Of Cowboys And Indians And ‘Native Americans’ From The Tribe Of Judah

I love going to Pow Wows.  Always have.  If there’s one within my ability to drive to it, I’m there.

Anyway, I was at the Pow Wow hosted by the Cabazon Indians at Morongo Casino when I heard a guy first say that he was an “illegal European immigrant” before asking one of the tribal police officers “What tribe are you from?”

I’m sure he felt maximally politically correct, this guy.

The police officer responded, “I’m from the American tribe.”

He wasn’t an Indian, you see.  The Indians being tolerant enough to hire people based on something other than the color of the applicant’s skin.

Well, I couldn’t help but say to the “illegal European immigrant” that “I’M a native American.”

I’m olive-skinned and rather tanned, and I tan DARK, so he assumed I was Indian (a pretty Navajo girl who laughingly called herself “a Res girl” was amazed a little bit after this that I wasn’t an Indian when she sat down next to me to flirt).  And so he asked, “What tribe are you from?”

And I said, “I’m from the tribe of Judah.”

Of course, if you follow your Bible, you know that Judah is the tribe of Israelites that Jesus came from (see Revelation 5:5).  And for the record, just to help you see the picture even better, I was wearing my Star of David around my neck for all to see (P.S. I’m not Jewish, either, but God made this Gentile part of the seed of Abraham, just the same).

Anyway, the “illegal European immigrant” didn’t quite get it.  I don’t even know whether he realized that there is no “native American” tribe of Judah.  So I completed the picture for him by stating, “I’m a native American because I was born right here in America.”

Mr. PC said, “That doesn’t make you a native American.”

I said, “Maybe it doesn’t to you.  But it sure does to me and this officer here.”

The politically correct “illegal European immigrant,” said, “Tell THEM that.”  And of course he’s referring to all the Indians around.

I pointed out the fact that I HAD told them that, on multiple occasions in discussions I’ve had with the many Indians I’ve enjoyed conversing with.  I love in particular to have the opportunity to chat up the Indian artists.  And for the record, nary a one of them ever became upset by my view of myself as a “native American.”

I pointed out to Mr. PC that the interesting thing about his view was the question-begging that necessarily had to follow one question on my part: “If I’m NOT a “native American,” then from what or where AM I a “native”???  You see, I may be of European ancestry, but I am hardly a “native European,” because I wasn’t BORN in Europe and frankly neither were my parents.  That’s what “native” means in ANY other context except where politically correct stupidity gets to shove its way in and change the universe to fit its bigoted foreordained conclusions.

I was not only born in America, but I served in the United States Army of America.  And to take it even further, I FOUGHT for America.  And I don’t get to be a “native” of the land I was born in, served and fought for???

I’m not a native of Europe due to simple common sense, and I’m not a native of America because of a total abandonment of common sense?  WHERE do I get to be a “native” then???  I mean, seriously.

I pointed out that I refuse to hyphenate people.  If somebody wants to insist to me on being “African-American,” for instance, I merely ask which one they want to be, “African” or “American”???  I tell them I’ll call them whatever they want, as long as they don’t ask me to hyphenate them and let them be all things simultaneously even though it literally has them as standing on two separate CONTINENTS at the same damn time.

And I don’t call Indians “Native American” because, while THEY are most certainly “native Americans,” I’M one, too, like it or not.  I was born here every iota as much as they were.  I fought for the right to be a “native American,” just as MY ancestors also fought.  In fact, my grandmother from my father’s side of the family was a “Daughter of the American Revolution.”  So we’ve been fighting for that distinction for quite a long time now.

When I am referring to the “Indians” in question, I always use the term, “American Indian.”  And I do that because there happen to be a WHOLE BUNCH of “Indians” from India and Pakistan.  And we don’t need to make them confused.

Our Indians are uniquely “American,” and I believe that “American Indian” is a title of honor.

And I most certainly don’t mean this as any form of insult to American Indians.  I don’t call them “Native Americans” to deny them that status, because they fully deserve that status.  I’m merely pointing out the obvious fact that they aren’t the only ones who were born here.  I’ve got a lifelong admiration of all things American Indian.  But they are hardly the only “native Americans” around here.

When I was in the Army, I served with several American Indians.  And this gets me to discussing why it is that I’ve always loved going to pow wows.

What’s the point of a pow wow?  Maybe the American Indians themselves would have a slightly different way of putting this; but these events are significantly underwritten by tribal casinos to accomplish what I believe is a very special and even sacred purpose.

I’m not a gambler and somebody could easily get me started saying casinos are a bad thing, but in the case of the Indian casinos, they aren’t all bad simply because they have become so involved in doing one thing: they are helping to unite American Indians together, they are striving to maintain cultural American Indian tribal identity, and they are serving to foster American Indian pride.  And I applaud them for their efforts.

To this end, they spend a significant amount of money hosting the pow wows and funding the prizes that hundreds – if not thousands – of American Indians compete for at the events.  And these events are intended – again on my view – to tie the American Indian community together and foster a unique sense of identity.

I always watch the American Indian dancers in their beautiful costumes.  I most love to watch the young girls dance to the drums with so much grace and enthusiasm.  It’s just such a beautiful, magnificent thing to watch.

What I think I love the most is to see very old Indian men and women, their sons and daughters, and their grandsons and granddaughters, etc., all participating.

The outfits that the dancers wear are each unique; and they cost a whopping bundle to make.  Here is a list that I’m sure isn’t comprehensive showing some of these various outfits and their purpose.

I love to admire the dance outfits.  I love all the creativity and imagination and cultural history that is poured into them.  I love to listen to the heartbeat of the drums and watch old and young alike do what these aboriginal people have been doing from time immemorial.  And I walk away from every pow wow feeling like I’ve witnessed and participated in something special.  And those drums are still beating in my head and in my heart.

And I love the fact that I am not only allowed to participate, but yes, actually ENCOURAGED to participate.  At most of these events, parking and admission is free to encourage as many to come as will.  American Indians are not people who want to shut off their culture; they want to invite everyone around to see them live that culture to the fullest.

Like I said, when I served in the infantry, I had a fair number of American Indians serve alongside me.  One day I started asking why so many Indians served in the military.  And I was told that the Indians have always  viewed themselves as a warrior people, and that serving as a warrior was a critical part of their society.

Every pow wow begins with a tribute to the American flag.  And American Indian veterans are specifically honored for their service.  I always like to be there for that moment in particular.  I see aged men who fought against the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese; I see old men who fought in Korea; I see aging men who are veterans of Vietnam; and now I’m seeing younger men who have returned from their service in Afghanistan and Iraq escorting the Stars and Stripes.  And as a “native American” I share the same pride that they have as I stand to honor both the flag and the men who carry it.

And I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of American Indians I served with took their role as “warrior” seriously – and that they were an honor to the noblest aspects of their ancient heritage for serving as warriors for the United States of America.  It is a tradition and it is a great tradition indeed.  And I mean that as no bull – unless you want to talk about the great Indian warrior chief Sitting Bull.

