on the individual rights, we’re going to court and that way you scrape away all of the politics.
 
WALLACE: I don’t know if you’ve heard about this. But if you haven’t, I’ll inform you. What do you make of the fact that the broadcast network spent grand total of 19 seconds on their evening newscast — 19 seconds — covering the lawsuits by the 43 Catholic organizations; what do you make of that?
 
WUERL: Well, it is puzzling because they are focusing so much attention on the pope’s butler. It seems to me that somehow they missed the boat. And they missed the story.
 
And that’s why it is so important that we have a moment like this.
 
WALLACE: You think it’s political bias on the part of the networks?
 
 [...]

 WALLACE: Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came out this week for allowing federal funds to be used by low income parents to send their kids to any public school or even to some private school and parochial schools. You support that idea, don’t you?
 
WUERL: The idea that money should follow the child, we all pay the taxes. We are all paying taxes for education. Why doesn’t that money follow the parents of the kids?
 
For example, here, if you live in the District of Columbia, if you are very wealth or have a lot of support, you can send your child to a very exclusive private school. But if you live in this inner city, if you live in some of the poorest neighborhoods, you don’t get an option.
 
That’s why the Catholic Church is there, that’s why we have our schools in the inner city saying we’ll give you a chance to get a decent education and we’ll pay for it. But wouldn’t it be fair, wouldn’t be just, wouldn’t be really honest if every child a chance at a real, true, academically excellent education. And one way to do that is to let the parents have a choice.

Archbishop Wenski put the essence of the gigantic story that the mainstream media has steadfastly refesued to cover thusly:

“As Catholics, we help people not because they’re Catholic, but because we’re Catholic. And so our schools, our universities, our Catholic charities, organizations, our hospitals admit people regardless of their faith. What the government is saying to us is that then, we’re going to have to operate hospitals for Catholics only?”

What does the mainstream media scream in place of covering such a story from such a perspective?

Of course, American “journalists” are also pretty much okay if they attack American servicemen, too.  Those bastard troops should obviously all die for protecting the Great Satan America and for supporting Mitt Romney by 24 points over the mainstream media messiah Obama.

Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

March 26, 2012

You want to talk about a hard punch right in the gut of American national security.

Allow me to sum this up for you: Obama is telling the Russians, “I assure you that I’m going to cave in to you like the pandering weakling that I am.  But I can’t do it yet.  If I sacrifice American security before the election, the American people will rightly turn on me and I’ll be out – and you’ll have a strong leader to deal with who will confront you as an obvious opponent rather than the Neville Chamberlain-style Appeaser-in-Chief that you have in me.  If you give me ‘space’ to get re-elected I promise you I’ll bow down before you the same way I’ve already bowed down so many times before.  I’ll even apologize to you for America’s ‘aggression’  if you want me to.  Heck, I just got through apologizing to the people who murdered American soldiers!  So you KNOW I’m good for it!”

Hot mike moment: Obama overheard telling Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense
By NBC News’ Shawna Thomas

SEOUL, South Korea — It was a comment not intended for public consumption, and another lesson for President Barack Obama on the importance of being careful about what you say around microphones, especially in an election year.

At the end of a 90-minute meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, journalists rushed in to hear remarks from the leaders about the content of their talks.

Journalists spied the two leaders leaning close together and talking in hushed tones.  According to those in the room, the conversation was difficult to hear but the videotape revealed Obama asking the Russian leader to wait until after the November election before pushing forward on the topic of a planned missile defense shield.

“Pool” videotape provided more information about the conversation between the two leaders:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

While most journalists didn’t catch the rest, one Russian reporter managed to record the context with his equipment.

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

The planned anti-ballistic shield system has been one of many sore spots between the two world powers in the last few years.

Obama says US can reduce nuclear stockpile

Moscow says it fears the system would weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent. It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system.

That’s actually NOT what Moscow wants.  Yes, it is their rhetorical posture to make them sound “reasonable,” but the reality is that Russia doesn’t just want some “contract.”

Moscow wants the United States to abandon this missile defense system altogether.  Moscow wants to throw a monkey wrench into the entire system that the United States says is necessary to protect America from the now very real prospect of a nutjob Iranian ballistic missile attack.

