Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

Obama The Weak, Feckless, Incompetent President In Terms Any Child Can Understand

September 16, 2013

Any decent parent knows that there are four keys to the effective disciplining of any wayward child:

1) Maintain clear boundaries

2) Be consistent

3) Be united (mom and dad must maintain a united front before their child)

4) Impose effective punishments

If a parent cannot do these things, he, she, or they will raise a little tyrant who will ultimately become a monster.

A monster like Bashar al-Assad has turned out to be (in spite of both of Obama’s handpicked Secretaries of State’s incredibly naïve and morally idiotic assessments to the contrary).

Notice I’m not trying to denounce Obama according to some “right wing talking points.”  I’m just trying to use an approach that any halfway decent mother or father ought to recognize as being true so you can begin to see just how wildly Barack Obama has failed America.

In regards to Syria, let’s see how Obama has fared in these four things that, as I said, any CHILD should be able to understand.

1) Maintain clear boundaries.

Well, let’s see how well you’ve done there, Obama.  I remember you saying:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

And as I pointed out: YOUR “calculus,” YOUR “equation,” YOUR RED LINE.

That was fine.  Dumb to say, maybe, but fine.

But a year later, and you’re saying before a stunned and incredulous world:

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

Did you maintain clear boundaries, Obama?

Not given the fact that Syria crossed your damned red line FOURTEEN TIMES before you showed so much as a tiny hint of the balls necessary to do anything about it whatsoever – and then only because the most recent and blatant use had the world pretty much stating as a categorical fact that you looked like the weak fool that you are.

You set a clear boundary, then allowed Syria to cross it over and over and over.  You said there was a red line.  But there wasn’t one.  You said you were going to attack, and that you didn’t need Congress or the United Nations or anybody else to approve, and then you decided that hell, you were completely wrong and that you DID need Congress, the United Nations and the international community to approve when you saw that pretty much everybody on earth saw through your weakness and your fragile, trampled-on ego.  You said you were going to attack and then you tossed it like a live hand grenade to Congress because you didn’t have the balls to make a decision.  And of course that meant that there was no attack and now that there almost certainly never will be an attack.

You couldn’t have been more INCONSISTENT, Obama.  And that’s why Syria kept getting bolder and bolder and bolder while you dithered.

What was the second rule?

2) Be consistent

The first rule of parenting is to be consistent.  The way you have never been, Obama.  Such as when you demonized your predecessor George W. Bush for being some kind of rogue cowboy who didn’t go to the United Nations only to prove that you are a complete an abject hypocrite without shame, without honor and without any shred of decency or integrity first in Libya and now again in Syria.

Are you consistent, Obama?

You went from saying a) you didn’t need Congress to attack to saying that b) you DID need Congress’s authorization to attack to saying that c) you weren’t going to attack and please don’t vote because you’d lose and look stupid and weak.  You sent your Secretary of State out on a Friday to tell the world that it was urgent that we act immediately and then the very next day told the country that there was no urgency and a day, a weak, a month, whatever, it made no difference.

Let’s see how (note, NOT some right wing think tank) the über über liberal Los Angeles Times put it:

WASHINGTON — In the last two weeks, President Obama has brought the United States to the brink of another military operation, then backed off unexpectedly. He went abroad and tried to rally international partners to join his cause, but returned empty-handed. He launched one of the biggest public relations and lobbying campaigns of his presidency, then aborted the mission. He called the nation to its televisions to make the case for using force, but made the case for more diplomacy.

The White House‘s stop-and-start response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria three weeks ago could at best be described as deftly improvisational and at worst as impulsive and risky.

By either analysis, it has been the handiwork of a foreign policy team that, just months into its term, has presided over shifts in strategy, changing messages and a striking countermand from the president.

“This has been a roller coaster. And there have been enough sudden turns where you weren’t sure if the car was still attached to the rails,” said Philip J. Crowley, former State Department spokesman and now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

The ride reflects the difficult standoff with Syria over chemical weapons, a crisis with a cast of unpredictable and hostile foreign leaders and few good options. The shifting picture has left the Obama team to call “audibles,” Crowley said. “I do think that there’s a more coherent strategy than the public articulation of that strategy.”

The president and his advisors faced harsh criticism this week as they lurched from one decision to another. Many outsiders viewed the president’s last-minute move to seek congressional authorization for military strikes in Syria as naive and dicey, given his toxic relationships with many in Congress. His subsequent outreach to Capitol Hill was blasted by lawmakers as insufficient. He faced a near-certain defeat in the House.

His quick embrace of a surprise diplomatic overture from the Russians only demonstrated his desperation, some lawmakers and political observers charged. “I think it’s about a president that’s really uncomfortable being commander in chief,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), explaining the administration’s “muddle-ness.”

Let’s see how the even more über über liberal New York Times put it:

But to Mr. Obama’s detractors, including many in his own party, he has shown a certain fecklessness with his decisions first to outsource the decision to lawmakers in the face of bipartisan opposition and then to embrace a Russian diplomatic alternative that even his own advisers consider dubious. Instead of displaying decisive leadership, Mr. Obama, to these critics, has appeared reactive, defensive and profoundly challenged in standing up to a dangerous world.

Why did Obama suddenly change his mind and take this decision to Congress?  Because he’s an incredibly cynical political weasel, that’s why.  Obama thought he could pin the decision on REPUBLICANS and if they didn’t vote his way, demonize them.  The only problem was that his complete lack of leadership and his total incompetence meant that he hadn’t won over his own Democrats.  And so all of a sudden it went to Congress but Obama had nobody to blame because both parties were UNITED AGAINST HIS FECKLESS AND INCOMPETENT WEAKNESS.

Yeah, let’s cross that “consistent” thingy off your list, Obama.  Because both friend and foe alike agree that you’ve been as all-over-the-damn-board as you possibly could have been.  NOBODY knows what the hell you’re going to do – even your weak, gutless SELf – because your policy and your position shifts with every breeze of every wind.

What was third?  Oh, right:

3) Be united

Obama sent John Kerry out to tell the world that America could not wait for the United Nations report because we had to act right away.  It was hypocritical as hell for Kerry of all people to argue that, given what he’d said when Bush was president, but that’s besides the point.

Then Obama came out the very next day and said, ah, what the hell, sure we can wait.  We can wait a day, or a week, or a month, it doesn’t matter.

Here’s a great write-up on that “united front” of Obama and his Secretary of State in what may be the worst “husband and wife play” of all time:

On August 26th, 2013, at the request of the President, John Kerry made one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by a Secretary of State.   In that scathing speech against the Assad regime in Syria he said, “”Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Kerry further said. “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Then the oddest thing imaginable happened.   Just hours later President Obama made a second speech that completely undermined Kerry and made him look like a fool.   Obama took the approach that it was not that urgent and he could wait until Congress reconvened on Sept. 9th so he could present his case for a limited strike against Syria.   He would then seek their vote of approval.   I’m paraphrasing Obama, “They are the representatives for the people (of America)”   Apparently Obama was inferring that if he carried out a strike with the approval of Congress then the American people would be responsible for whatever followed because he was only doing their bidding.   Not only that, but Obama would be let off the hook for his “red line” remark that he has failed to follow through on.  He’s putting the responsibility for military action on the Congress, not him.

Following his low keyed Syrian speech, Obama left for a round of golf, which greatly accented the division between Kerry’s urgent call for military action in Syria and Obama’s, “Let’s wait for Congress to come back and we’ll discuss it” speech.

To the world, they both looked the fool, both being completely out of synch with each other!   How could Obama have approved Kerry’s speech only to let him twist in the wind hours later and then go golfing?  This is the most amazing diplomatic blunder I’ve ever witnessed in the last 40 years, even during the Carter years!

To recap, Obama put in place his red line policy.  Then Syria violated it and he did nothing.  Then he dispatched warships presumably to launch an attack of his red line policy and when they were in position… he did nothing.    Then he allowed his Secretary of Defense to make an impassioned speech calling for the necessity of immediate military action…but he still did nothing and worse, he made a request for Congress to make the decision.    Essentially he left Kerry to hang as he went to play golf.