I was telling a few of my friends about the upcoming pow wow to attract more interest, and one of them asked me what I found so fascinating about these events.  It was an excellent question that made me think.

I’ve always been the kind of person who roots for the underdog, for one thing.  If I find out a football team is favored to win by a thousand points, I am one of those people who instinctively root for the team that is supposed to get slaughtered.

I’ve also always been a romantic at heart, and the image of a tribal society living in harmony with nature beyond the pale of “civilization” has always stirred me far more than the tales of the pioneers and their frontier lifestyle in log cabins or the cowboys and their gunfighter sagas.

At the same time, I’m also an “American” in the sense of being very proud of my identity as being part of the history of the United States of America.

As such I view the westward expansion of the United States across the continent as being both incredibly tragic and at the same time incredibly necessary.  Because while many terrible things were done in the name of such concepts as “manifest destiny,” only a nation that united the Atlantic and the Pacific could ever have had the power to stop the rabid fascism of Hitler and Tojo and then stand up to the totalitarian dictatorship of Stalin and Mao after that.

There were a lot of crimes committed against the American Indian.  And yet one way or another, “the United States of America” had to exist in order to stop far more horrendous crimes.

Many of the American Indian tribes were “foolish” or “insane” to attempt to stand against the westward migration that was necessary for the United States of America to be born; the odds against them were beyond hopeless.

And yet, they fought for their families, for their tribes, for their nations, for their way of life.  They fought heroically.

And that is what made them such a great people.  And it is why greatness adheres to them to this very day.

As a child, my dad didn’t think the family had enough money to fly to family gatherings in Iowa (coming from California).  So we drove.

I didn’t much like those long drives as a child, but now, as a grown man, I treasure the treasure of history and culture that I garnered by driving through “fly over country” rather than flying over it in an airplane.

I saw so many things, such as Western ghost towns, U.S. cavalry forts and historic tribal sites, such as the Betatakin Ruin at the Navajo National Monument and the Anasazi Manitou cliff dwellings and the Mesa Verde Petroglyphs and the Puye cliff dwellings (all near Four Corners).  I also got to see Montezuma Castle.  Dad would figure out different ways to travel so that we could see something different every time we visited our kin.  I couldn’t imagine how these ancient people had built these structures so long ago that were still here for me to see so many centuries later.  And I guess one of the things that grabbed me as a child was that the ghost towns were full of nothing but tourists and ghosts, but the tribal sites were still filled with colorful, living people.

I love to go camping and backpacking.  I’m a trained soldier.  I’ve even had a fair amount of survival training compared to the average camper.  But I tell you what, if I didn’t get to bring my food and my water with me, I would almost certainly be spared of dying of starvation only because I died of dehydration first.  These people LIVED where most people would have DIED.  Even as a little kid, I got that.

I remember seeing Indian boys my age who lived on the reservations we saw, and wondering how cool their lives had to be.  Maybe they wondered the same thing about my life.

And so when it came time to play “Cowboys and Indians” as a child, I always chose to be an Indian.  It wasn’t that I hated on the cowboys; I just liked being an Indian.  And since most all the other kids wanted to be cowboys, I never had to worry about not getting what I wanted.

Anyway, what attracts me about the America Indian is what also attracts me to the Jews who form such a vital part of my “Judeo-Christian faith and worldview”; here are a people who have gone through hell on earth and they are still standing and ready for more if need be.  Here are a people who fought even when the odds against them were beyond hopeless; here are a people I don’t mind being around – and so when they invite me to their events to share their culture, well, like I said, I’m there.

I am one who believes that every people from every people group has something in their culture – something in their history – to give them reason for pride.  In my case, as one from predominantly English ancestry, I have a rich heritage to study and take pride in.  We each of us have only to explore our ancestry to find the greatness of our roots.

That said, allow me to reveal a little bias toward American Indians: there are aboriginal people all over the world, of course.  But part of what makes the United States of America the greatest nation on earth is that we’ve got the greatest, most fascinating, most heroic and most colorful aboriginal people of them all in our American Indians.  And American history is so much more colorful and beautiful because American Indians were a part of it.  And while there’s an ugly side to American history, there’s an ugly side to ANYBODY’S history – yours and mine included – if you’re looking for ugly sides.  There comes a time when a people who have suffered – be they Jews or Indians – need to look past that time of suffering and focus on the things that make life beautiful and worth living to the fullest.

Hope to see you at the next pow wow.

Obama Won’t Negotiate With GOP. So WHY Is He Negotiating With Terrorist State Iran (Declared Terrorist Since 1984)???

Barack Obama is a slandering liar who has told many lies in dishonoring his way to the White House, but here was the most cynical one of them all (as recorded in the New York Times):

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Which is pretty much these days another way of saying that EVERY SINGLE TIME Barack Obama opens his slandering mouth to demonize Republicans, he proves what a depraved, demon-possessed cynical liar from hell he is all over again.

You don’t make that promise that the New York Times recorded as “the core of Obama’s presidency” and demonize your opposition the way Obama constantly does if you are not a truly evil man.

Barack Obama is without question the most wicked, most dishonest, most divisive American politician who has ever lived.

Now, I am deeply opposed to Obama’s decision to exalt Iran with negotiations that the Islamic regime will use merely to continue to play us for the fools that we are while they race toward nuclear capability and the ballistic missile system they need to deliver that capability.  But with fairness we could say that Obama promised that he would talk to enemies and he’s merely fulfilling his promise.  On his view, you should talk with your enemies and try to reach some kind of agreement with them.  Even when they are psychotic and frankly murderous nutjobs as the Iranians have proven they are for the last thirty-plus years.  All we are saying is give peace a chance.  All that crap.

But here’s the thing that blows that thesis up and sinks the ship right down to the muck at the bottom: HE WON’T NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE IN ANY WAY WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS ‘TERRORISTS’ FOR THIRTY DAMN YEARS.  The man who promised that at the very CORE of his presidency would be a transcending of politics has been instead the worse political demagogue this nation has ever seen, bar none, and he calls up House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he will NOT negotiate with Republicans (see also here).  And then he lies like the demonic liar that he is to justify refusing to negotiate like a grown-up (see also here).

You need to understand: the very same man who has publicly declared that he himself will absolutely NOT negotiate and will fight to the last starving American citizen over issues like the debt ceiling is asserting that the OTHER side must utterly and absolutely cave in to HIS position or THEY are completely responsible for the ensuing chaos and suffering.

I suppose if the Republicans used poison gas to murder thousands of Americans, THEN Obama would compromise and negotiate with them the way he did with Syria?  I mean, he’ll go back on his word on his red line with “a thug and a murder,” but he won’t budge an inch for the party that represents half of all the American people???  Do you understand how truly and completely insane that is???

If you’re a Kool-Aid-drinking liberal who wants to assert that the GOP is worse than the ayatollahs, fine: all you have to do is show me the Republican Party’s plans to build themselves nuclear weapons.  All you have to do is show me all those times the Republicans in the House used nerve gas.  All you have to do is show me that the Republican Party has actively participated in the murder of American servicemen.  The way Iran has been documented to have done (see also here).