You need to understand what current American policy is.  And then you need to realize that Obama is signalling the Russians that he is going to abandon his own policy and undermine American security if Russia just gets off his back so he can get re-elected.  Because getting re-elected is all that Obama cares about.  And he’ll violate any trust no matter how sacred if it will purchase enough votes.

To frame it in terms of the title below, if Obama was going to “stick” to the missile shield as is official US policy as of just a few months ago (December 2011), he wouldn’t have anything to be afraid of.  Which is to say that Obama is already planning on appeasing Russia; he just needs “space” to betray America:

U.S. sticking to missile shield regardless of Moscow
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:37pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama Administration plans to complete an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect European allies against Iran “whether Russia likes it or not,” the U.S. envoy to NATO said on Friday.

Moscow’s objections to the project, which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain, “won’t be the driving force in what we do,” Ivo Daalder, the ambassador, told reporters at a breakfast session.

The U.S. estimate of the Iranian ballistic missile threat has gone up, not down, over the two years since President Barack Obama opted for a new, four-phased deployment to protect the United States and NATO allies, Daalder said.

“It’s accelerating,” Daalder said of the U.S.-perceived threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles, “and becoming more severe than even we thought two years ago.”

“We’re deploying all four phases, in order to deal with that threat, whether Russia likes it or not,” he added. At the same time, he urged Moscow to cooperate in both to deal with Iran and to see for itself that, as he put it, the system’s capabilities pose its strategic deterrent force no threat.

If the perceived threat from Iran ebbs, “then maybe the system will be adapted to that lesser threat,” Daalder said.

[...]

Daalder said the sides remain at odds over, among other things, Russia’s demand for the legally binding pledge, before any cooperation, that its nuclear forces would not be targeted by the NATO elements.

“They have gotten themselves quite hung up on our unwillingness to put this in legally binding writing,” he said.

The administration was not convinced that such a pledge would be ratified by the U.S. Senate, he said, nor should Moscow be convinced that even if it were, “we wouldn’t necessarily at some point walk away from it,” as the George W. Bush administration did from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the only U.S.-Russia missile defense pact.

That withdrawal opened the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense shield that the U.S. government says is designed to protect the United States from countries like Iran and North Korea.

Daalder said that if the United States ever were placing interceptors to counter Russia’s nuclear missiles, “we wouldn’t deploy them in Europe. We would deploy them in the United States.”

The physics of missile defense intercepts make it “easier and better to approach an incoming missile from the opposite side than it is to try to chase it down.” he said. “That’s the way that it works.”

Russia knows full-well that we wouldn’t build a system designed to protect America from Russian missiles in Europe.  What Russia is trying to do is create difficulties that will make the missile shield politically impossible to build altogether.  The Russians also very much like the idea (which is why Russia has helped Iran develop its nuclear program to begin with) of America being vulnerable to Iran which very obviously gives Russia more influence and power over US policy.  At least unless we build a missile defense shield.

And ask yourself whether the threat from Iran has gone up or down given that Iran was just caught red-handed scrubbing evidence of a nuclear weapons program at its Parchin facility.

But Barack Obama is worried about the Iranian threat.  Obama isn’t worried about millions of Americans being murdered.  Obama is looking out for #1.  Obama is worried about his re-election and he will betray America if that’s what it takes to keep his job so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America from a constitutional republic into a Marxist banana republic. 

This has always been a nation that was determined to protect itself.  Barack Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” that.  He just needs “space” to do it so he can betray the American people with impunity.

America’s Enemies Saying, ‘Thanks For Giving Away BILLIONS In Hi-Tech Stealth Technology, Obama!’

December 13, 2011

Barack Obama said something a few days ago that festers like a nasty strain of brain cancer.

When mainstream media “reporters” handed Obama a softball question about Republicans calling him out for appeasement (in a question that failed to mention ANY of the reasons the Republicans had given for accusing Obama of appeasement in the first place), Obama said:

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” the president said during a news conference.