So Obama did a really crappy job maintaining clear boundaries after his “red line” blathering.  He utterly failed to be consistent.  And there is no “united front” in this incompetent White House (I mean, Obama can’t even present a united damn front with OBAMA, let alone his top officials).

How about that fourth thing:

4) Impose effective punishments

I’ll just sum that one up in the words of Obama’s Secretary of State:

“That is exactly what we are talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

Let’s get back to the parents confronting a child who has just done something unbelievably evil: “we’re going to have to punish you, but don’t worry: it will be an “unbelievably small” punishment.

But, oh, you won’t EVER misbehave again after we finish with our “unbelievably small” punishment.

If anybody believes that Obama’s threat of an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” scared anybody into doing anything, that person is simply an idiot without the first clue.  Because “unbelievably small” is another way of saying “unbelievably ineffective.”

Yeah, all I’ll do is give you a stern look if you cross my red line.  But you mark my words, it will be such a stern look that you will never dare defy me again.

It reminds me of a line of dialogue from the movie Yellowbeard:

“Yes, and when the invaders reach the throne room, my men will rise up and dispatch all with majestic heavenly force.”

Let me assure you that the plan didn’t work out.  And neither will Obama’s equally stupid and equally arrogant plan.

Any parent who has ever spent three seconds with their own kid – let alone the snot-nosed little brats that run around like hoodlums in most any store today – knows that Barack Obama has failed America in the most fundamental way there is.

We need to understand what the boundaries are, and Obama doesn’t have a damn clue.  We need consistency and clarity, and we don’t have any.  We need to have a united front that we can rally around, and instead we get talking points that change with every wayward breeze.  And we need to know that we can trust our president to do something that will actually ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.  And we have no such confidence.

Barack Obama is a disgrace to the United States and to the presidency.  Period.

What Obama Should Do About Syria: Do Nothing – Because He Chose To Do EVERYTHING Instead

September 6, 2013

First of all, we should not bomb Syria.

There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest.  In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security.  If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.”  There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.”  No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators.  And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway.  Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way?  That’s right – the United States of America.  The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.

Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria.  What is our specific goal?  None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated.  A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing.  If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them.  The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan.  Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word.  Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home.  But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad?  Who would take over the country?  Al Qaeda, that’s who.  We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did.  Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt?  Well, he did (as I documented here):

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

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

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

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

And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now.  Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful.  We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.

If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here.  What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship???  That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing.  Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again?  If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.

Iran is planning “revenge attacks” against the United States if we attack Syria.  What will Obama do about those attacks that he invited?

If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them.  And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.

It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.

Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:

Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president
Associated Press
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. [...]

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. [...]

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush voices criticism

Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”

Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.

Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.

Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course.  And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.”  You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time.  It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.

Nancy Pelosi is morally insane.  There is no other way to put it.  Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Nope, complete moral idiot.

Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.

Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.

Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State.  What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster???  I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.

Please don’t be a damn lemming.

Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!).  And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be.  Nobody seriously doubts that.  Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering  the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years.  And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.

Obama’s line -

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

- is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces.  Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line.  And you specifically said:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

Your calculus.  Your equation.  YOUR RED LINE.

Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES.  The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons.  The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.

Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything.  So now “earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.

If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress.  As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action.  And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House.  And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis.  I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.

Okay.  I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.

We are playing a geo-political chess game here.  And thanks to Obama’s incoherent and frankly irrational Middle East policies that are impossible for anybody to enumerate, we are losing that game rather badly.

So what SHOULD Obama do?

He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.

No, Obama should bomb IRAN.  And blast their nuclear capability into ashes.  THAT’S what he ought to do.

Iran is Syria’s patron-state.  Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter.  Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him.  Iran has been “all in” on Syria.

If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons.  And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.

People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president.  Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”

Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.”  Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has threatened that he would send his best air defense system to both Syria AND IRAN if Obama attacks Syria.  We don’t have much time to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation, folks.  If Iran has such an air defense capability, it will be very bloody for us to attack Iran.  We’d better do it now.

And by the way, Mister president: DON’T go to Congress.  Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.”  Make it a complete surprise.  Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.

The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs - arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace.  Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit.  And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon?  Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.

The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us.  Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal.  If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters.  Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for.  And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.

We’re going to need to do this sooner or later.  Any fool ought to know that.  And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.

So how about it, Obama?  Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?

The Real Target Of The Democrat Party Is Not Economic Class, It is JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY. Which Is Why America Will Soon Worship The Beast.

December 11, 2012

Jonah Goldberg – a politically conservative American Jew – makes a very strong case for that thesis; many of the immigrants are not voting “socialist” because they want to parasitically leech off of others, but rather because they are not Christian and the Republican Party strongly identifies with the Christian faith and Judeo-Christian moral and social values.  And so groups such as Asians vote overwhelmingly Democrat even though they themselves are hard-working people who otherwise would not want the socialism of the Democrat Party.

I ultimately disagree with Jonah Goldberg’s assertion – that the Republican Party must “de-Christianize” itself in order to compete with the Democrat Party for a post-Christian American culture as that culture prepares itself to worship the beast and take his mark.  Rather, I cite this to document just how hostile to Jesus Christ the Democrat Party has become and by extension how traitorous to the name of Jesus that Democrats who call themselves “Christian” truly have become:

Goldberg: The GOP — not a club for Christians
Perhaps the most common explanation for the Republican Party’s problem with Asian Americans is its pronounced embrace of Christianity.
By Jonah Goldberg
December 11, 2012

In the scramble to make the GOP more diverse, a lot of people are looking at Asian Americans, whom many believe are a natural constituency for the party. I would love it if Asian Americans converted en masse to the Republican Party, but the challenge for Republicans is harder than many appreciate.

President Obama did spectacularly well with Asian Americans, garnering nearly three-quarters of their vote. This runs counter to a lot of conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. On average, Asian American family income is higher and poverty is lower than it is for non-Latino whites. Entrepreneurship, family cohesion and traditional values all run strong among Asian Americans, and reliance on government runs weak.

And yet, Asian Americans — now the fastest-growing minority in America — are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic Party.

I’ve joked for years with my Indian American relatives and friends that they are the new Jews because their parents bury them in guilt and overeducate them. Sociologist Milton Himmelfarb observed that “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Well, Indian Americans earn like Jews and … vote like Jews.

The comparison to Jews is instructive. Perhaps the most common explanation for the GOP’s problem with Asian Americans is the party’s pronounced embrace of Christianity, which turns off many Jews as well.

According to Pew studies, barely a third of Chinese Americans are Christian and less than a fifth of Indian Americans are.

“Whenever a Gujarati or Sikh businessman comes to a Republican event, it begins with an appeal to Jesus Christ,” conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza recently told the New York Times magazine. “While the Democrats are really good at making the outsider feel at home, the Republicans make little or no effort.” My friend and colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, an Indian American and devout Catholic, says the GOP has a problem with seeming like a “club for Christians.”

That rings true to me. I’ve attended dozens of conservative events where, as the speaker, I was, in effect, the guest of honor, and yet the opening invocation made no account of the fact that the guest of honor wasn’t a Christian. I’ve never taken offense, but I can imagine how it might seem to someone who felt like he was even less part of the club.

A few years ago, Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist, reported this finding: As racial and ethnic diversity increases, social trust and cohesion plummets. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” Putnam found. “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

The villain isn’t racism or bigotry or anything so simple. The phenomenon is much more complex. Indeed, it’s not clear why this happens, but it’s clear that it does. Economic inequality and cultural attitudes do not matter much. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” Putnam writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.”

Part of the explanation stems from the fact that people with shared experiences and cultures draw strength from working together, whereas with strangers, language often becomes guarded, intentions questioned.

The GOP is not a Christian club, but there’s no disputing that Christianity is a major source of strength and inspiration for many Republican activists. This is nothing new. The abolitionist, progressive and civil rights movements were all significantly powered by Christian faith.