Otherwise, just shut the hell up, you toxic, rabid creature.  Because you only serve as one more PROOF that everything Obama said AS I QUOTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES was nothing more than a demonic lie from hell.  You people never wanted to “transcend” anything; your messiah is about nothing more than WINNING his partisan and ideological war campaign of hate, and you would “fundamentally transform” this nation into a likeness of Stalingrad during WW2 in order to WIN that partisan and ideological war.

At this point, Barack Obama is as much as openly saying that he believes that a good half of the American people who agree with the Republican Party are not only terrorists, but are in fact worse terrorists than the mullahs in Iran and the thugs in Syria.  And that is sick beyond evil.

Is your view, Democrat, that the Republicans would be good negotiating partners with whom you could compromise and reach consensus with if the GOP just gassed a few hundred thousand people to death???  Maybe if the Republicans started a nuclear war of Armageddon they’d finally be worthy of your negotiating???  Have you and your party become that morally toxic???  Because it appears that you have.  It appears that you are saying, “Yes!  Negotiate with mass-murdering psychopath Islamic jihadists!  But DON’T YOU DARE negotiate with those Republicans because they don’t like sodomy marriage and baby-murdering abortions!!!”

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without integrity, without honor and without conscience.  He is also the worst hypocrite I have ever seen in my life.  He is leading America to ruin day-by-day, month-by-month and year-by-year.  His core promises were ALL a pack of lies.

If he’s going to be the first president since Jimmy Carter in 1979 to directly negotiate with Iran, the least he could do is bring a little of that love for his terrorist ayatollah pals back home and negotiate with Republicans so we can finally get something done.

‘The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Let it be on YOUR sons and daughters’: The Fascist, Hypocrite Heart Of The Left

We’ve got a little situation in liberal-dominated journalism and liberal-dominated academia at the same time epitomized in these words:

#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.

— David Guth (@DWGuth)

There’s an analogous situation going on in Kenya right now, and let’s complete the analogy by altering the tragedy to put it in “NRA” terms.  The children of non-NRA members are being released; the children of NRA members are being killed execution style:

al-Shabaab at Kenya Mall “We only want to kill non-Muslims”

al-Shabaab gunman – ‘All Muslims leave… we only want to kill non-Muslims’: Gunmen massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they are Muslim.

One witness who was embroiled in the situation claimed that the gunmen told Muslims to stand up and leave and that only non-Muslims would be targeted when they opened fire at the upmarket mall of the Westlands district around midday.

At least two dozen people, wounded and dead, were wheeled out on stretchers and in shopping trolleys by security guards, while others were seen walking out of the building, clutching bloodied clothing around their injuries.

Locals and tourists who were out shopping on the sunny Saturday in Kenya ran screaming from the building and cars were left abandoned as attackers threw grenades and fired AK47s.

Over the course of an hour people streamed from the building, at least half a dozen covered in blood and clutching small children to them.

The Kenya Red Cross Society now says that 22 have been reported dead and at least 50 wounded.

Via Live Leak

The death toll is up to 68 as last I’ve heard reported.

Another title of the terrorist atrocity in Kenya can be re-phrased thus:

“If they found me, I’m the child of an NRA member, so I’m dead.”  Survivors reveal how gunman executed non-liberals…

And there are other similar attacks exemplifying David Guth’s liberal fascist hatred going on TODAY.  What was it Obama said about Christians in Pennsylvania who were clinging to their guns and their Bibles?  Why not just treat ’em all the same:

Angry and scared, Pakistan’s beleaguered Christian community has demanded proper protection from the government as the death toll from the attack on an historic Peshawar church reached 85.

As mourners continued to bury the dead from Sunday’s double suicide blast assault, Christians protested in cities across the country, blocking roads and burning tyres as they called on the authorities to act.

“People are so angry. They are asking for protection from the government,” said Sohail Johnson of the Sharing Life ministry in Lahore, who had travelled to Peshawar in the aftermath of the attack. “We all feel insecure in Pakistan. The law enforcement agencies and the government have failed us. We are not even able to celebrate our Sunday service for two or three hours.”

Hundreds of Christians had just left a service inside the All Saints Church and were gathering on the lawns outside for a free meal when two suicide bombers approached the crowds and detonated their devices. People were torn apart by the explosives, which are believed to have included ball bearings.

Oh, you don’t have to worry.  I mean, Obama promised that he’d won the war on terror and that al Qaeda was on the run and decimated and everything.  So I must just be making all of these murders up, I guess.

Getting back to Professor David Guth and his liberal hatred, I’ve said this many times before: the essence of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you take the hypocrite out of a liberal, he or she simply dematerializes altogether.

Liberals are people who define themselves as “tolerant” and define those who disagree with them as “intolerant.”  And then they tell you that it’s okay to be intolerant to intolerant people.  Here’s an example of such a quote in a liberal screed celebrating the death of Jerry Falwelll:

I’m intolerant toward intolerant people.  I’m also bigoted against bigots.  I see no contradiction in that.  There’s no requirement in my morality to give equal consideration to reprehensible positions.

Posted by: Amy | May 16, 2007 10:35 AM

That may sound reasonable to you.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is a game that ANYBODY can play.  All you have to be is an abject hypocrite and voilà: you’ve defined yourself as “tolerant” and anybody who doesn’t think you’re “tolerant” is ergo sum INTOLERANT.  And of course it is a good thing to be intolerant to intolerant people, so you can attack them and purge them and even kill them without mercy.

Mind you, liberals by way of the ACLU are the SAME people who forced Holocaust surviving Jews to “tolerate” a Nazi parade through their town of Skokie, Illinois.  They have no problem forcing OTHER people to be tolerant toward intolerant people.  Just like they have no problem forcing other people to pay higher taxes while they refuse to pay their own taxes.

So the Obama Department of Justice dictates that you must be OPENLY FOR gay marriage.  Why?  Because “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”  That’s why.  In Obama’s God damn America, there is no freedom to disagree, because 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality has been criminalized.  And it is a crime to have a conscience that in any way disagrees with Obama.  Even though even Obama disagreed with Obama just a few years ago in order to get himself elected.

It aint just in Kenya and in Pakistan where Christians are specifically targeted for not agreeing with the government, you see.

What can I say?  That was then, and this is now.  And now that Obama has all the guns – or at least is trying to GET all the guns – he gets to make all the new rules.

There is nothing new under the sun, the Bible tells us.  This has been done before, as I shall point out below: the Marxists did it, the Nazis did it, and now the new left is following the old left and doing all the same things.

I’ve done some thinking about how liberalism operates in the last few days.  Liberals are people who demand that America can’t be allowed to profile the actual terrorists who have committed the actual terrorist attacks – and thus we must create a giant bureaucracy that treats EVERYBODY like a terrorist in a totalitarian way.  Liberals are people who demand that the mentally ill who commit all the mass murder shooting sprees must not be singled out in any way – and thus we must treat EVERYBODY like a mass-murdering psycho and take everybody’s guns away and leave everybody defenseless apart from a giant totalitarian bureaucracy to protect all of us herd animals.  Liberals are people who demand that we can’t be allowed to hold anyone individually responsible for their incredibly poor and destructive life choices – and thus we must create a giant welfare bureaucracy to redistribute benefits to people who won’t work for them.