Now, it’s hard to find because our media is so in the pocket of liberalism, but the Republcians’ charge occurred during a Republican Jewish Conference forum.  They put a little content into their charge; for instance, pointing out that - due to Democrats in general and Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular blocking George Bush from confronting Iran over its growing nuclear program, and due to Obama’s weakness and appeasement since taking office – Iran is now six months away from a nuclear weapon and it is too late to stop them from getting one.  Which of course exalts Islam and directly threatens our ally Israel.

Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon SOON.  That day will be a dark and terrible one, because Iran will ultimately be able to a) shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing above $14 a gallon; b) launch an international wave of terrorism; or c) even attack Israel with IMPUNITY when they get nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.  Because if we attack a nuclear – and frankly crazy and truly evil - Iran, we get to kiss a few cities and tens of millions of Americans goodbye.

There were several other reasons the various GOP rivals rightly accused Obama of appeasement.  But let’s just ask ourselves: if those biased leftist hyper-partisan psuedo-journalists had confronted Obama with the disgrace of Iran’s nuclear program in the context of their question about “appeasement,” wouldn’t that have made it just a little bit harder for a biased leftist hyper-partisan pseudo-president to give us such a smash-that-lob response???

In any event, Obama is a great, strong, powerful leader and NOT a timid appeaser because he got Osama bin Laden – and just don’t you mind the rest of the foreign policy disasters he’s presided over.  That’s the Obama line.

Let’s forget about your apology tour (see also here) when you went around the rest of the world damning America.  Let’s forget about how you repeatedly insisted on a timetable for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that would make any victory possible.  Let’s forget how you abandoned commitments made to Czechoslovakia and Poland to needlessly appease Russia.  Let’s forget that even Europe has recognized your spinelessness.  Let’s forget how you refused to denounce Iran even as that country was massacring its own people for demonstrating for freedom.  Let’s forget that you are demanding that the U.S. pull out its troops from Iraq after we fought so hard for it to the shock and disgust of our generals.  Let’s forget the many times you have undermined Israel, such as when you demanded Israel return to indefensible 1967 borders after America promised Israel it would NEVER do such a thing.  Let’s forget how you undermined valuable ally Egypt under Mubarak and proceeded to give us a country instead that will be run by terrorists and based on Shariah law.  Let’s forget that Iran initiated an act of war against the United States – and you spinelessly did NOTHING about it.  Let’s forget that you actually are DEMANDING that the defense budget be gutted $600 billion more than the $450 you already gutted it.

Let’s forget that, mainstream media, so we can lob Obama a softball question devoid of any context at all – and allow Obama to say something like, oh, “Ask Osama bin Laden if I’m an appeaser.”

So let’s consider Obama’s answer: does Obama being the brave, brave Sir Robin who happened to be the carbon-based lifeform inhabiting the Oval Office at the time we got Osama bin Laden make up for all of the above appeasement???

Well, first consider the FACT that the waterboarding Obama opposed, demonized and in fact actually tried to criminalize-after-the-fact was ESSENTIAL to finding out where Obama was (see also here).  If Obama had got his way, and Bush had not waterboarded terrorist suspects, we can toss out the only link we had to Obama (courier) and we can toss out the city where he was hiding (Abbottabad):

Oops.  Did I forget to mention that Obama has actually had many more acts of appeasement than what I had above?  Because not only did he denounce the very waterboarding that got us Osama bin Laden, but he also denounced the Gitmo where we got that information.

So why does Obama get all the credit for getting Obama and Bush none?

Please refer to my previous statements regarding the level of bias in American pesudo-journalism.

But then there’s also “the decision” to get Osama bin Laden.  Wasn’t that like really brave?

Well, I’m going to the dentist this week to get some really painful work done.  I’m just as brave as Obama was to get in my car and show up at that dentist office.

Imagine if Obama had REFUSED to get Osama bin Laden (after making a campaign promise that he would do so if he knew where bin Laden was hiding).  What do you think are the odds that that information would never get out?  What are the odds that no so much as one single member of the armed forces or the intelligence community would be outraged by such an act of cowardice and not leak the fact that Obama refused to get the world’s number one terrorist in the world?  And what are the odds that Obama would have been re-elected with Republicans running that ad again and again and again like Bush Sr.’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” line???

It wasn’t “brave” for Obama to approve that mission; it was an act of self-political-survival.