As someone who’s long argued for theological pluralism and moral consensus on the right, it strikes me as nuts for the GOP not to do better with Asian Americans, particularly given how little religion has to do with the policy priorities of the day.

Twenty years ago, conservatives started referring to Judeo-Christian values in an effort to be more inclusive. The challenge now is to figure out how to talk in a way that doesn’t cause decent and dedicated Christians to pull in like a turtle, while also appealing to non-Judeo-Christians and the nonreligious. That’ll be hard, requiring more than name-dropping Confucius or Krishna.

Now, one can go back and look over my blog and see how many times I have used the term “Judeo-Christianity” to refer to my own faith and worldview.  Here’s an example of my using that term as a reference to my faith in an article that also shows how determined Democrats are to undermine Christianity while promoting radical Islam in the guise of “cultural diversity.”  If that is all Goldberg is telling us to do, I’m already walking across that ground.  But the deterioration of our culture in this post-Christian era and the demonic divide-and-conquer nature of the Democrat Party has made anything short of abandonment of Jesus the only way we can reach the “potential Republican” minority groups that Goldberg is describing.

But my faith is far more important to me than my political party, and it simply isn’t an option.

Goldberg cites a statement by Dinesh D’Souza - a deeply Christian man of Indian descent I truly respect and admire – as saying that the Republicans (or should I more correctly say “the Christians” given that that’s who we’re really talking about) – have done a very poor job making “outsiders” feel at home.  And while that may be true, I can again point to my own example: in my church, which is overwhelmingly Republican, we started a Hispanic ministry years ago and now have a substantial Hispanic congregation.  We have a large ESL program on our church campus.  The Anglo congregation that devoted the resources to do these things is well over ninety percent Republican.  And many evangelical congregations who view themselves as “Judeo-Christian” have done the same things and more.

But that has done nothing to stem the tide of a massive wave of illegal immigrants pouring into America and helping the Democrat Party to transform our country into the failed socialist state from which those illegal immigrants fled.

To quote the sub-title (which Goldberg likely did not write), “Perhaps the most common explanation for the Republican Party’s problem with Asian Americans is its pronounced embrace of Christianity.”  I write as somebody who doesn’t believe the “pronounced embrace of Christianity” IS NOT A BAD THING THAT SHOULD BE STOPPED.

I am not writing this to in any way attack Jonah Goldberg.  He’s another man I deeply respect and I am very glad that he’s on the side of political conservativism.  I am merely citing his very correct and well-documented thesis that Christianity is the real target of Democrats while disagreeing with his “cure” for what I could call “the Republican Party’s Christian problem.”

There is simply more going on here.

The Bible told us in numerous passages such as 2 Timothy 3:1-5 that in the last days, there would be an increasing departure from the Judeo-Christian worldview and faith.  And when you look at the true debt of America – $222 trillion PLUS which doesn’t take into account the massive union-public pension debt of states like California which by itself has $500 billion in unfunded liabilities - you need to realize that America is very much in those “last days” just before Antichrist comes.  Revelation chapter 13 tells us that Antichrist will be the ultimate big government liberal who will so “socialize” the economy that his government will completely take over the “private sector” and impose a system of complete government control over the monetary system and the ability of the people to buy and sell.  Democrats will embrace his coming; they will worship him; and they will take his mark on their right hand or their foreheads.  Because the man described in Revelation as “the beast” will be the epitome of everything the Democrat Party has spent the last fifty years trying to impose: a one-world system in which the state controls the economy.

Jonah Goldberg cites a liberal sociologist in a telling passage:

A few years ago, Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist, reported this finding: As racial and ethnic diversity increases, social trust and cohesion plummets. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” Putnam found. “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

This is what is really happening: liberals have divided America into a land in which they divide women against men and race against race and Marxist class against capitalist class.  And as they have poured their demagoguery and demonization and hate on whites and on men and most especially on evangelical Christians, the fruits of their hate is “the plummeting of social trust and cohesion.”  And Democrats have been cynically exploited the fractures and divisions they have created, because as “social trust and cohesion plummets”, there is more opportunity to create more of the same, and still more of the same, until the Democrat Party divides and conquers and exploits its way to power.

And the Marxist class rage – described here - is the most powerful tractor that Democrats have to rage their way to power.  In short, Karl Marx asserted that “religion is the opium of the masses” because of his view that the Christianity of the Russian people kept them content even in their poverty and difficulty.  Marx believed that rather than embrace the “opium” of faith and the teachings of Jesus to BE content in poverty, the poor should throw off the shackles of Christian contentment and happiness and instead rise up in a spirit of rage and violence and seize what was theirs by force and kill anyone who tried to stop them.  That’s Marxism.  That’s also Obama’s Liberation Theology.

It’s not that liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, Democrats – whatever the hell you want to call these sons of hell – don’t love religion.  It is just that they ONLY love religion if said religion advances the cause of their TRUE GOD of a big government which is intended to be the “savior” that replaces the true Savior Jesus Christ.  Don’t search for the peace, contentment and happiness of Jesus; rise up in anger and hate and demand what you greedily say is yours instead.  It was the tactic that Karl Marx created and it is that very same tactic that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party embrace today; God has failed you and you need to replace Him with the State.  Kick Jesus off the throne and let Government be your savior and the only savior with whom you have to do.  Obama is your messiah and Obama will save you with big government programs.  And Democrats have very literally pissed on Jesus Christ even as they forced taxpayers to fund that urination on Jesus and on His cross:

Piss Christ

Because the “Piss Christ” attitude of liberalism and of the Democrat Party has replaced the Judeo-Christian values that propelled America to greatness, the nation now known as “God Damn America!” is about to go down and go down hard.

What kind of “religion” do liberals love?  Well, take the “Christianity” of Barack Obama and his spiritual leader and reverend Jeremiah Wright and their Liberation Theology; liberation theology came about in the 1970s as the Marxist Sandinistas struggled to dominate a population that was over ninety percent Catholic.  Heretical Marxist priests packaged communism with Christian slogans such that Jesus became a communist.  Cardinal Ratzinger – today better known as Pope Benedict – decried this “faith” as a true demonic heresy:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.“ – (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

And:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

Jonah Goldberg doesn’t grasp this terrible prophetic truth even though as a Jew his own Book of Daniel described it.  He thinks some gimmick or word-game or abandonment of “Christianity” will somehow save the Republican Party.  But the Republican Party is dying just as everything that made America great is dying as we become a nation that will worship the beast just as the Bible told us would happen.

We can’t be more like the party of hell and not expect hell.

If the Republican Party abandons Christianity to woo voters, it will stand for nothing; if it becomes more like the Democrat Party to compete with liberalism, it will join the Democrats in “fundamentally transforming” itself into the party of hell.

And if you don’t mind my saying, liberals form the army of hell.  We’ve watched unions strike at businesses the last couple of weeks during the rush of the Holiday shopping season much the way terrorists would strike; because what the unions did was sheer economic terrorism.  We saw the SEIU (that’s Obama’s bestest friend) union target Los Angeles International Airport on Thanksgiving – which happens to be the single largest flying day of the entire year.  Even though they were lying about the hardships that were being suffered by employees who were actually trying to get the hell OUT of their union.  That’s economic terrorism, waiting to strike at your enemy when and where it will cause him the most harm; especially if there’s lots of collateral damage with the American people being incredibly put upon by the lengthy delays and the canceled flights while trying to see their families.  We saw unions targeting Wal-Mart on Black Friday – the busiest shopping day of the year – trying to cause as much harassment and disruption as they could (it turned out they were far weaker than they figured they’d be).  We actually saw 5,000 Baker’s Union workers at Hostess decide to destroy a major and beloved corporation and eradicate 18,500 jobs by forcing them into liquidation.  That’s economic terrorism.  We saw a handful of union clerical workers shut down the massive Port of Long Beach for eight days and cost the Port over $8 billion in lost productivity in an attempt to force their way.  According to the LA Times, “600,000 truckers, dockworkers, trading companies and others depend for their livelihoods” on that port; but 800 union workers decided to shut it down during the rush of the Christmas shopping season when they could do the most devastating (i.e., economic terrorist) damage.  And no other union worker would cross the picket line no matter how immoral and insane the union protest was.  Because if you’re in a damn union, you are literally just that evil and that selfish and that hateful and that bitter.  And you refuse to cross the picket line for other stupid strikes so other unions won’t cross the picket line for your stupid strike.