And all the while they are demonizing and slandering anybody who disagrees with them.

Tolerance historically referred to the practice of putting up with disagreeable behavior by other people because, while you disagreed with said behavior, you respected those people as being fellow human beings and recognized their right to be different.  Liberals got their foot in the door seizing advantage of that attitude.  But when they got inside the door, they proceeded to slam it shut on anybody who might disagree with THEM.  That was how liberals came to take enough power to proceed to systematically purge out nearly all the conservatives from academia and journalism in the first place.

It’s why Helen Thomas, one of the most lauded “journalists” in modern times, said:

I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

She was one of the “tolerant” ones, you see.  And the little fact that she was a rabid anti-Semite Jew hater is besides the point.  Because liberals are people who see the speck in your eye while ignoring the giant log stuck in their own eyes.

David Guth – as a journalism professor – is a member of not one, but THE TWO MOST INTOLERANT CAREER FIELDS in the world today.

We can examine how the Nazis allowed and even ENCOURAGED anything – and I mean ANYTHING – that undermined the old regime and its underlying value system, only to become hard-core reactionaries against anything that threatened their rule.  Allistair Hamilton, in his important work, The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, wrote:

“Fascism, the Fascism of the intellectuals above all, had its origins in sheer rebelliousness, in an anarchistic revolt directed against the established order” [p. xx].

As an example, the Nazis were every bit as determined to destroy the influence of Judeo-Christianity and its morality as the modern left and the Democrat Party is today.  And when they succeeded, those who sowed the wind reaped the same whirlwind that Americans are reaping now.  Nazi fascists were incredibly avant-garde in their pursuit of a new value system until the NAZIS became “the established order.”  And then they destroyed anyone and anything that threatened their “established order.”  And as a result, many thinkers and artists became casualties of the very ideology that they themselves had been completely instrumental in advancing (just as the leftist labor unions are learning they are casualties after working so hard to advance the socialist takeover of the American health care system).

Jonah Goldberg captured the reason behind this intellectual and ideological hypocrisy in these words:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.”

The modern left have created a society – following the tradition of their previous leftist Marxist and fascist intellectual ancestors – in which the people were treated as herd animals whose thoughts and actions were directed toward a common goal by a few who had absolute power to impose their will to power.  Everyone and everything is expendable in the pursuit of this government-owned collective and anything that threatens it will be ruthlessly attacked with all the means the government collective has at its disposal.

And if you disagree, well, you must either serve the collective or the blood as a result of pretty much anything that happens is on your hands and you – or at least your children in the warped mind of David Guth – should die.

That’s what liberalism did during the days of the French Revolution which swiftly degenerated into the reign of terror, and it’s what liberalism did in the days of Marxism which swiftly degenerated into Stalinism and Maoism, etc. etc.  And it’s what liberalism continues to do today.

And, of course, that was why the very first thing the Nazis did was to confiscate all the guns so only the regime had them.  Because he who has the might gets to make the rules.  And the American society founded upon the idea of individual liberty and the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defend that individual liberty don’t mesh with fascist takeovers.  So your gun has got to go.

As we speak, Barak Obama is out demonizing his Republican opponents as “playing politics” while the “politician-in-chief” implicitly declares himself incapable of such a sin as “playing politics.”  He says that the Republicans are evil for refusing to compromise when he himself refuses to compromise and literally called House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he was not going to negotiate even the slightest detail of anything with Republicans.

We are watching fundamental hypocrisy on such a vast scale that it is simply beyond unreal.

And to the extent that it works, well, the blood WILL be on our hands and on our children’s heads.

Postscript: A parent was arrested and sentenced to ten years for speaking out at a public school event where Obama’s Common Core was being shoved down their throats.  He said, “Don’t stand for this!”  Don’t be sheep!  Don’t be cattle!” as they hauled him away for trying to ask a few important questions.

According to the dictates of fascism, you ARE sheep, and yes you WILL sit there like cattle.  Or the stormtroopers will be coming to drag YOU away, too.

Postscript: In Überrliberal Chicago, the government is literally demanding the National Guard be called in to deal with the incredible violence by all the Democrat voters there.  Don’t think for a second that these liberal fascists will allow law-abiding citizens to protect their own children.

Crap like this doesn’t happen where people are allowed to defend themselves.  That’s why the gang bangers locate in areas where liberals have rendered them defenseless.

Ah, liberalism, where you can create an ocean-full of problems and then blame Republicans for the ensuing flood.

The Party Of Genuine Evil And The Destruction Of America: In 39 States, Democrat Welfare Pays Better Than A Secretary’s Job

If you are a Democrat, you despise religion, despise Judeo-Christianity, and despise Christian values and vote for these things to be criminalized.  If you are a Democrat, you are WORSE than a mass murderer.  Literally, you have participated in the murder of nine innocent human beings – totaling a death toll of over 55 million human lives – for every single Jew that Hitler had exterminated in the Holocaust.  If you are a Democrat, you are a celebrator of degenerate sodomy who demands the destruction of marriage and the destruction of the family.  If you are a Democrat, you oppose law enforcement and benignly smile as criminals oppress innocent – and thanks to your policies, completely helpless – citizens.

And if you are a Democrat, you have an unrelenting hostility toward the work ethic and seek the destruction of America in favor of the creation of a Marxist welfare State.  If you are a Democrat, you read the Cloward and Piven article – detailing a plot by the left to overwhelm the social support structures of the United States as a means to implode the United States so that our free “one nation, under God” could be replaced by communism or something even worse (and DON’T think that strategy isn’t alive and well today in the hearts and minds of the left).

Welfare pays.  Thanks to Obama, thanks to the Democrat Party, welfare pays well.

It’s WORK that doesn’t pay anymore.  And if you have a job and pay your taxes, you are a sucker.

One day every single Democrat will stand before a just and holy God as fire and smoke pour out of the chariot wheels of His increasing wrath and they will have to give an answer for their murderous, depraved lives and what they did with them.

Welfare now – in the age of Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America – pays more than the minimum wage in 35 states.

Amazingly, given the fact that welfare benefits average MORE THAN $15 an hour in non-taxable income, welfare pays better than a job that “pays” $21 an hour in the private sector.  And that doesn’t, by the way, include the cost of transportation to that job or the cost of purchasing clothes suitable for a job.

Which is why in 39 states, welfare “pays” better than the starting salary of a secretary:

The authors found that in 11 states, “welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher [in those states]. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.” — Wall Street Journal, “Work or Welfare: What Pays More?”, August 19, 2013

It’s why in liberal Democrat New York City, welfare “pays” better than a starting teacher’s salary.

Hell, in 47 states, according to Cato, welfare “pays” better than what a janitor “earns.”  Which is why so many liberal welfare parasites sneer at the foolish unwashed janitor who is a sucker because unlike them, he is honest and actually works for his check.

This “one nation, under Obama” is doomed.  It’s too late.  We’re finished.  And we DESERVE to be finished.

Our actual debt now exceeds $200 trillion.  And what the Fed did two days ago, keeping up their “QE Forever” because Obama has so gutted the economy that we can’t ever get away from running the money printing presses day and night forever guarantee our well-deserved destruction.

Liar Obama Demonizes GOP For Using Debt Ceiling JUST LIKE HE USED IT When He Was A Senator

Quote from September 18, 2013:

“You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling being used to extort a president … and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and have nothing to do with the debt,” Obama said in speech to the Business Roundtable, a nonpartisan association of top American CEOs.

That’s very interesting, since:

Obama Sidesteps Question on Not Raising Debt Ceiling as a Senator
Thursday, 24 Jan 2013 11:22 PM By Todd Beamon

President Barack Obama at his news conference Monday on the debt ceiling  sidestepped a reporter’s question on why he voted against raising the nation’s  borrowing limit when he was an Illinois senator but now expected Congress to do  so.

CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett asked Obama about a  “new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict  with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt  ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling.”

In his 339-word  response, according to a transcript from the Washington Post, Obama never  addressed his voting history on the issue — beginning, instead, with “getting  votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult — and budgets in this town are  always difficult.”

He then mentioned how, last year, “certain groups in  Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of  defaulting.”

Obama added: “We have never seen the debt ceiling used in  this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we  get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn’t happened.”

And he  underscored how the GOP was doing the same thing again with the impending talks.  “But what you’ve never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at  least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts,  that we will raise the deficit — or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on  spending cuts.”

The president then reiterated his pledge that the  nation’s credit rating would not be held hostage to such demands.

“What  we’re not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for  spending that we’ve already incurred, that our two options are, we’re either  going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt  seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we’re  going to blow up the economy. We’re not going to do that.”

But as for  Obama’s own history on voting against raising the debt ceiling, not a word.

Note that this pathologically dishonest man has been using the same damn lie over and over and over all year long.

Here are the facts against this incredibly dishonest liar:

While President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity,” that’s not the position the president has held in the past.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

Which is another way of saying that Barack Obama NEVER voted FOR raising the debt ceiling when George W. Bush was president.  Not even ONCE.

But Barack Obama is that particularly demonic species of hypocrite who says over and over again on issue after issue, “What was fascist for thee is never fascist for me.”

If in fact it is wrong to note vote for increasing the debt ceiling, Barack Obama needs to resign in disgrace.  Because he NEVER did it and in fact actively worked against raising the debt ceiling when someone in the other party was president.  If it wasn’t wrong when Obama did it, it most certainly isn’t so godawful terrible for Republicans to do the same thing Obama did now.  Unless you’re a true hypocrite – which liberals invariably are.

Barack Obama is the WORST kind of hyper-partisan ideologue.  Because he is a hypocrite without shame, without integrity and without honor.

A couple of days ago, while some dozen Americans were still lying dead at the crime scene after a psycho’s murderous rampage less than two miles away, Barack Obama gave a viciously partisan speech.  The Christian Post summarized the sheer twisted ridiculousness that is Obama:

President Barack Obama was criticized for delivering a highly partisan Monday speech on the economy while the nation was gripped by a shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., that left 12 dead. His speech had two main points that appear contradictory: (1) The economy is doing well. And, (2) It is the Republican’s fault that the economy is not doing well.

I would ask you to keep in mind that this is really nothing more than yet another of Obama’s countless “pivots” as he tries to distract Americans away from his blatant incompetent failure over the Syria fiasco.  That said, Obama is the kind of hyper-partisan ideologue demagogue who demonizes the other party for being “political” and being “divisive” when HE IS THE MOST DIVISIVE POLITICIAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED.

If in fact the Republican Party acts in ANY way like Obama has acted throughout his political career and throughout his presidency, they will try to attack Obama and stop him in absolutely every single thing he tries to do.  And they will absolutely refuse to negotiate just as Obama has absolutely refused to negotiate.  They will also utterly and completely contradict themselves while being just as utterly and completely petty.

The only difference is that they don’t have the adoring fascist media propaganda to protect them and spin the news to frame the narrative the way Obama does.

Apparently it’s wrong to act like Obama.  Except whenever Obama acts like Obama.

The Man Obama Says We Must Trust Says Obama’s Secretary Of State Is A ‘Liar.’ Don’t Trust Putin Or Demand Kerry RESIGN (Or BOTH)

Obama gave an interesting speech (for which he was roundly criticized by BOTH sides for being a hyper-partisan ideologue demagogue at the very moment that Americans were lying dead on the scene less than 2 miles away in the wake of a mass shooting).  Obama gives lip service to the ongoing crisis in Syria, and then immediately said the following:

I want to be clear though that, even as we’ve dealt with the situation in Syria, we’ve continued to focus on my number one priority since the day I took office

This came off the text of the prepared speech as Obama delivered it on his teleprompter.  And note, it does NOT say, “even as we’ve been dealing with the situation in Syria,” in the present active sense, but rather, “even as we’ve dealt.”  Past tense.  Done.  Over.  Language means something, even when it comes from the “Just words” president.  Obama has turned Syria and pretty much the entire Middle East over to Vladimir Putin following his “red line” debacle and he’s shaking the dust off his hands.  It’s an embarrassment, and Obama brushes embarrassments under the rug and ignores them (think “Benghazi”).

Obama has been all over the damn board on Syria.  First he gave his “red line” threat.  Then Syria crossed that line FOURTEEN TIMES.  Then Obama said he was going to attack Syria.  And he said he didn’t need Congress to authorize it (even though the dishonest hypocrite said the exact opposite about the authority of the man who held the SAME office before him).  Then he realized that the rest of the world pretty much thought he was an incompetent disgrace and that they couldn’t trust him to do anything, let alone do it right.  So our great ally England backed out.  And Obama’s “international community” consisted of Obama and whatever demons that inhabit his soul.  So, standing with his feet planted firmly in midair, Obama wilted like a coward.  And then the man who said he didn’t need Congress suddenly decided he DID need Congress to cover his naked scrawny political back.  What he was really hoping for was that Republicans would vote against a strike on Syria and he could politically demonize them for it.  But an interesting thing happened: DEMOCRATS were even MORE opposed to it.  And so having virtually no chance of winning a vote in Congress – and even worse yet, having nobody but himself to blame for his appalling incompetence – he said in the speech that he had arranged to demand Congress vote for his strike to NOT vote for his strike.  Yet another crazy U-turn in a pretzel foreign policy that leaves allies not knowing what Obama will do or not do next and therefore losing all trust in America even as it emboldens enemies and vastly increases the likelihood that they will misjudge whatever the hell Obama’s intentions actually are.  As even the Los Angeles Times now says.

After that, John Kerry uttered an offhanded remark that even the Überliberal The Atlantic called “John Kerry’s gaffe Heard Round The world.”  Russia – seeing Obama’s weakness and desperation along with their OWN opening to impose their will on a situation Obama had clearly completely lost control of – pounced on it.  And Obama, caring far more about his skinny political neck than he ever has about American foreign policy or American prestige, was only too happy to let Russia take over.  So, no need for Syria to cringe in terror over Obama’s “unbelievably small” strike on them, after all.  No need to fear now, world, because Russia stepped in and saved the human race from Obama’s “unbelievably small” attack.

Russia and Putin say they’ll work toward disarming Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.  You know, the weapons that Syria moved to at least fifty different locations even as this deal to take control over them was being discussed.  Other than the fact that there is almost no way in hell that inspectors can even possibly pull this trick off, and the whole “deal” is a sick joke, we’ve got the bigger problem that Obama has now guaranteed that Bashar al-Assad will remain in power.  Because Russia will see to that and because Obama has just made Assad a PARTNER in the chemical weapons business.  If Assad is out of power, he can’t turn over the weapons, and therefore Obama must see to it that he helps Russia keep Assad in power.

So now we’ve got Bashar al-Assad and his patron Vladimir Putin both saying, “You can trust us.”  And Obama DOES trust them.  Implicitly.  Which is why he’s saying, “Now that we’ve dealt with the situation in Syria.”  Because would Russia ever lie to us???

Let’s call this what it is: an abject disgrace.  America needed a quarterback, and tragically all we’ve had the last five years and all we’ll have for the next three years is a PUNTER who sadly talks a good game but then can’t kick the damn ball.

If you want the best assessment of Obama’s policy in Syria in the fewest words, here it is:

“It seems to me like Putin just put a hook and a line in the water and the President grabbed it, swallowed it and now Putin is just going to sit there, play with him and jerk that around.  All that is happening on the world stage and we are just looking weaker and weaker.” — Congressman Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee

All that having been said, let’s revisit this exchange between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Obama and his Stooge of State John Kerry:

Speaking to his human rights council, Mr Putin recalled watching a congressional debate where Mr Kerry was asked about al-Qaeda. Mr Putin said he had denied that it was operating in Syria, even though he was aware of the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group.

Mr Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans) and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

That was on September 4.

Who could have known that Obama would zig-zag on his crazy and incoherent foreign policy to such an extent that a matter of days later the very same man who claimed that the Secretary of State of the United States of America was a liar would be our most trusted figure to help Obama out of the Syria hellhole his idiotic rhetoric got him into?

I mean, not me.  I would have thought that even Obama was smart enough not to trust Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad to fix Syria for us.  But nope.

I’ve written at some length about John Kerry and what an abject lying disgrace that man IS and has been (see here  and here and here and here).

Basically, John Kerry is a man who used his position as an officer to fraudulently put himself in for every medal under the sun – only to treat those medals with the same contempt that he displayed when he applied for them in the first place when he threw them over a fence during an “I hate America” protest; he is a man who turned against his fellow soldiers, Marines and sailors and lied about atrocities he claimed he had witnessed but later acknowledged he had NOT witnessed (because if he’d witnessed them HE would have been guilty of the same war crimes he was trying to frame others for).  He was a man who kicked America right in the balls when it was down.

And that was BEFORE he called the man who is now guilty of murdering more than 120,000 of his own people “my dear friend.”

And now he’s helping Obama and Putin kick America in the balls again.

If we can trust Vladimir Putin to disarm Syria, then we cannot trust John Kerry.  Because the man we trust says John Kerry is a liar who KNOWS he’s a liar.

Personally, it is amazing: Obama trusts liars and ONLY trust liars to advance his foreign policy and pretty much every other policy.

America is a sick, dying land.  Because as Obama’s reverend prophetically said, it is “God DAMNED America.”

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

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.

Realize That Obama Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America Into A Failed Marxist State. Just Ask Poor People And Liberals

Quick test.  Who said this:

“The economy is doing poorly. Everything is expensive. With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

Wrong, Democrat.  It was NOT Karl Rove or some über right wing nutjob who only said this because he hates Obama (and that because he’s “racist”).  Nope.  It was a 34-year-old Hispanic father named Francisco Zuniga at an SEIU-sponsored protest event.  Who would have thought that out of the mouths of leftist whiners could drool wisdom???

This is the fifth year of the Age of Obama.  It is the fifth freaking year of a failed president whose only talent is blaming others for his massive failures.

Let’s break those words from Zuniga down:

“The economy is doing poorly.”

That is something that literally every single person who is not a demon-possessed liar and hypocrite without shame (i.e. a Democrat) knows as a fact.  Obama promised the world; he has delivered economic manure.

What else does Zuniga say?

“Everything is expensive.”

Well, thanks for noticing that little factoid, Francisco.  I’ve written ad nauseum about the Obama Federal Reserve policies that were necessary to “fund” Obama’s reckless and morally and fiscally insane federal spending.  We’ve had Quantitative Easing, we’ve had QE2, we’ve had Operation Twist, we’ve had QE3, and now we’re at “QE Forever.”  And these policies have basically arbitrarily added zeroes to the money supply computers.  As of March of this year, Obama’s chief Fedthug had added over $2 trillion to the money supply – a beyond insane 240 percent increase.

It’s actually probably a lot more than that “mere” 240 percent increase.  CNN Money says that rather than $2 trillion, it’s actually been at least $2.5 trillion.  And as Democrat Bernie Saunders notes, it’s actually an awful lot more than that, given the AT LEAST $16 trillion in “secret loans” that had taken place under Obama’s Federal Reserve.  I mean, holy hell, where did all this cash come from?  From Never-Never Land, that’s where.

Let me put it this way: when Obama took office from George W. Bush, the Federal Reserve balance sheet was $800 billion; it is now $3,601,523 BILLION under Barack Obama.

In an article I wrote three full years ago:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs. And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation. Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate. Why? Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued. There’s simply no way it can’t be. If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire. The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems. If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency. And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins. Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

THAT is why we haven’t yet experienced truly catastrophic hyperinflation YET.  But the moment we ever actually start to get out of the economic hellhole Obama has dug us into, we will see inflation at levels that will shock and dismay you.  You mark my words.  And what we’ve now learned is that having become hooked on the hardcore narcotic known as QE crack, we can’t get off of it – because if we try the stock market will crash and people will start to panic.

Who is actually going to pay for all that money Obama invented?  I pointed out the sad reality a year ago:

Nobody’s talking about what that massive devaluation of our currency is going to ultimately cost us.  Nobody is talking about the fact that the people who are going to pay the highest tax as a result of this action – and it IS a regressive tax – will be retirees who will see the value of their savings drop even as they look at interest rates and pension funds that pay them nothing.  Retirees are not in a position to snort the crack of quantitative easing; they depend mostly on bonds.  And the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have decided to stab the bond market  that older investors necessarily depend upon in the heart to artificially inflate the stock market.  Until they have to do it again.  And again.  And of course pretty soon again and again after that.

Commodities like oil and food – which conveniently are being ignored as proof positive that we are already seeing MASSIVE inflation – will continue to go up and up and up (see here and here and here for examples).   The fact of the matter is that prices are rising dramatically and HAVE BEEN rising dramatically, and what just happened today will sure that they CONTINUE to rise dramatically.  And everybody but Obama and the Federal Reserve know it.

And everything I predicted in that article and one I wrote back in 2011 turned out to be right.  Except I used the term “QE 4” and Obama’s economic wizards called it “QE Forever” instead.  And all the way back in 2010 I said it would fail, as it HAS failed.  You need to understand: as I pointed out in May 2011, quantitative easing is the economic equivalent of feeding a diabetic lots of sugar.  It is incredibly unhealthy and will ultimately kill the patient, but once you start feeding that sugar you can’t stop or the patient will crash and die for sure, just as Wall Street will crash and die if Obama stops giving them free sugar candy money.

Let me add another group of people to retirees I described above, Francisco: THE POOR.  Because most of the poor are on fixed incomes every bit as much as retirees are.  And their low wages, their welfare and their food stamps just aint going to keep up with the inflation that has resulted from printing money.  When you print money out of thin air, and you’ve got trillions more dollars chasing the same amount of finite resources, the value of those dollars goes down, down, DOWN.

It turns out that “free money” isn’t really so damn free, after all.

Commodities such as food and fuel are skyrocketing – especially gas as Obama’s failed Middle East policy rears its ugly head in Syria (although, mind you, Obama’s gas prices have been shockingly high all along) – and so, yeah, Francisco, “everything is getting more expensive.”

We’re to the point where we will soon be spending more money in interest to service our psychotic debt than we will on anything else.  By the next decade – and keep in mind we’re nearly half way there NOW – we will be spending the equivalent of the 2009 $862 billion Obama stimulus EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  Only those payments will be going to China while they mockingly laugh at our stupidity that made us their debt slaves.

You aint seen nothing yet, Francisco.  Thanks to Obama, your hell is going to get a lot more hellish.

What else did Francisco tell us?  He told us that Obama’s economy was crappy and thanks to Obama’s moral and fiscal idiocy, everything was more expensive now due to inflation.  What else did he say?

“With high taxes, we’re not going to be able to pay rent.”

I don’t need to point out which party and which failed president of which damn party is behind all those taxes, of course.

Let’s try to put this in terms that Francisco will understand if he doesn’t already: who owns your house you’re paying that rent on?  And what do you think happens when liberal demagogues “tax the rich”???  Here’s what will happen: when Obama and Democrats viciously tax “the rich” who own that house you rent, what’s that high-taxed owner going to do?  He’s going to raise your damn rent, THAT’S what he’s going to do.  And if you don’t like paying more in rent, you’d better show up with a huge mob of likeminded enraged sufferers with pitchforks and torches to drive Obama out of Washington before he creates another monster and kills again.

But you won’t, will you?

I want you to consider something about Obama’s “housing recovery” within Obama’s “economic recovery.”  They’re both radically and wildly FAILED.  I want you to consider, Mr. Zuniga, the ramifications of the fact that SIXTY PERCENT OF HOMES SOLD IN 2013 WENT TO CASH BUYERS.  Before I point out what that means, let me first point out how connected it is with the radically failed Obama Fed policies that have kept the money printing presses going night and day and day and night:

USA: 60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers
Posted on August 16, 2013 by Stacy Herbert

Stacy Summary: This is what interest rate apartheid looks like.

USA:  60 percent of homes sold in 2013 went to all cash buyers

There was an odd sort of myth floating around the market that the cash buyer  crowd was somehow a tiny portion of the market, like a drop of water in the vast  ocean of home buying.  This delusional dream played into the fantasy that this  housing market was naturally rising because of overall household demand when in  reality, it is being driven by investors leveraging the artificial low rates  created by the Fed.  The flood of money from Wall Street has been large.  Even  anecdotally, it was apparent that cash buyers were driving the market given that  housing is a margin driven market.  That is, at any given time only a small  portion of all homes are on the market for sale.  However, an analysis by  non-other than Goldman Sachs shows that 60 percent of all 2013 home sales are  being driven by cash buyers.  That is, the middle class is largely being pushed  out of this game and has become the minority in this real estate market.

You see, Mr. Zuniga, these rich people are taking advantage of the crony capitalism (fascism) of Obama that has helped the elite investor class at the expense of the poor.  They’re snapping up the homes that YOU’RE going to rent.  And then they’re socking you with higher and higher rents.  Meanwhile, you’ve got virtually no change to ever own a home thanks to Obama.  The American dream is dead meat.  And did I mention this is the FIFTH year of the Age of Obama???  But it’s all Bush’s fault, much the way in the Big Brother society of 1984 it was all “Emmanuel Goldstein’s” fault.

Meanwhile, Mr. Zuniga, it’s getting harder and harder for you to even GET a job in Obama’s wildly failed economy.  The jobless rate just went down to 7.4%.  Hip-hip-hooray.  Only it did so as still MORE of the decimated American working class were destroyed into hopelessness at EVER finding a job.

There is an incredibly significant labor measure called the “labor participation rate.”  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB.

There’s an article I wrote a little over a year ago that you ought to consider.  I detailed then the catastrophic plunge in the rate of Americans who actually have a job in the miserably failed Obama economy during and throughout the Obama regime.  At that time, it was the worst it had been in thirty years.  And I noted how each year under Obama’s failed Marxist State, it had just gotten worse and worse.  As an example, I recorded that in November 2010 – and note this AFTER the so-called “recovery” – the labor participation rate was the worst it had been in 25 years.  Which is to say far, FAR worse than anything Bush had ever done, you Democrat ideologues.  The next year, by August 2011, it was the worst in 27 years.  And by May of 2012, it was the worst due to Obama in 31 years.

Here we are, a year or so later, and how have things gone?  Just as I told you they would go under this failed president’s failed leadership and failed ideology: the labor participation rate is now the worst in 35 years.

And the reliably überliberal Los Angeles Times was forced to acknowledge it in these terms:

Although the unemployment rate ticked down to 7.3% last month — the lowest level since December 2008 — it fell largely for the wrong reason. More discouraged Americans gave up looking for work as the percentage of the population in the labor force dropped for the third consecutive month to its worst point in 35 years.

The unemployment rate has been dropping – which has been as good for Obama politically as it has been catastrophic for the rest of America economically.  I predicted a year and a half ago:

At the rate we’re going in Obama’s God damn America, we will have zero percent unemployment and nobody will actually have a damn job.

And, yep, that’s the way we’re headed.

Democrats are demon-possessed bureaucrats.  That’s where they get their name from.  They claim that the labor participation rate is falling as older baby boomers retire.  But that is a LIE FROM HELL.  As an example, it is YOUNG ADULTS who are suffering the most due to Obamanomics.  People cannot find a job who need to work.

And because of ObamaCare, full-time jobs have been “fundamentally transformed” by Obama into part-time jobs with no health benefits.

And if you don’t believe me, again, just ask liberals.  A letter signed by the heads of the Teamsters, the UFCW and UNITE-HERE have this to say about Obama’s impact on workers and the hours they get to work:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them.  Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

The letter from these liberal unions points out the obvious fact that Democrats refuse to acknowledge about their demonic ObamaCare takeover of healthcare:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.


Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under
the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours
unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

You want to know who is killing your dreams, Mr. Zuniga?  Democrats.

But you keep voting for them anyway, because you prefer lies and more socialism and more welfare and then more lies and still more socialism and still more welfare, to the truth that would set you free if you were willing to finally act like a man and be determined to stand up on your own two feet and demand an economic system that enables you to do that.

You’re siding with the wrong people, the wrong party, the wrong political philosophy.  You’re siding with the people who keep HURTING you.  As you’d understand if you stopped and thought about your own words.

You’re one of those people who still idiotically believes that when Obama “gives” you “free stuff,” it’s actually FREE.  Let me pop your bubble, Francisco: when ObamaCare taxes insurance companies, taxes drugs, taxes medical devices, and mandates (that means forces) the health industry to pay for all of these “free” benefits such as free birth control and 26-year-olds staying on mom and dad’s health plan, the cost of medical care rises FOR EVERYBODY.  And at the same time the quality of health care goes up for EVERYBODY.

And that has had the result that people are getting kicked off health plans rather than all the lies Obama promised.

You don’t understand that everything you and your Democrats want to do – such as force businesses to raise the minimum wage whether they can afford to do so or not, whether they will cut their work forces or not, whether they will be forced to raise prices (which will reduce demand and thus reduce jobs) on poor people who buy from them or not – undermines the economy and hurts the very poor people Democrats dishonestly claim to be trying to help.  Back in 2009, I predicted that Obamanomics with its totalitarian dictate on employers to pay higher wages would be a holocaust for minimum wage workers.  And I was right.  And I just keep being more and more right as Obama’s devastating and disastrous impact on the economy spreads like the cancer that it is.

In order for the economy to create jobs, and create enough jobs to get America out of the hellhole Obama put it in, the government needs to step off employers’ throats.  Quit forcing them to do stuff they can’t afford to do and cover stuff they can’t afford to cover.  Cut their taxes so they have an actual INCENTIVE to create jobs.  And for that matter cut the damn welfare incentive so that working-age adults who ought to be ashamed of themselves if they were capable of that virtue have an actual incentive to start working.

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

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?

Look Around At The Brave New World Obama Has Led Us Into

I wrote this article – which cited another prophetic article – way back in 2008.  Let’s consider it again and see if we on the right were right, indeed:

Left Decries America, Ignore Global Evil Of Leftist Regimes

There are more slaves today than at any time in history. Yet blacks in America ignore that tragic reality and instead fiercely decry this country over its part in an institution that was ended – at great expense to whites – nearly 150 years ago. And even though it is Islam and Muslim countries that are the greatest perpetrators of black slavery on the planet, it is fashionable today to be black and Muslim. Barack Obama’s former pastor gave all kinds of accolades to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakan, and Obama himself attended Farrakan’s so-called “Million Man March.”

The people who so stridently blamed America for attacking Iraq stand silently – or even worse yet, actually defend – the Russian attack of Georgia.

These are just a couple of examples of the leftists in America and the world who routinely demonize the United States while pointedly turning their backs on shocking acts of evil being perpetrated by leftist regimes around the world.

As writer Victor Davis Hanson points out, it is forgotten that America is the model, not the villain. And when the United States wearies of the constant attacks and ceases to stand up for freedom in the world, you will see a reawakening of evil such as the world hasn’t witnessed since the 1930s.

I came across this article by Hanson. It deserves a wide reading:

August 19, 2008 Brave Old World by Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

“Citizens of the world” were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new “Planet Earth,” which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America’s immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia’s democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant “No blood for oil” about Iraq’s petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China’s sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

Keep in mind that Obama became president by agreeing with our enemies and demonizing George W. Bush for projecting American power and influence.  He came to office swearing he would undo the sweeping U.S. intelligence capabilities and he – unlike Bush – would get authority from the United Nations rather than engage in unilateral actions.  He came into office as the poster boy for everything that Victor Davis Hanson described as the evil that would result from America being weakened and deposed as the leader of the world.

And where do things stand now in this the fifth year of Obama?

120,000 people murdered like dogs in Syria.  The blatant use – in fact the blatant use FOURTEEN TIMES – of wmd by that regime.  The “Arab Spring” that Obama took credit for (and please see my piece here) turned into a bloody disastrous hellhole.  And Obama helped create that terrible disaster by 1) undermining U.S. ally Mubarak in Egypt by training and funding “community activist” rebel leaders and 2) so abusing the U.S. dollar that the countries that rose up in the euphemistically named “Arab Spring” – whose currencies were backed by the U.S. dollar and were therefore vulnerable to Obama’s fraud and failure – broke out in what amounted to FOOD RIOTS.

6.5 MILLION people have fled as refugees from this liberal-titled and hailed “Arab Spring” that Obama bequeathed the world.

As I’ve pointed out, the whole damn world is erupting under Obama’s failed regime.  He has emboldened our enemies as no American president EVER has and he has in the same disastrous manner alienated all of our friends.  Such that George W. Bush was able to assemble a coalition of 48 countries who were willing to follow American leadership and put boots on the damn ground while Barack Obama can’t even find one friend in all the world to lob a few cruise missiles into Syria.

I’d say check, check, check and check some more.

As for Syria and Obama’s suddenly feeling his testicles, let’s point out the obvious fact: if Zero hadn’t stupidly drawn his “red line,” does anybody seriously think that Obama would have been so urgently pleading with the world to please bail out his failed credibility by demanding a military action against Syria???

Combine that global disgrace with the fact that Obama has singlehandedly spent more money and added more trillions of dollars to our debt that will require becoming debt slaves to our enemies (that’s YOU, China) than every single president up to George W. Bush COMBINED.  It is difficult to answer the question whether Obama has been a bigger disaster in foreign policy or domestic policy because he has been an abject disaster in both and because each contributes to the disaster of the other.  Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a “new normal” of high real unemployment, low growth and no opportunity.  Obama has destroyed millions of jobs such that the labor participation rate is the worst since before Reagan came along to bring America back to power after Carter nearly destroyed her.  Only this time, American will very likely never rise again after this disgrace of a presidency takes its toll.  Obama has “fundamentally transformed America,” and that means his “new normal.”

The Obama administration has demolished American intelligence by being the worst regime in the history of the nation with its constant leaks that benefitted Obama (and see here) and that Obama incompetently failed to prevent.

At the same time that Obama has made American national security massively weaker, he has expanded the role of the fascist State in a manner we’ve rarely ever seen in American history.

We are not merely a nation in decline; we are a nation in stunning decline.

American leadership and American prestige has been annihilated under this failed presidency.  And when the world rises up in chaos and violence – just as Victor Davis Hanson predicted – please remember to hold Barack Obama personally responsible.