And that mission to get Osama bin Laden had some huge consequences that for some strange reason the media has refused to lay at the door of the guy they gave all the credit for getting him to. 

If Obama deserves the credit, does he not also deserve the blame?

For one thing, U.S. relations with vital partner in the war on terror Pakistan are at an all-time-low because of the thing that Obama claims so much credit for having done.

Imagine if Mexico launched a commando raid into the heart of the United States to kill someone their government was after.  Or imagine if Canada did that to us.  How would we respond to the fact that soldiers with guns flew into our country without our knowledge or consent to start shooting people?

Combine that with the fact that Obama “air raided villages and murdered innocent Pakistani soldiers” – to the tune of 24 dead Pakistani soldiers killed in their own country by Obama - and our relations with Pakistan couldn’t get much lower if we started firing nuclear missiles at each other.

Do you remember when Obama falsely and in fact demonically attacked Bush for bringing down the U.S. image to the rest of the world.  Now the world hates us more than it ever did under Bush.  Even the ARAB WORLD hates us more, because they at least had some respect for Bush.  Versus Obama who is just a simpering – and yes, appeasing – scrawny-necked dumbo-eared little weasel.

But hey, I’m not a “journalist” or a “reporter,” so I can bring facts like that up, can’t I???

There was another casuality to Obama’s grand mission that everyone gave him total credit for: we gave away BILLIONS in stealth technology to our enemies in China and Russia.

Remember that helicopter tail section Obama left behind in Pakistan?

Pakistan Shares US Stealth Technology With China: Did That Bring Down The Chinook With SEALs?
Posted by Jason Bradley Aug 15th 2011 at 9:10 am

Several of us at Big Peace have reported in the past about the noticeable warming relationship between China and Pakistan. This has concerned the US because of the amount of cooperation and assistance – worth billions of dollars — given to Pakistan. It was eventually decided that that we would have to accept Pakistan’s warts if we were to have a regional partner in the War on Terror. It was an uneasy concession from the start and hard pill to swallow. In fact, that pill hasn’t fully worked its way down.

Just recently there were immediate questions over the successful downing of Chinook that did more damage to US forces in an instant in what otherwise could not be accomplished by the Taliban in over ten years of war. Those questions were directed to the highest reaches of the Pakistan government and its intelligence arm, the ISI.

Now comes in what appears to be an open betrayal by our so-called mission partners.

The US employed new stealth technology in the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Special Forces used a previously unknown capability, and so far as we know, is unduplicated by any other country, when they swooped down on Osama’s compound in stealth-modified Blackhawk helicopters. One of those helicopters had a mechanical malfunction and crashed on site as a result. Despite urgent requests by the CIA and the US government, Pakistan allowed China to view the new machine.

“The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” the paper quoted a person “in intelligence circles” as saying.

Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed chopper as well as take samples of its special “skin” that allowed the American raid to evade Pakistani radar, Reuters reported.

No one from the Pakistani army was available for comment, but the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan’s top spy agency, denied the report. The paper said Pakistan’s top general, chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani, denied that China had been given access.

Do you know how much it cost to develop that technology that China can now easily reverse-engineer for pennies on the millions of dollars?

You don’t want to know.  Seriously.

Our enemies can not only reverse engineer our stealth technology and make their own stealth helicopters to use against U.S. interests, but it can also now devise better countermeasures against our stuff to leave us weaker in the future.

And Obama isn’t through on that score.  He just left behind a hi-tech radar-evading stealth drone for Iran to find.

Now, again, being a weak, appeasing COWARD Obama isn’t going in and GETTING his damned drone; he’s saying, “Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Ayatollah, can I have my drone back?”

And what did it cost us to develop that thing?  A bunch.  What’s it going to cost Iran – and its allies Russia and China to develop?  Nada.

But, hey.  That kind of thing gets in the way of the mainstream media narrative that anything that we don’t want to credit Obama for we will blame Bush for.

We’re back in the days of the Marxists and the Nazis (fellow socialist travellers) rising to power.  All it would have taken for the ugliest period in the history of the human race to have been averted was a little honest reporting by the medias of those countries.  But the media had become ideological pawns of totalitarian agendas.  It had become an actual ally of those agendas.

Deja vu all over again.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 512 other followers