Today, as I write, unions went violently nuts as Michigan tried to save itself by allowing people to actually have a right to work without being forced to pay union dues even if you don’t want to belong to the union.  Union thugs attacked a right to work group called Americans for Prosperity and forcibly tore down their tent with people inside; they also physically attacked a journalist named Steven Crowder just for asking a few questions – with union thugs literally repeatedly punching him in the face.  One is distinctly heard threatening to murder him with a gun.

A black hot dog vendor named Clint Tarver committed the “crime” of selling hot dogs to anyone who wanted to buy a hot dog.  For that refusal to mindlessly hate whoever the union thugs told him to hate, they called him a “nigger” and an “Uncle Tom” and tore his vending cart to pieces while he stood there helpless to stop these rabid hyenas.

Black Victim of Michigan Union Thugs

Just yesterday an “arbitrator” decided that thirteen stoners and potheads ought to have a job at Chrysler for life because they’re in the UAW and that’s how thug unions work.  Because, yeah, they got caught on CAMERA by a REPORTER getting stoned and drunk during their break but apparently Chrysler doesn’t have a right to decent or safe or useful workers in a union shop.  Chrysler fired them after seeing the video and noting that they were easily able to identify the specific workers who were getting drunk and stoned, but the union went to bat for their fellow wastoid thugs and forced Chrysler to reinstate them no matter how despicable they are. And thus the criminal UAW guaranteed that thirteen lowlife scumbags can continue to crappily build the crappy cars your parents and your spouses and your children will be driving.  Until Chrysler goes bankrut just like Hostess did, anyway.

Today a Democrat congressman named Douglas Geiss threatened an eruption of violence from his side, claiming – and I quote – “There will be blood on the streets.”  Imagine the uproar that would be caused by a Republican congressman predicting violence from Republicans if they didn’t get their way on the fiscal cliff talks.  But it’s a liberal, so threatening violence is okay.  In the same way, asking for quid pro quo bribery is okay as long as you’re a liberal, too, judging by another Democrat representative named JoAnn Watson.  She literally specifically stated the precise technical language of an illegal act in urging Obama to commit precisely that illegal act in paying Detroit back for its vote for him.  Again, she’s a liberal, so her role in the destruction of the democratic political system for a quid pro quo political racketeering system is also okay.

This isn’t about economics; workers in right to work states enjoy substantially more personal income growth and higher real wages than workers in forced union states (see here for more).  Rather unions represent one army of hell in the corps of a truly demonic liberal army of hell that is seeking to throw religion out of America while it has murdered fifty-five million innocent human babies in abortion mills and imposed homosexual marriage and the destruction of the American family.  They’ve already crippled our criminal justice system with the liberal army of hell led by the ACLU and turned most of the large urban cities of America into violent, drug-ridden hellholes for welfare-dependent single mothers.

That liberal army of hell is going to win.  God has sovereignly decreed that very soon, the forces of hell are going to get their way in America and the rest of the world.  America will get the leader it truly deserves in the form of Antichrist just as now has the leader it truly deserves in the form of Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The Tribulation that the books of Daniel and Revelation described is about to come to pass.  Liberals always said that if they could just get rid of the Christians (and Republicans) they could lead the world into a Utopia of Socialism By Any Other Name.  God is going to give them their chance.  He’s going to remove His true Christian believers in the Rapture and then He’s going to let the ultimate liberal a.k.a. Antichrist have at it for seven years of hell on earth.  And by the time Jesus returns as King of kings and as Lord of lords, it will be to stop the forces of hell from annihilating planet earth.

The beast is coming.  We just voted for him to come in November.

Get Your Spiritual House In Order. Because The Beast Is Coming And You Don’t Want To Be With The Huge Majority That Takes His Mark.

November 7, 2012

I write this as I hear the report from Fox News that Ohio has just been called for Obama.

Amazingly, and I would suggest incredibly insanely, the American people have decided that the status quo – Barack Obama as president, a Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in over three years, and a House of Representatives that is even more firmly under Republican control – is the path to a great and glorious future.  Part of me wants to cry, but I dare say the larger part wants to start laughing my dang head off at the sheer idiocy of the American electorate.

As I contemplate a second Obama term, a couple of quotes come to mind:

A journalist named Stephen Laurant had been jailed circa 1935 for questioning Nazism:

I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

And then one from Jewish doctor Herta Knotwolf:

“So many worship him as their savior, their redeemer from unbearable poverty.  Many are filled with some have worry, but all are united in the words, ‘Now things will change.”

Ah, yes, hope and change.

I wonder how that worked out for old Herta.  Because things very certainly DID change.  I mean, she was certainly spot on about that part, right?

This isn’t about intelligence; it’s about moral intelligence.  In the 1930s when the German people were busy electing the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler to power, they were the most educated, scientific and literate people on the face of the earth.  Versus the people of the United States, who frankly have never been more stupid in their nation’s entire history.

There simply comes a point in the life of every nation and even every civilization where there is an overwhelming desire to commit suicide and the people give in to that desire.  And those peoples may not have thought that was what they were doing when they made the fatal decisions that resulted in their destruction, but suicide is precisely what they ultimately chose.

And it’s what the United States of America just decided to do.

Our real national debt is now already trillions of dollars beyond the $222 trillion that it was reported as being about three months ago.

Is that $222 trillion number new to you?  Here’s an article for you:

Blink! U.S. Debt Just Grew by $11 Trillion
By Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns Aug 8, 2012 3:30 PM PT

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

Some question whether “official” and “unofficial” spending commitments can be added together. But calling particular obligations “official” doesn’t make them economically more important. Indeed, the government would sooner renege on Chinese holding U.S. Treasuries than on Americans collecting Social Security, especially because the U.S. can print money and service its bonds with watered-down dollars.

For its part, economic theory sees through labels and views a country’s official debt for what it is — a linguistic construct devoid of real economic content. In contrast, the fiscal gap is theoretically well-defined and invariant to the choice of labels. Each labeling choice changes the mix of obligations between official and unofficial, but leaves the total unchanged.

Dangerous Growth

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

So, based on that actual debt increasing by $11 trillion in one year and three full months passing since the announcement of said debt, that figure is now $222 trillion plus an additional $2.75 trillion.  So please don’t stare at the zeros as they whiz by or your eyeballs will pop out and it is no easy job trying to stick them back into your skull.

And with an Obama who has increased the “official” national debt by sixty percent in only four years, along with a Democrat Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in well over three years (it’s been 1,259 days since Harry Reid’s Senate passed a budget back on April 23 of 2009), and a Republican-controlled House that has already shown they will not abandon their agenda or their constituents, well, that’s your team who will take on looming disaster.

We just elected our own destruction.  Taxmaggedom is an example of this dilemma we just voted to perpetuate: they’ll probably be able to kick the can of economic calamity down the road for another few months, but that calamity will continue to hang over our heads like a shrapnel-loaded bomb waiting to blow up in our national face.

I know many of you love suspense, but what’s going to happen is “disaster” will be wearing Harlem Globetrotter uniforms and coming from every direction while Team Obama will be dressed in Washington Generals uniforms.  And by the end of the game, Disaster will have made America look incredibly stupid.

We’re a hopelessly fractured nation under Obama.  And just to try to describe that in election night terms, Obama will be the first president in history to be reelected by a smaller electoral college majority than he was elected with when he first became president, and as I write this Obama is actually over two-hundred thousand votes behind in the popular vote.  Not that it will matter to Obama, who will view his victory as a mandate.

Click here if you would like to see what a “mandate” actually looks like.

And that division and bitterness and inability to solve any of our crises - which was worse than it has EVER been these last four years under Obama – will get worse.  I promise you.  And that is because we, like the locusts, have no leader; rather, we have a demagogue who masquerades as a leader.  He is capable only of blaming others while refusing to accept any responsibility for pretty much anything.  We’re going to be paying dearly for that.

I don’t know how to tell you this, America.  You deserve to suffer for your stupidity.  And you’re going to get what you deserve.  Because this is still God damn America, full speed ahead to hell.

By the time Barack Hussein Obama leaves office in 2016, America will be the proverbial headless chicken.  We might still be technically on our feet, but we’re going to be dead.  Unless you’re reaching into your pocket as we speak to pay that $224.75 trillion our country owes, that is.  Anyone?  Is that crickets I hear?

We are a nation that cannot even POSSIBLY begin to come together to solve our problems.  And the reelection of the most partisan and most divisive president to ever lead America is all you need to know to realize that the United States of America will NEVER be able to come together.  Until Antichrist comes along to sweep the same fools off their feet who were swept off their feet by Obama.

How does Antichrist come to power?  Revelation chapter six describes the scenario: a complete global economic collapse, wars on top of wars as nation and ethnic group fight nation and ethnic group to the death over resources and grudges, famine and mass death will characterize the world that Antichrist will ride to save on his white horse.

I look at that $224.75 trillion debt, I look at a European failed experiment in socialism that is teetering on the brink of collapse, and I feel in my gut that Revelation 6 isn’t very far away from the real world.

Antichrist will literally be worshiped by the entire world.  Why?  Because he will appear to have all the answers, and people will look at what the world had been like before the beast came along to save them, and behold the vision that the Antichrist shows them, and literally the entire world will belong to this coming tyrant.

The interesting thing is that absolutely everything we know about this coming Antichrist screams “big government.”  The Antichrist will be the ultimate big government socialist.  Period.   If you are a typical liberal who admires the United Nations, well, your future object of worship will literally BE the United Nations.  The entire planet will rally behind this man.  If you think that the government ought to have a stronger hand in the economy, worry no more: because the government of the Antichrist will have complete control over anything that has anything whatsoever to do with the economy.

Oh, Obama is going to fail something fierce, but you Democrats can already breathe a future sigh of relief right now: because the Antichrist you will soon be worshiping will fulfill your wildest dreams.

The Antichrist will also be the quintessential politician.

The Book of Daniel applies the term “wisdom” to both Daniel and the coming Antichrist.  Daniel was given wisdom to understand riddles and unravel them; Antichrist will have the wisdom to understand riddles and therefore tie the truth up in knots such that no human being will be able to penetrate his facade of lies and deceit.

He’s coming.  And he’s going to be here very soon.  And if you haven’t already made your decision for Jesus Christ, you will fall prey to the beast’s wisdom and you will worship him and you will take his mark.

Are you dismayed over the election last night?

Don’t be.  Read this:

An old missionary couple had been working in Africa for years and were  returning to New York to retire. They had no pension; their health was  broken; they were defeated, discouraged, and afraid. They discovered  they were booked on the same ship as President Teddy Roosevelt, who was  returning from one of his big-game hunting expeditions.

No one paid any attention to them. They watched the fanfare that  accompanied the President’s entourage, with passengers trying to catch a  glimpse of the great man. As the ship moved across the ocean, the old  missionary said to his wife, “Something is wrong.” “Why should we have  given our lives in faithful service for God in Africa all these many  years and have no one care a thing about us? Here this man comes back  from a hunting trip and everybody makes much over him, but nobody gives  two hoots about us.”

“Dear, you shouldn’t feel that way”, his wife said. He replied “I can’t  help it; it doesn’t seem right.”

When the ship docked in New York, a band was waiting to greet the  President. The mayor and other dignitaries were there. The papers were  full of the President’s arrival. No one noticed this missionary couple.  They slipped off the ship and found a cheap flat on the East Side,  hoping the next day to see what they could do to make a living in the  city.

That night the man’s spirit broke. He said to his wife, “I can’t take  this; God is not treating us fairly”. His wife replied, “Why don’t you  go in the bedroom and tell that to the Lord?”

A short time later he came out from the bedroom, but now his face was  completely different. His wife asked, “Dear, what happened?” “The Lord  settled it with me”, he said. “I told Him how bitter I was that the  President should receive this tremendous homecoming, when no one met us  as we returned home. And when I finished, it seemed as though the Lord  put His hand on my shoulder and simply said;

“But you’re not home yet.”

Author Unknown

America isn’t your home.

America has been hijacked by people who are determined to worship the beast and to force the country to worship the beast with them.

It’s sad, of course.  There’s no question it’s sad.  And you might feel sick, broken, defeated, discouraged and afraid.

But this isn’t your home.

And the same God who forewarned us about the world that would worship Antichrist also told us about a wonderful eternity that awaits all those who have placed their trust not in human government but in the Lamb of God.

If you still feel discouraged, go to your Bible and cheat: turn to the last page of Revelation to see who wins.

No, Obama DIDN’T Call The Benghazi, Libya Terrorist Act Even An ‘Act of Terror,’ Let Alone A Terrorist Attack. But If You Say He Did HE’S STILL A LIAR!!!

October 18, 2012

Did Obama call the September 11 attack on the US Consulate In Libya a terrorist act or not?

The answer is “NOT,” since this is the speech he claims he did:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release September 12, 2012

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack [Me: what KIND of attack?  A coordinated terrorist attack or a spontaneous unplanned attack by an angry mob as the Obama administration kept claiming for DAYS after the attack?] on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks [Me: ah, yes, the 9/11 attack which even Barack Hussein Obama would agree would be "an act of terror."].  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation [Me: is Obama claiming that the Libya attack he mentioned nine paragraphs earlier was the "act of terror," or was he referring to the 9/11 attack  that he had just referred to 2 paragraphs previously], alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

So you can see that there is NO logical reason to believe Obama was calling the attack on the US Consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack.”  He had just been talking about the 9/11 attack which even OBAMA thinks is a terrorist attack.  And in what universe is referring to “acts of terror” the same as calling something “a terrorist attack”?  Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and most particularly US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice were correct, and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi WAS a “spontaneous act” by a protest mob enraged by a stupid Youtube video: would that NOT be “an act of terror”???  What else would you call it if a bunch of religious fanatics who hated you and broadcasted that hatred because of their warped religion had gone nuts and murdered your whole family?  “An act of happiness”?

And keep in mind, for more than two weeks after what intelligence was calling “a terrorist attack” within hours, this is the VERY STRONGEST STATEMENT Obama can now point to to claim he promptly damned as at least “terror” (but not “terrorist”).

Here’s the other thing: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama was actually calling what everyone now knows (no thanks to Obama or his administration) was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  Then WHY did Obama order his army of cockroach demon minions to repeatedly lie and say the exact opposite thing:

See the problem?  Obama now says that he officially declared that the attack on the US Consulate was in fact a terrorist attack, but then he sent out high-ranking administration official after high-ranking administration official to lie for the next two weeks.

And what about Obama himself lying after his own incredibly brief moment of “truth-telling” when he supposedly said that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.

On September 20 - more than a week after Obama now says he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack – Obama said this to Univision:

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

On September 25 - and this is now two weeks after the attack that Obama now says he called a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech – Obama responded to a direct question with the following answer:

QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So if you want to believe Barack Obama and that disgrace-to-journalism Candy Crowley, Obama told the American people the truth concealed in a weak statement on September 12 and then proceeded to personally repeatedly lie after that brief moment of weakly telling the truth.

And this after a parade of lies that included Obama appointee UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly specifically denying that it was a terrorist attack and repeatedly asserting something which we now know to have been a complete fabrication.  Which was it?

Either way you want to slice it, Barack Obama is a documented liar (again!) and he is the president of an administration of liars who have been doing everything they could to cover-up a terrorist attack that occurred on sovereign United States territory which resulted in the deaths of four Americans including a United States Ambassador.

And the fact that Obama would falsely assert that he called something “terror” that not only that very speech he referenced but the following two weeks AFTER that speech rather conclusively proves he didn’t is just another of a massive series of proofs just how willing Obama is to deceive.

United Nation’s Global Tax, Amazing Liberal Hypocrisy And The Frightening Reality Of How Truly DANGEROUS Obama’s Policies Are To America’s Poor

October 2, 2012

Ask your liberal friends to finish this sentence: “If the rich get richer, the poor get ______.”

Betcha a dollar your liberal will reflexively say, “poorer.”

The problem is that that is simply not true.  Unless an economy is a fixed sized pie such that if you get more of the pie, I by definition get less.  And as I shall try to explain, that is NOT the way a free market economy works.

The reality that liberals are too morally stupid to understand is that if I start a business, I start making my OWN pie.  By starting a business and becoming successful, I’m not stealing from anyone and I’m not exploiting anybody; rather, in direct opposition to what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren – the brains behind Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to go along with a genuine fake American Indian (read, “fake oppressed minority = fake victim”) believe - I AM BUILDING SOMETHING if I create a business.  And no, you liberal dumbass, I am NOT stealing from somebody else; I am building something where there had been nothing before.  I am putting a positive attitude that you have never had and will never understand into action and I am starting something.

That’s right. I said the “A” word, liberals.  I said ATTITUDE:

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our Attitudes.”  — Charles R. Swindoll

That 10% versus 90% is particularly relevant with Obama, who has the tiny little insect testicles to say he’s ninety damn percent not to blame for his insane and frankly demonic government spending.  When like everything else the man thinks he’s completely back assward.

That’s right, liberal.  Nobody’s taken anything from you; nobody’s oppressed you; and the only reason that you’re a victim is because you have spent your life victimizing YOURSELF and allowing your messiah Obama and liberals like him to talk you into being a weak, useless human being.  If you have the kind of positive attitude that Swindoll is describing, nothing is going to hold you down or hold you back – and the LAST thing you’re ever going to do is start whining like a liberal victim who is pathetic and cannot do anything unless government does it for you.

Here’s the thing: I’d love it if somebody asked Obama to complete that sentence I began with: If the become richer, the poor become ______.  And after the Marxist said “poorer,” I’d ask him what he thinks Americans should do given the fact THAT AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE WEALTHIEST DAMN LIFESTYLE ON THE PLANET.  I would demand that Obama explain on his view why Americans should redistribute trillions of dollars of American gross domestic product so that the desperately poor people in Africa and China and India and the Middle East and pretty much all over the damn planet could have more.

Here’s the thing. “If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer” the way liberals will invariably say, then what about the question, “If America gets richer, the rest of the world gets ______”???  How would the answer not be the same???  If America gets richer, then by liberal doctrine the rest of the world – particularly the poorest regions of the world – must necessarily get poorer.

Go to the Congo, where the GDP per capital is just $348.  That means the average person is forced to live (“subsist” is probably more fitting) on the currency equivalent of just 348 dollars per year.  That’s 29 bucks a month total.  That’s living the good life on 95 cents a day.  These people have NOTHING.  They don’t have houses; they have tiny little shacks that they build from whatever they can find; they don’t have air conditioning or refrigerators or laundry machines or for that matter electricity or plumbing.  Their kids don’t have disposable diapers.  Because they’ve never tried the free market economics or limited government you liberals despise, they’ve got squat diddly butkus and they’ll never have anything BUT squat diddly butkus.  And so hey, liberal poor person, unless you’ve never had more than $348 of welfare benefits or permanent unemployment benefits or allowance from daddy or however the hell you get your money and benefits in the course of a year, YOU DAMN WELL OWE THAT TRULY POOR SONOFABITCH IN THE CONGO.   And by your own rhetoric if you don’t send pretty much everything you get to the Congo, to Liberia, etc. etc. etc., then you are a greedy one percenter and shame on you.  You owe those poor people every single SCINTILLA as much as the rich guy in America owes YOU.  And what you know if you’ve ever had an honest moment in your entire life is that you keep demanding somebody ELSE give to YOU but YOU’VE never given people who’d rejoice on a tiny fraction of what you’ve got SQUAT.

I’m talking to you, resident of Detroit’s poorest neighborhood.  Because if you aint nearly starved to death you’ve got it FAR better than most of the population of the planet have it.  And it’s damn time you quit reaching your hand out and being a liberal TAKER and instead putting it in your wallet and becoming a liberal GIVER.

I’m talking to you, you damn liberal socialist hypocrites.  All you know how to do is justify redistribution when it applies to YOU or, in the case of liberal politicians, when it applies to your constituency as you pimp somebody else’s money in exchange for your damn votes so you can live like a fat cat like Charlie Rangel.

So a truly consistent liberal must therefore need to require America to lose wealth so the rest of the world can get richer instead.

So what’s Obama’s answer to the United Nations imposing a global tax?  Is Obama going to say he’s against the people of the Congo getting richer?  Then how DARE he allow America to produce more wealth?!?!?  What’s YOUR answer for why YOU shouldn’t have to pay right out of your ass because if you live in America, then compared to the majority of people on earth, you are a greedy one percenter compared to them???

The UN says America should pay a tax:

Global Taxes Are Back, Watch Your Wallet

Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie, the debate over global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head — courtesy of the United Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless proposals for the imposition of global taxes are truly terrifying.

In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he “strongly supports finding new sources of funding” for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. “The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing,” Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term “redistribution.” Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.

What do the poor liberal whiners in America have?  They not only have television sets (plural); they have CABLE television.  They’ve got refrigerators.  They’ve got air conditioning.  They’ve got cell phones.  They’ve got computers and video games.  They have got stuff coming out of their EARS compared to the poor in most of the rest of the world.

A lot of conservatives hate using the good word “liberalism” to describe liberals.  That’s because classical liberalism is actually a refutation of everything your progressive “liberal” Democrat stands for:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

That aint modern liberalism, boys and girls; that’s MODERN CONSERVATIVISM.  And the more you explain what classical liberalism is, the more modern liberal progressives are disqualified from it.

So if modern liberals aren’t really “liberals” at all, then what are they?  They are a bunch of self-centered, greedy, narcissistic little whiners who harbor the basic worldview, “Everybody owes me something and forced redistribution is wonderful as long as its somebody else’s money that’s getting redistributed.”  That’s what they are.  They are people who have perverted the teachings of Christ and warped American history and the Constitution and system of government our founding fathers gave us to mandate socialism.  Unless you can find where Jesus taught, “Rendering to Caesar IS rendering unto God.”  Unless you can find where Jesus taught that a giant socialist government (or ANY kind of government for that matter) should forcibly seize and redistribute people’s property based on naked demagoguery and cynical political partisanship.

Hey, tell you what: just show me where Jesus taught, “If you earn less than $200,000 a year, you don’t have to give ANYTHING to the less fortunate; you get to use the raw power of government to take stuff from others so you can vote to redistribute it to yourselves.”

No, that’s not in the teachings of Jesus and it’s not in the writings of the founding fathers who forged a republic for Americans based on the principles of liberty and freedom.

Instead you pervert the wisdom of Jesus and of the American founding fathers and distort them to falsely claim that they taught the doctrine of your REAL ideological master:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

If you want to know where modern liberalism comes from, THAT’S WHERE IT COMES FROM.

Jesus never absolves the poor from giving; to the contrary, HE calls for the poor to give:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.  Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” — Mark 12:41-44

So you aren’t off the hook any more than that rich guy you feel so self-righteous to hate and demonize and demagogue, poor liberal.

You, who judge and condemn the rich and demand the state confiscate more and ever more of what they work to earn, another teaching of Jesus applies to YOU:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” — Matthew 7:2

It’s time you lived up to your own damn hypocritical rhetoric and slogans, you liberals (and especially you POOR liberals).

But don’t you worry, you pathological hypocrites who would never DREAM of paying taxes yourselves that you want everybody else to pay for YOU, if Obama gets reelected, HE’LL FORCE YOU TO REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH THE SAME WAY YOU WANTED HIM TO FORCE RICH PEOPLE TO REDISTRIBUTE THEIRS.

If the so-called “rich” don’t deserve their money because they’ve got more than you do, poor, stupid liberal; what the hell makes you think that YOU deserve YOUR money given that you’ve got a damn sight more than most of the world’s poor?

Somebody ought to take all your stuff away that the poor people in the Congo don’t have, have never had, and probably never WILL have (because the poorest countries are usually also the most socialistic countries and their failed economic system guarantees the constant destruction of wealth as corrupt government officials keep “redistributing” a shrinking economy into their own pockets).  Because that’s “economic justice” by your own rhetoric.

And Obama’s just the man to do it.  Because that’s the way he thinks; it’s the “Dream From His Father.”  And Obama literally “became” an American in order to chop America down to the size he believed as a “citizen of the world” that it ought to be.

And Obama has done an incredible job advancing that vision of America.

He’s the man whose entire history is that of anti-colonialism and hating the West for its prosperity when the have-nots of the planet have naught.

If we taxed the wealth of those who earned more than $250,000 a year at 100% – literally confiscated their wealth and left them with nothing – we would ruin those people and still only get 38% of what we needed to close Obama’s massive budget deficitWe’d have to tax them at the logically impossible rate of 134%, which means we would seize everything they owned and them demand that they pay MORE than everything they owned.  And with the rich people ruined, where would Obama go to collect the other 62%?  We’d have to then have ANOTHER group of people to demonize and confiscate from, wouldn’t we???

You can’t win with what the left is saying.  What they claim is guaranteed destruction and it is only bought by bad people who are selfish and greedy hypocrites who demand that somebody else should be forced to take responsibility for their failed lives.

As I pointed out earlier, liberals often use an incredibly flawed perversion of the Bible to try to justify their flawed Marxist economic system.  But when you understand what the Bible has to say about taxation, you realize that the left pretty much takes everything the Bible actually says and turns it completely upside down.

The truth is this: Wealth is not a fixed-sized pie.  The left is wrong; human creativity and ingenuity is such that people can always come along with new ideas that make them rich and create jobs for other people and improve the lives of other people who use their product or service.  They won’t be getting rich at somebody else’s expense; they’ll be building a pie where no pie existed before and that pie will make the overall pie of an economy larger.  If the rich get richer, other people can learn from that rich person’s example and be encouraged by it and also get richer.  The left is simply flat-out wrong.

Morally Idiotic Liberalism Gone Completely Insane: UN Demands US Surrender Mt Rushmore As Terrorist Mouthpiece Demands We Show 9/11 Mass Murderers ‘Respect’

May 8, 2012

First the UN thing (which is simply INSANE):

UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans
By Reuters

The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, according to a U.N. human rights investigator.
 
James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials. 

“I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced,” Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva Friday.
 
That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.
 
Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed.

Keep in mind just which nations have served on this “Human Rights” body for the most liberal and most radically secular humanist organization ever to curse the world (that’s right; even worse than the Democrat Party!): a study concludes that, “According to the assessment given above, the most repressive regimes in the world currently enjoy a highly inflated rate of representation on the Human Rights Commission.”

The U.N. Human Rights Council has once again proved itself outside the evolution and progress of history,” another article denouncing the terrorist-rogue regime members of this “human rights council” pointed out.

“Human rights” is a cynical meme for the worst people on earth to “fundamentally transform” the world around them.

For the record, the US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the seizure of the land upon which Mt. Rushmore was built was in fact illegal.  And the United States government has been compensating the Indian tribes for that land ever since.  And frankly, that’s the best any nation can ever be expected to do.

How about this alternative solution: if you are not a 100 percent pure-blooded Native American Indian, you must leave the North American Continent for good.  Because your ancestors stole the land, pure and simple.  And none of this “I’m one-half Cherokee” crap; because the other half of your ancestors are guilty of the same crime the rest of us are, and you’ve got to pay for the crimes of your ancestors same as the rest of us.  Same thing all over the world: if you are not a full-blooded aborigine, you must move; you must leave your land because your ancestors stole it from somebody else and you’ve got to pay for the sins of the past.

Let’s have nearly the entire human race climb aboard space ships and blast off, destination unknown, to (hopefully) find a living space that we don’t have to take from some poor sentient or even non-sentient species.

You start to see what a joke this crap becomes.  Particularly when you understand additionally that this is nothing more than liberals – the most intolerant people who ever lived – imposing their “new morality” upon all of history.

But that’s liberalism, and liberalism equals insanity.

Now, Barack Obama would ordinarily be all for this.  But take a look at Mt. Rushmore and you might see the rub:

Consider what Obama has narcissistically said about himself:

Following his interview with 60 minutes last week, President Obama is now under fire from the right for comments he made implicitly suggesting that he was the fourth-best president in American history. “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln,” he said.

So take a look at Mt. Rushmore as Obama sees it -

- and you understand the problem.

Unless Obama believes that the Indians, in their appreciation of his wonderfulness, would recreate Mt Rushmore with Obama’s image on it.  Then we’re in trouble.

Well, the wonders of liberalism never cease:

May 06, 2012
9/11 Defense Attorney Calls For women To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing

AP

Attorney In hijab Defends Call For Other Women At 9/11 Hearing To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing

The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.

Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”

At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”

Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”

I suppose if Cheryl Bormann were representing Ferengi terrorists, she would insist that all women simply go nude altogether in the courtroom.  That’s the very least decent women can do to show proper respect.

I also find it odd how these terrorists were able to remain “focused” while they were going to strip clubs as they plotted to destroy America.

It doesn’t matter that the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans was itself the most profound act of cultural intolerance imaginable.  Liberals don’t think that way.

Liberals are so “open-minded” their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the place.  That, combined with their utterly hypocritical intolerance for anything and anybody they truly disagree with (try to imagine liberals actually bending over backwards for evangelical Christians for a har-har) and you see the problem with these people.

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

February 9, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than calling for action, she did nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try this paragraph on for size:

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

You Democrats are on an eternal walk of shame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats were completely wrong; Bush was 100 percent RIGHT.

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

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

The political situation in Libya is falling apart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OWN Libya, Obama.  OWN IT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Barack Obama is criminally responsible for that complete disaster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allen: “It was not.”

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

And what is the result of Obama in Afghanistan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Desperate To Save Life Of Mexican Rapist-Murderer Because Mexicans Who Hate America Vote Democrat

July 7, 2011

Personally, not only do I want this rapist-murder to face justice where he can burn in hell for the rest of eternity, but I kind of wish they’d run out of the lethal drug cocktail and the guards would carry out the sentence with baseball bats.

If Mexicans voted Republican, Barack Obama would have already sent planes to bomb Mexico the way he has done in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan.

But they vote Democrat, so every raping-and-murdering scumbag illegal immigrant executed is one less vote for Obama in 2012.  And that, of course, is a far worse crime to Obama than the one that Humberto Leal committed against that 16 year-old girl.  If you don’t think so, just scroll down the memory lane of the most recent May Day Outrage Against America event.

Mexican man’s Texas execution in rape, murder appealed by White House
Published: Thursday, July 07, 2011, 9:15 AM

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — The planned execution Thursday of a Mexican national has prompted a flurry of appeals on his behalf, including a rare plea from the White House, because of what it could mean for other foreigners arrested in the U.S. and for Americans detained in other countries.

Humberto Leal, 38, is awaiting a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to block his lethal injection in Huntsville. He was sentenced to die for the 1994 rape and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda of San Antonio.

The appeal contends that authorities never told Leal after his arrest that he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under an international treaty, and that such assistance would have aided his defense. Leal moved to the U.S. as a toddler.

Leal’s attorneys have support from the White House, the Mexican government and other diplomats who believe the execution should be delayed so his case can be thoroughly reviewed.

“There can be little doubt that if the government of Mexico had been allowed access to Mr. Leal in a timely manner, he would not now be facing execution for a capital murder he did not commit,” Leal’s attorneys told the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles in a clemency request rejected Tuesday. “Unfortunately, Mexico’s assistance came too late to affect the result of Mr. Leal’s capital murder prosecution.”

Obama administration made request to Supreme Court last week

President Barack Obama’s administration took the unusual step of intervening in a state murder case when it asked the Supreme Court last week to delay Leal’s execution for up to 6 months. The U.S. solicitor general told the court that Congress needed time to consider legislation that would allow federal courts to review cases of condemned foreign nationals to determine if the lack of consular help made a significant difference in the outcome of their cases.

The legislation, backed by the U.S. State Department and the United Nations, would bring the U.S. into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provision regarding the arrest of foreign nationals.

Lower courts already rejected the pleas, agreeing with the Texas Attorney General’s office that since the legislation hasn’t been passed and signed into law, it doesn’t apply. At least 2 measures like it failed earlier in Congress.

“Leal’s argument is nothing but a transparent attempt to evade his impending punishment,” Stephen Hoffman, an assistant attorney general for the state of Texas, told the Supreme Court.

Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., wrote numerous congressional members and Texas officials calling attention to the legislation and the case and urged Gov. Rick Perry to stop the punishment.

Perry had the authority to issue a one-time 30-day reprieve but made no decision while the courts remained involved.

Leal had said he knew girls’ parents, would take her home

Prosecutors said on the night she was killed, Sauceda was drunk and high on cocaine at an outdoor party in an undeveloped neighborhood of San Antonio and was assaulted by several males. At some point, prosecutors said, Leal showed up and said he knew her parents and would take her home and explain the situation to them.

Witnesses said Leal drove off with Sauceda around 5 a.m. Some partygoers found her brutalized body later that morning and called police, prosecutors said. When officers arrived, they found Sauceda’s head battered by a 30- to 40-pound chunk of asphalt and evidence that she had been bitten, strangled and raped. A large stick that had a screw protruding from it was left in her body.

Leal, a mechanic, was identified as the last person seen with her. He was questioned and arrested.

A witness testified Leal’s brother appeared at the party, agitated that Leal had arrived home bloody and saying he had killed a girl. Testifying during the trial’s punishment phase, Leal acknowledged being intoxicated and doing wrong but said he wasn’t responsible for what prosecutors alleged. [...]

For the record, Humberto Leal was NOT “denied” access to his consulate, so the claim by his attorney wailing that “if the government of Mexico had been allowed access to Mr. Leal in a timely manner…” is utterly bogus.  At worst, the state of Texas is guilty of not bending over far enough to make sure that a scumbag murderer of a little girl was aware of all the possible ways he could use to escape justice.  By analogy, I should go into your home and then claim that you kidnapped me on the grounds that you didn’t specifically tell me I could leave.

If the slimeball wanted his consulate, all he had to do was ask.  But we live in a society in which liberals believe that if a stupid person is stupid, some intelligent person somewhere must surely be responsible for it.

The Supreme Court said Obama was full of crap and ruled that the execution could proceed on schedule.  Hopefully he’s enjoying his life sentance in the fire of hell by now.

Obama Fires Project Gunrunner Whistleblower, Refuses To Allow ATF Head To Appear Before Congress

June 30, 2011

Of all the things I most truly despise about Barack Obama and the media propaganda that serves as his human shields, the thing I think that I most despise is the smarmy self-righteous hypocrisy that is completely based on deceit and rhetoric.

This is the most transparent administration EVER, they say, even as the Obama White House has snubbed FAR more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush ever did.  And even as Obama covers up the White House security logs that allow the press to monitor just who is actually getting access.

And it doesn’t matter that Obama’s “transparency” is a documented transparent lie beyond the point of absurdity; they keep saying it over and over because these are Nazis who truly buy into the Big Lie idea of their predecessors.

Project Gunrunner is a national disgrace and it is a CRIME that needs to be investigated and punished.

But here’s what’s going on in the White House:

‘Project Gunrunner’ Whistleblower Says ATF Sent Him Termination Notice
By Maxim Lott
Published June 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is being accused of retaliating against an agent who helped publicize the agency’s role in allowing thousands of guns to cross the U.S. border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

The agent, Vince Cefalu, who has spoken out about the ATF’s so-called “Project Gunrunner” scandal, says he was served with termination papers just last week, and he calls the move politically motivated.

“Aside from Jay Dobyns, I don’t know of anyone that’s been more vocal about ATF mismanagement than me,” said Cefalu, a senior special agent based in Dublin, Calif. “That’s why this is happening.” Dobyns, an ATF special agent based in Tucson, has appeared several times on Fox News to discuss the scandal.

Cefalu first told FoxNews.com about the ATF’s embattled anti-gun smuggling operation in December, before the first reports on the story appeared in February. “Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border,” Cefalu said at the time.

Since then, Cefalu’s claims have been vindicated, as a number of agents with first-hand knowledge of the case came forward. The scandal over Project Gunrunner led to congressional hearings, a presidential reprimand – Obama called the operation “a serious mistake” – and speculation that ATF chief Ken Melson will resign.

Yet last week, Cefalu, who has worked for the agency for 24 years, was forced to turn in his gun and badge. He can appeal but will be on “paid administrative leave” during the process.

Cefalu’s dismissal follows a string of allegations that the ATF retaliates against whistleblowers. When the Project Gunrunner scandal broke, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the ATF that an agent who had been giving his staff members information about the scandal had been “allegedly accused… of misconduct” by the agent’s boss for talking with Grassley’s staffers.

Meanwhile the head of the ATF has NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS by Obama’s “Justice” Department:

The acting director of the federal Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is standing his ground and  resisting pressure to step down amid a gun trafficking scandal, sources close to  the situation tell the Los Angeles Times.

Under the leadership of Kenneth Melson, the ATF  began “Operation Fast and Furious” in fall 2009 – a program established to trace  the sales of illegal firearms to Mexican drug cartels.

But the program instead put guns in cartel hands,  two of which were found at a crime scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry  was killed in December 2010.

One source, who asked to remain anonymous, claimed  Melson has said in high-level discussions he didn’t want to be the “fall guy” on  the scandal.

“He is saying he won’t go,” the source told the Los  Angeles Times.

Another source who also requested anonymity  reaffirmed claims that Melson is resisting pressure to step down.

An ATF spokesman said the agency would not comment  on speculation regarding Melson’s status as acting director.

Melson has been invited to appear on Capitol  Hill, but has not yet been granted permission from the Justice  Department to do so.

And it certainly isn’t just Kenneth Melson who needs to resign over this fiasco in which guns were put into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who then used those very same guns to murder US agents.  I say “agents” because there are actually more than one.  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that a major federal operation involving lethal weapons into a foreign country would have had to have the awareness of at LEAST Attorney General Eric Holder.  And it is quite likely that Barry Hussein himself knew this fiasco was going on, which means we should consider impeachment.

I first wrote about this incredible – and incredibly stupid – incident here.

But I wrote about something else.  I wrote about The Liberal-Media Complex And The Lies To Abolish The 2nd Amendment.  And in that article I documented and commented upon the bogus claims by Obama and Hillary Clinton that American guns were flooding into Mexico.

But even as Obama and Hillary Clinton were demonizing American gun dealers for selling guns to Mexican cartels, Obama was in fact actually requiring the very gun dealers he was demonizing to sell those guns.  In spite of their attempts to warn the justice department about what was going on.  Which is to say he was demonizing the people who were doing the very thing he was actually requiring them to do.

This opens up the very real question as to whether Obama intended to put gun dealers into this position so he could take away Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights.

We need to get to the bottom of this ASAP and if Barack Obama continues to roadblock the investigation, Democrats need to do to him what Republicans courageously did to Richard Nixon: impeach his ass out of the people’s house.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers