‘They’ Underestimated The Threat Of ISIS: Our Liar-in-Chief’s Avoidance Of Personal Responsibility Is Pathological. And Demonic.

You voted for this meltdown in the Middle East, and now you’re going to get it.

It’s coming here, of course.  Just this week, an African-American criminal who decided to convert to Islam when he learned that he could be every bit as wicked as he’d ever been AND be “religious” beheaded a woman and attempted to kill and behead another woman.  Alton Nolan had changed his name to Jah’Keem Yisrael, had a Facebook page that screamed jihad and the beheading of infidels, and was fired from his job “after he repeatedly threatened to kill female co-workers if they did not ‘conform to his version of Islam.’”  Oh, and he had a picture on his Facebook page of himself standing in front of a mosque giving the ISIS hand signal.  You know, all before initiating the very first beheading of an American on U.S. soil in the name of Islam in our nation’s history.  But what the hey, nothin’ to see here, folks.  And Obama and his thugracracy is going to call it “workplace violence” much the same way they did when a Muslim Major who had been in contact with al Qaeda murdered 13 soldiers and one unborn baby and wounded thirty others while screaming “Allahu Akbar” and carrying his “soldier of Allah” business cards.

We find that the FBI did exactly the political will of their messiah Obama.  Just like they’re doing with the IRS now and just like what they did with Benghazi.  After Major Hasan did his “Allahu Akbar” shoot-em-up terrorist trick, we learned that the FBI had ALL KINDS of warnings about this terrorist murderer.  But in their political correctness they utterly failed to understand the role of Islam in terrorism and failed to act on the evidence they had when they had a chance to do so.  Because that’s the damn way Obama wants it and if you belong to a union – i.e. if you work for the damn federal government – you do your thug chief’s thug bidding.

In reality, we have had TWENTY domestic terrorist attacks since Obama took office.  I don’t believe ANY of them have been acknowledged by our liar-in-chief for what they have been.

Get used to getting beheaded, America: because there’s already been a different man arrested in a different “beheading” incident just in Oklahoma.

Liberals will be thrilled: because the people that the rabid terrorists most want to murder are the ones that liberals also most want to murder: Christians and people who believe in Judeo-Christian morality.

My God, we ought to redefine the 9/11/2001 terror attack as an act of workplace violence.  I mean, after all, all the 3,000 people who died were at their workplace, right?  And it was violent, wasn’t it?  I mean, just like what we always called the terrorist bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma back in 1995.  The victims were at THEIR workplace and it was violent too.  So we’ve never actually HAD a terrorist attack in America.

All we need is Obama’s lies and we can completely redefine the whole damn universe if we want to.  And all you have to be is a pathologically dishonest fool and “truth” is a rubber thing that can be bended and twisted into any shape you like.

The Benghazi attack exposed Obama’s lie that he had decimated al Qaeda and basically won the war on terror.  So what did our pathological liar-in-chief do?  He falsely claimed a video was responsible.  Because who could possibly have known that terrorists would choose “9/11” as the date for a terrorist attack?  And how could months of specific warnings and pleading after pleading after pleading by the soon-to-be-murdered ambassador for more security be adequate to either get our Americans out of there or at least give them some security???

So Obama was re-elected for manufacturing a completely false and dishonest story about a “spontaneous mob protest” over a youtube video getting out of control rather than the pre-planned, carefully coordinated and expertly conducted terrorist attack that it was.

Re-elect Obama.  He won the war on terror.  He said so.  He promised if you like your national security, you can keep your national security.  And we all know Obama would never lie to you.

The dishonesty of this administration, the willingness to put the lives of the American people at risk for no other reason than Obama’s political expediency, is mindboggling.

The man is utterly and appallingly wicked.  he has no decency, integrity, or virtue whatsoever.  He brazenly lies without shame or honor.

Obama is doing the same deceitful thing yet again as he dishonestly references “the Khorosan Group,” which for the official record is CORE AL QAEDA.  Obama lied to you, America.  He claimed as his ploy to get re-elected that he had won a war that in fact he had surrendered from and walked away from and abandoned.

And everything and everyone that exposes the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar and the worst kind of cynical, posturing political opportunist just has to get thrown under the bus.

Obama: “They” Underestimated ISIS
Doug Mataconis   ·   Monday, September 29, 2014

Last night on 60 Minutes President Obama said that the United States had “underestimated” the threat posted by ISIS/ISIL in the past and that the full scope of the threat the organization poses until very recently when it became to overrun the Iraqi Army and establish something resembling a state:

WASHINGTON — President Obama acknowledged in an interview broadcast on Sunday that the United States had underestimated the rise of the Islamic State militant group, which has seized control of a broad swath of territory in the Middle East, and had placed too much trust in the Iraqi military, allowing the region to become “ground zero for jihadists around the world.”

Reflecting on how a president who wanted to disentangle the United States from wars in the Middle East ended up redeploying to Iraq and last week expanding air operations into Syria, Mr. Obama pointed to assessments by the intelligence agencies that said they were surprised by the rapid advances made in both countries by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Mr. Obama said on “60 Minutes,” the CBS News program, referring to James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. Mr. Obama added that the agencies had overestimated the ability and will of the Iraqi Army to fight such Sunni extremists. “That’s true. That’s absolutely true,” he said.

In citing Mr. Clapper, Mr. Obama made no mention of any misjudgment he may have made himself. Critics have repeatedly pointed to his comment last winter characterizing groups like the Islamic State as a “JV team” compared with the original Al Qaeda.

But he rebutted critics who say his refusal to intervene more directly in the Syrian civil war and his decision to pull all American troops out of Iraq in 2011 had created conditions that allowed the rise of the Islamic State. Instead, he pointed a finger at Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, until recently the prime minister of Iraq. “When we left, we had left them a democracy that was intact, a military that was well equipped and the ability then to chart their own course,” Mr. Obama said. “And that opportunity was squandered over the course of five years or so because the prime minister, Maliki, was much more interested in consolidating his Shia base.”

By contrast, he praised Mr. Maliki’s newly installed successor, Haider al-Abadi, whom he met in New York last week, for assembling a more inclusive government that may undercut Sunni support for the Islamic State. Mr. Abadi “so far at least has sent all the right signals,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t do this for them.”

But he was measured in that assessment, saying there had been “some progress” by the new Baghdad government. “I wouldn’t say great yet,” he said.

Mr. Obama conceded that his strategy would be less likely to succeed in Syria, where he is working at odds with the government rather than in tandem. Mr. Obama has called for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to step down, but now the two share an enemy in the Islamic State. The United States’ plan relies on trying to build up a separate rebel force that can take on both Mr. Assad’s government and the Islamic State, but Mr. Obama dismissed as “mythology” the notion that he should have done that two years ago.

The President’s comments are being perceived by made observers and analysts as an effort shift blame in the argument over who may have been responsible for not being on top of the situation in the Middle East, and in some sense to the through the intelligence community under the bus, specifically by referencing statements by Director National Intelligence James Clapper from last week. In those statements, Clapper did say that he had underestimated the fighting ability of ISIS fighters and, in tern, overestimated the will to fight of the Iraqi Army. That, however, is a far way from saying that the intelligence community didn’t properly assess what was going on in Syria and Iraq before this summer, and Eli Lake reports that the President’s remarks are already receiving some push back:

Reached by The Daily Beast after Obama’s interview aired, one former senior Pentagon official who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq was flabbergasted. “Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” the former official said.

(…)

Still, other senior intelligence officials have been warning about ISIS for months. In prepared testimony before the annual House and Senate intelligence committees’ threat hearings in January and February, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the recently departed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the group would likely make a grab for land before the end of the year. ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014.” Of course, the prediction wasn’t exactly hard to make. By then, Flynn noted, ISIS had taken the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, and the demonstrated an “ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria.”

The ability of ISIS to hold that territory will depend on its “resources, local support, as well as the responses of [Iraqi security forces] and other opposition groups in Syria,” Flynn added. He noted that while many Sunnis likely opposed ISIS, “some Sunni tribes and insurgent groups appear willing to work tactically with [ISIS] as they share common anti-government goals.”

Flynn was not alone. Clapper himself in that hearing warned that the three most effective jihadist groups in Syria—one of which he said was ISIS—presented a threat as a magnet for attracting foreign fighters. John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, said he thought both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s formal franchise in Syria, presented a threat to launch external operations against the West.

It’s worth noting that January was when President Obama was referring to ISIS and other groups that had spun off from “core” al Qaeda as the “jayvee” team in what seemed at the time as a way of saying that they didn’t pose nearly the threat to the United States that they would like to think, or that al Qaeda did in the time before September 11th. I’m not sure how much I’d read into those January comments, though. To some degree, it seemed to me at the time that they were part of an Administration strategy to diminish the importance of ISIS/ISIL internationally. It may not have been a wise strategy, but I’m not sure that, in and of themselves, the President’s remarks in January were an indication that he didn’t take see the group as a potential threat. As Lake notes, if that’s what he actually believed then he apparently wasn’t paying attention to his own intelligence briefings.

That being said, the President deserves criticism for attempting to pawn off responsibility for missing the ISIS threat on the intelligence community. This is especially true given the fact that “they” appear to have been well aware of ISIS long before the summer and, presumably, were briefing the President on the matter as warranted. At the very least, it is a marked difference from the idea expressed in Harry Truman’s famous maxim that “the buck stops here,” meaning that the President is ultimately responsible for everything that happens under his watch. Even if it were true that the intelligence community dropped the ball here, which is most certainly what the President was implying in his interview last night, the President is the one who should take public responsibility when something goes wrong. If it turns out down the road that personnel changes are warranted because of what happened, then that’s a different issue. As a broad matter, the President, any President, owes it to the American people to take responsibility for what his Administration does and what it fails to do. Instead of that, however, the President is asking us to believe that if something went wrong with regard to our response to the supposed ISIS threat, it wasn’t his fault. That’s not leadership.

Our soldiers and our generals and our intelligence professionals have no confidence in their commander-in-chief’s leadership.  Period.

When I served in the military, I heard a formula about leadership that is common in today’s business world: real leaders always take responsibility; they never take credit.  Obama has turned that formula on its head.  He is an antileader.  The way he is an antichrist.

Real leaders try to fix the problem; Barack Obama tries to fix the blame.

Our military and our intelligence professionals know that Obama will send them to die.  And then blame them for their own deaths.  Just like he did in Benghazi.

Obama is still appallingly trying to tell the same lie that he has been telling since Iraq went to hell under his watch.  Note that Obama BOASTED that he had removed the US military from Iraq prior to Iraq going to hell; note that Obama took credit for ending the war.  You know, when he was telling the same lies I document above about winning the war on terror and decimating al Qaeda.  Mind you, it is a documented historical FACT that Obama had a strategy to pull out all American troops over his generals’ objections from the moment he took office.  It is a documented historical FACT that Obama specifically denied ever wanting to have the “status of forces agreement” that he now deceitfully claims was the reason he pulled all of our troops out of Iraq and exposed that region to invasion by ISIS.  It is a documented historical FACT that generals correctly predicted that Obama’s policy of abandonment would end in “absolute disaster” back in 2011 when Obama was treasonously doing the very thing they said would end in disaster and which in fact led to disaster as we know now.  And it is a documented historical FACT that George Bush had predicted this very disaster back in 2007 if the American people were stupid enough and depraved enough to elect a fool and disgrace like Obama:

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

Obama appoints people at the top who will lie for him.  Period.

James Clapper is already a documented liar:

Wyden: “…give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

We of course now know that James Clapper, Obama’s Director of Central Intelligence, lied.  We know that the NSA was in actual fact collecting and storing bulk metadata on millions of American’s phone records, and had established methods for capturing a vast amount of email and Internet data from innocent Americans, as well.

As an aside, even the ACLU has acknowledged that Obama has been FAR more of a fascist than the hated George Bush ever was on usurping and abrogating civil liberties.  But “Democrat” stands for “Demon possessed bureaucrat” and to be a Democrat means to be a complete and unmitigated HYPOCRITE who demonized and still demonizes Bush when your own Führer is and has been so much worse than Bush ever was it’s unreal.

James Clapper is still on the job in this administration for one reason and one reason only.  He has lost all credibility and forfeited any legitimacy, yes.  But he is a man who is willing to lie for his boss and cover up his boss’ crimes.  And THAT is what Obama values, rather than the trust of the American people or rather than a competent executive.

Obama can literally say or do anything and have an “expert” to back up his impossibly deceitful version of reality.

On the other side of that equation of personal and professional dishonor is  Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.  Unlike James Clapper, he put the security of the United States of America before Obama.  Which means he had to go.  Which is why he was one out of more than nine senior generals purged by Obama.

By the way, given the fact that the United States under Obama clearly had absolutely no idea that the ISIS threat was coming, according to Obama, how the hell is it that Obama believes he has complete and certain intelligence that he can know precisely what is going on in Iran as he negotiates that nation into a nuclear state???

Barack Obama is the sort of pure demagogue who shrilly claims that there is a “war on women” when the fool won’t even say that there is a war on ISIS.

Steve Kroft: Are you saying that this is not really a war?

President Obama: Well, what I’m saying is that we are assisting Iraq in a very real battle that’s taking place on their soil, with their troops. But we are providing air support. And it is in our interest to do that because ISIL represents sort of a hybrid of not just the terrorist network, but one with territorial ambitions, and some of the strategy and tactics of an army. This is not America against ISIL. This is America leading the international community to assist a country with whom we have a security partnership with. To make sure that they are able to take care of their business.

I mean, holy crap, why doesn’t the Republican Party just start using drones to blow up women and fighter aircraft to bomb women all the damn while denying there’s a freaking war on women???  Then they could be like the Nazi we’ve got in our White House right now.

It’s interesting that Obama actually dragged CBS’ 60 Minutes ratings by 57 percent from what I heard.  The prior week the show had over 18 million; with Obama they got 9 million.  People are understanding that they’ve heard this blathering liar’s blathering lies before and they’ve heard the sweetheart interviews where nobody asks Obama the questions that they would have been rabidly demanding if a Republican were president.

If Obama can manufacture a name like “the Khorosan Group” to conceal the truth that we are still dealing with a very alive and well core al Qaeda, I have just as much right to come up with a name that exposes the reality of the Obama presidency: now it’s “the Hussein Terror Network.”

The Zombie ‘Spirituality’ Of Atheism

The Los Angeles Times ran an interview with one of the atheists who demonstrates himself to be the sort of true fool as only one who denies the reality of God can be.

This guy’s particular hook is that you can be an atheist and “spiritual” too.

Then we see what atheist “spirituality” looks like:

Was it the drug Ecstasy that opened up spirituality for you?

It definitely was. I wouldn’t call that the true experience of self-transcendence that is the focus of the book, but it was profoundly liberating. It convinced me it was possible to have a much better life and be a much better person, and some action was required to figure out how to be more that way more of the time. It’s certainly something you can’t recommend without serious caveats.

Okay, let’s recap.  Any form of “spirituality” that does NOT rely on the sort of drugs that men slip into women’s drinks to make them easy to rape is the “esoteric dunghill of religion.”

This fool Sam Harris teaches that the only path for an atheist to become “spiritual” is to ignore the “serious caveats” that are the obvious results of shutting reality off with drugs.

You need to get the joke that is atheism here: THESE are the people who mock Christians for not living in the real world!!!

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Bible declares, and it sure nailed it with atheists: they’ve been offering this “version” of reality for some time.  In the 1960s it was Timothy Leary with his “Turn on, tune in, drop out” approach.  And so today it is the secular humanist left that is championing the destruction of America through legalized drugs and the drug addiction that will come with it.  Because how in the hell else can these perverted, degenerate people have any chance at being “spiritual” otherwise???

Atheism is parasitic.  It cannot exist unless it has some superior worldview to emulate even as it mocks the very thing that it is emulating.

One example is the first rise of atheism as carried out in a vicious orgy of violence a.k.a. The French Revolution.  One of the leaders of that atheism descent into hell was stabbed to death in his bath by a woman hoping to end the endless beheadings.  And Marat’s death was celebrated in a painting as follows:

At the height of the Reign of Terror in 1793, David painted a memorial to his great friend, the murdered publisher, Jean Marat. As in his Death of Socrates, David substitutes the iconography (symbolic forms) of Christian art for more contemporary issues

So the very people who most denied Christ were reduced to trying to depict their hero as the very Christ they mocked and hated and denied.  Because at their cores they are hypocrites and liars and have neither shame, nor honor, nor decency, nor virtue, nor integrity of any kind.

That’s all atheism can do: cynically and perversely exploit the genuineness of the very thing it mocks and denies in order to have any pseudo-legitimacy whatsoever.

There is no atheist art.  There is no atheist music.  There is no atheist culture.  There is no atheist morality.  There can be no law based on atheism.  And there very definitely isn’t any atheist “spirituality.”  All they have is an obscene, grotesque mockery.

Augustine wrote, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”

The great scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal said, “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.”

Atheists implicitly accept this God-shaped vacuum in every human heart, this restlessness, that God installed until we find our rest in Him.  But they propose to fill their voids with drugs instead of with the Spirit of the God who made them.

America’s Disgrace-in-Chief Reveals His Naked Contempt For The Military He Just Sent To War

I don’t have words for such an act of disgrace:

.

I can only compare it to the same guy just a few weeks ago when he gave a speech about how heinous and evil Islamic State is after they had just beheaded an American on video for all to see. And then went golfing 8 minutes later and was seen yukking it up on the golf course.

It is widely agreed that it was those beheadings that ultimately forced Obama’s hand to stop ignoring the Middle East he had allowed to become a fiasco by doing NOTHING – and by making one false assurance after another that he had terrorists on the run – that forced America back into the war Obama took so much damn credit for getting us out of.

If you’re going to order men to war, you treacherous coward, the LEAST you can do is value your military more than your damn latte and pretend to show them the dignity and respect they deserve.

Update 9/25: As usual, the psychotic left that so rabidly despises George Bush is pointing to none other than George Bush to justify the behavior of their messiah Obama.  I mean, dude, if you think Hitler is a bad guy, DON’T POINT TO HITLER TO JUSTIFY THE BEHAVIOR OF YOUR HERO, OKAY?

I could jump on the horns of the dilemma and say that they both ought to be impeached, but it turns out that there are a few things that make these two salute situations very different.

The first is that Obama is carrying a latte cup while Bush is carrying his dog who is essentially a family member.  Which would you say is easier to toss into the trash on your way out of the plane?

NBC in its propaganda effort to protect their messiah Obama cited a picture of George Bush trying to salute with Barney in his arms says Bush.  They say that Bush should have put Barney on a leash.  Well, have you ever tried to walk a short-legged dog off the steps of an airplane ramp?  Unlike the coffee cup that could have and should have been trashed, SOMEBODY had to carry Barney off that plane.  And Bush did it himself rather than insult a Secret Service agent and have him carry the dog.

The second thing is that – despite the fact that Bush was carrying the larger and more awkward bundle of Barney versus Obama who only had a damn coffee cup in his hand, Bush STILL managed to salute with an empty right hand as the photo shows.  Which is to say that Bush came CONSIDERABLY closer to rendering a proper salute than Obama even though Bush had a much more substantial burden to carry than Obama had with his stupid coffee cup.

But it’s the third thing that makes the cake: when was the Bush photo taken?  It was taken on June 26, 2001.  Which is to say it was taken only five months into the Bush presidency and it was taken four months before America was attacked and President Bush found himself a president at WAR.  What was awkward, if not cute, prior to 9/11/2001 when America was attacked and Bush ordered the men who saluted him into war is rightly a national disgrace now.

This is similar to another of Obama’s grievous displays of his contempt for America.  George Bush loved playing golf.  But when the left attacked him for golfing while he was sending our sons and daughters into war, what did Bush do?  He had the character to stop golfing and never played another round during his presidency.  He sacrificed something he genuinely loved for the good of his nation.

Let’s look at that comparison, too.  Obama – as I already pointed out above – was on the golf course smiling and laughing only EIGHT MINUTES after describing the horror of beheaded journalist James Foley.  He was back on the course AGAIN within less than a day in spite of the deserved criticism for the round he had just played.  Then he later blamed the media for his “bad optics” as a man who pathologically refuses to accept responsibility for ANYTHING.  Obama is a man completely devoid of decency or integrity.  Since becoming president, in spite of the fact that he has been a president at war just like Bush was, Obama has played nearly 200 rounds of golf.  Compare that to professional golfer Tiger Woods, who has played 269 rounds of golf during the same period.  Obama’s behavior is not only a sick joke; it’s a national disgrace of a president who WILL NOT DO HIS JOB AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

Obama had just ordered America back into war.  I mean, he had JUST ordered America back into war when he delivered this shame of a salute.

You tell me that the left wing media wouldn’t have gone bat-poop ballistic if Bush had given that disgrace of a salute with that damn coffee cup in his saluting hand if Bush had done that the day our military was fighting in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Could some propaganda hack show a picture of Bush golfing and then claim that Obama wasn’t doing anything Bush hadn’t done?  Yeah.  Their are plenty of “journalists” dishonest enough to do that.  Would those Goebbels hacks point out the differences that make Bush so much better than Obama it’s not even silly?  Absolutely not.

Why Bill O’Reilly Is Right About Using ‘Mercenaries’ To Fight ISIS

We NEED to have troops on the ground in order to truly have ANY hope whatsoever of “degrading and destroying” ISIS.  That is simply a fact.  And every single general who has said anything publicly has acknowledged that fact.

But do we commit our uniformed servicemen to another 20-years war?

There is only one alternative: and that is the alternative that O’Reilly suggests: Mercenaries.  Or call them “contract soldiers.”

For the record, we’ve been using contract personnel to bolster our military for years.  Just not generally on the front lines.  They’re called “PMCs” for “Private Military Companies.”  Contracted personnel drive our trucks; they operate many of our complex weapons systems (as employees of the contractors who built them); two of the four men killed during the Benghazi terrorist attack were contract personnel.

There is no question: many of these “mercenaries” would be former American military personnel.  They are already trained.  They know exactly what they’re getting into.  We’d be able to get former soldiers from other countries, but a lot of men who would sign up to fight would be former American servicemen.

There’s a huge difference between sending in contract soldiers who already know what they’re doing and what they’d be getting into versus sending in “fresh meat” who just graduated from high school and are looking primarily for a means to pay for college.

Another difference is that “contract soldiers” would be FAR better paid than our military.  Why?  The reason is these guys would be going to war guaranteed.  In the very worst region on earth.  Which is why our uniformed American military wouldn’t have to go there.

Yet another difference would be WHO would pay them: rather than American taxpayers, it would be Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia.  If you want these guys to come fight for you, you better pay right out of your whazoo to have them come.  And provide them with the very best health benefits that money can buy, also.

Recent history has examples of highly successful mercenary outcomes.

In the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s, there was a mercenary unit that was called “Executive Outcomes” that contracted to provide military services to different countries in Africa that had huge terrorist elements.  Many of the men from Executive Outcomes had served in the Rhodesian and South African special forces.  These guys – outnumbered hundreds to one – went in to countries like Angola and Sierra Leone and used their superior military skills to just kick ass.  They routed their opposition every single time they engaged them.

In the course of their contract duties, they stopped massacres of the civilian population.  They would have been able to do the same thing in Rwanda, except Bill Clinton and the United Nations got scared that a small private military force could literally take over a country.  And tragically, Bill Clinton and the United Nations literally preferred one million dead Tutsis to private, non-governmental military operations like Executive Outcomes being allowed to do their jobs.

The United Nations was USELESS in stopping the genocide.  They have ALWAYS been useless.  We need trained military professionals who are able to kill the bad guys, not a bunch of liberal socialist fairy-dust-unicorn do-nothings.

We’re facing a situation now in Syria where we desperately need somebody to go in and do what no nation and no national military is willing or able to do.  We need warriors who are willing and able to go into roach nests and wipe out all the roaches.  And we needed it three years ago.

We’ve got a lot of retired generals and we’ve got a lot of former soldiers who would take this duty on in Syria because they believe it has to be done and they know that they are the best in the world to do it.  And yeah, they could use the money.

We’d need to give such contract soldiers support, such as access to intelligence, to air and artillery support, to command and control networks.  That type of cooperation and coordination would present some obstacles, but nothing that could not be overcome if a few leaders had the resolve to DO something.  And then we could let soldiers for hire do the fighting on the front lines so our uniformed kids wouldn’t have to.

Had Barack Obama not screwed up the universe by abandoning Iraq when ALL of his generals and even ALL of his handpicked advisors told him not to do it; and had Obama not refused to arm the rebellion in Syria in the early stages when there actually WERE moderate rebels who wanted a democratic society, we wouldn’t have needed to rely on “mercenaries.”  But Obama so foolishly and so completely turned his back on the region and so let things skyrocket out of control that we are now no longer able to deal with the massive terrorist army that has metastasized except by the use of mercenaries.  The American people do not want their military back in there; and no other nation is strong enough or frankly noble enough to send troops into the hellhole sewer that the Middle East has become.

But somebody has to go fight that war or else that war is going to come to our shores in the form of one after another massive attacks that will ultimately make the 9/11/2001 attack look like child’s play.

I’ll have a little more to add to this later (the Executive Outcome stuff is fascinating), but I just wanted to throw this out there.

Obama Degenerates In The Polls To The ‘North Korean Third’ Number That I Predicted

First, allow me to rehash a few of the times that I made the prediction:

On 1/8/2011 I wrote:

The polls are making it pretty clear: at least 57% of Americans say that “rightwing rhetoric” had absolutely nothing to do with the tragedy. Fewer than a third (that’s the group that would vote for Kim Jong Il if he ran for president as a Democrat) said it did.

On 8/10/2012 I wrote:

There’s a good solid third of “Americans” who would continue to enthusiastically worship their Democrats even if those Democrats gave us a North Korean-style economy where the whole country was dark at night because we’d destroyed all our energy and liberal policies called for all Americans to shovel so much of their feces out of the ground so they’d have fuel to burn (but thank God it wouldn’t be that nasty oil!). California has a whopping load of these Kim Jong Il “Dear-leader-worshiping” liberals

On 11/29/2013 I wrote:

I’ve been saying it for some time: if we were to degenerate into a North Korea-style dictatorship under Obama, one full third of the nation would continue to support Obama with more passion than EVER.

I wrote it several times (as I allude to above); but it’s harder to search through the articles where I would have said it.  So I just stuck with comments I made.

For some strange reason, I’ve had this sense for YEARS: that Barack Obama would degenerate to a one-third support base and not go any lower.  Because that’s the percentage of truly evil people in America who literally would support a North-Korean-style-dictatorship if they had a chance to do so.

And here we are:

Obama Slumps to 35 in Latest Approval Poll
By Brendan Bordelon
September 23, 2014 6:21 PM

Barack Obama’s approval rating slid into dangerous territory this week, with the latest Reuters-Ipsos poll showing just 35 percent of Americans approve of the president’s job performance even as he leads the nation into a war against Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans expressed disapproval of the White House’s current occupant — 37 percent of them “strongly.” Just 17 percent strongly approved of Obama’s current performance. The poll is based on a five-day rolling average.

The White House has struggled under a series of escalating foreign-policy crises, at times appearing to flail for a response to Islamic State brutality and the ongoing Russian aggression against Ukraine. The poll likely does not reflect reaction to the administration’s broad air attack on Islamic State targets in Syria, conducted Monday night and slated to continue for the foreseeable future.

Obama is down to his Fuehrer Hitler-Chairman Mao-Dear Leader faithful now.

The good news for Obama is that he won’t sink much lower, because a third of the American people are genuinely toxic and rabid and depraved and will support their messiah no matter what.

But don’t worry, Democrats: when your beloved big-government Antichrist comes, he’ll get 100% approval from the world.  Because all the Christians like me will have been raptured by the REAL Messiah so you can have your government-as-God that you always yearned for.

Remaining In The Light As We Walk Through The Darkness Of The World

“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” — The words of Jesus in John 3:19-21

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. — 1 John 5:19

There is simply no question to any biblically literate Christian believer that we are living in spiritually dark times that are getting darker and darker with each passing day.  In St. Pauls’ final epistle before his martyrdom which he knew was coming, he writes in 2 Timothy chapter 3 that terrible, difficult times would be coming in the last days.

I know of a beautiful, talented young woman who wants to be a singer or an actress.  In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with that, is there?  We should want Christians in the field of entertainment, which holds so much sway over our increasingly toxic culture and over the increasingly degenerating morality of our youth.  And yet the field of entertainment is so filled with horrible predators who would promise a young woman the world in order to use her and ultimately throw her away that the entertainment industry is truly a dangerous field to enter.

But what to do?  You literally cannot walk outside your house without entering the darkness of this world.  And even if you remain in your home, lock your doors and shutter your windows against the spiritual darkness, you literally cannot turn on your television or turn on your computer – and nowadays even turn on your phone – without being exposed to profound spiritual darkness.

Should this beautiful young woman live the life of a monk in some distant, secluded monastery?

No.  Because Jesus didn’t want us to hide our lights, but to let our light shine.  And line shines brightest when it shines in darkness.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” — Matthew 5:14-16

For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.  — 2 Corinthians 4:6

God sent us as lights shining in the darkness.

But when we walk through the darkness, it is sadly more the tendency of fallen, sinful, flawed people to be affected by the darkness we walk through than that we triumphantly shine as lights and as examples of Christ.

Ultimately, Scripture tells us, the human race will fail.  Even God’s people will fail.  And it will be Jesus Christ in His return as King of kings and as Lord of lords who will triumph over evil and usher in His Kingdom on earth according to Revelation 17:14 and 19:11-16.

How should we live as Christians who must walk through the darkness of this world until that glorious day when Jesus Christ returns to make ultimately right the world He created according to the Father’s plan?

I have an analogy from my own experience that I hope some of you will find helpful.

I live in the Coachella Valley, which is located in the Colorado Desert section (the northwesterly part) of the Sonoran Desert.

One of my favorite activities is hiking.  Three days a week, I go for a 10 mile hike through the desert.  But due to my schedule and due to the heat, I can’t leave until late afternoon or early evening.  It’s just too hot for my favorite hiking companion – my dog – to go any earlier.

And given the fact that – since the equinox marking the first day of summer on June 21 – it has been getting darker  earlier and earlier, I find myself walking through the desert in the darkness for a good share of my hike.

In my neck of the woods, that means I’m exposing myself to a great host of nocturnal predators.  There are coyotes that would be thrilled with the prospect of eating my dog; we’ve had sightings of mountain lions in my area; and rattlesnakes are all around.  We’ve got Sidewinders; we’ve got Western Diamondbacks; we’ve got Red Diamonds.  And they all bite.

I’ve seen giant tarantulas, I’ve seen scorpions.  You name it, it’s walking or crawling around out there, hoping something it can kill and eat will stumble into its path.

As I walk through the darkness, several awful things can happen to me:

1) I can stumble and fall.  It is extremely easy in the darkness to get tripped by one of the trillion rocks jutting up; it is easy to stumble over one of the equally numerous elevation changes as your feet suddenly encounter a sink or rise in the sand.  You can easily inadvertently angle off the trail and find yourself caught in the nasty thorns of one of several varieties of shrub and cactus that abound.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been tripped up and lost my footing in the darkness.

2) I can get turned around and literally become deceived into thinking I’m heading in one direction when I’m actually heading in the very opposite direction further and further into darkness.  It gets so dark – especially during new moons and especially in the canyons – when I literally cannot see my own hand in front of my face.  In that kind of darkness, there are no frames of reference and no way to collect your bearings if you let yourself get distracted and turned around and confused.  People regularly get lost in the desert and their bodies are found days, weeks or even months later.

3) You can get bitten by a poisonous serpent.  And literally die.  If you’re bitten by a rattlesnake, the poison travels through your body faster if you move.  But where I’m going I would HAVE to move to get within ambulance range because there aren’t even very many four-wheel-drive vehicles that are capable of getting to me.

The only protection against these dangers is my flashlight.  With it, I can walk through the darkness shielded, covered and protected by a cocoon of light.

There’s nothing wrong with my desire to hike.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with my hiking at night.  But I am a fool if I don’t take all the proper precautions, aren’t I?  So I’ve got my cell phone with me and I know where I’m out of range and where I need to be to get back into range; I’ve got my snake bite kit.  And I not only have a flashlight, I have a spare battery and a spare flashlight to go with it just in case I drop one.

I stay on the paths and I keep my light on.

In the light, I can see the pitfalls; I can see all the rocks that would trip me up and all the rises and sinks that I would otherwise stumble over.  I can shine the beam and see the landmarks that serve as my foundations for my sense of direction so I will not get lost.  I can see the poisonous serpents in my path and I can detect the glowing green eyes of the hungry predators who might be stalking nearby.

In my analogy, I am comparing physical darkness to spiritual darkness.  And I am comparing the consequences of foolishly walking in physical darkness to the consequences of walking in spiritual darkness.  And what is the light in the latter case that keeps me safe as I walk through the spiritual darkness that is all around me?  It is the wisdom and truth found in the Word of God.

In the desert at night, I can get distracted.  There’s always the temptation to put that light down – just for a few moments – to have a drink of water, or play with my phone, or take a pill or something.  But even those things that seem harmless or even good are dangerous and even deadly if they distract me and keep me from paying attention to the illumination of my light.

There are a lot of situations in this dark world where the light of the Word of God gets put down by people who ought to know better.  And sometimes it only takes a moment for disaster to strike and even destroy us.

Hey, I’ll just put my light down and look at this internet site for a little while; we don’t want to shine God’s light on that content, after all.  Because if we were shining God’s light on that site, we would see the danger and we would never wander over there in the first place.  And that’s when your wife or your kid walks in.

We get in heated situations with people and we’re putting God’s light down when we need to hold it up the very most.  And look at me stumbling around just like a fool in the dark instead of representing Christ with my light.

In just one bad moment, you can destroy your witness and even destroy your own life with one utterance or act.

And man, if I just had one nickel for every “Christian” who is flagrantly abandoning God’s light as they have become so deceived and so perverted by the darkness all around them that they celebrate the murder of sixty million innocent human beings and as they celebrate the perversion of homosexuality and even the perversion of the marriages that God ordained.

In the light of God’s Word, these things are detestable.  But in the darkness, in the absence of God’s illuminating light, they seem right.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. — Proverbs 16:25

There are so many ways in which sinful, fallen man has been deceived into literally believing that good is evil and evil is good:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

Just imagine how different your life would be if you held up the Word of God and directed it’s light at every situation and every circumstance you encountered.

The Bible gives us our moral foundations; it sets our landmarks and our boundaries, teaching us where we can safely go and where we dare not tread.  When left to ourselves, we WILL choose wrongly and go the wrong way and stumble and fall and ultimately be bitten by the serpent – satan – and destroyed.  The Bible doesn’t tell us that temptation will never come upon us, but instead teaches us how to view temptation and how to overcome it by focusing on our Lord rather than our destructive desires.

God’s Word is our “flashlight” as we walk through the spiritual darkness of this world:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. — Psalm 119:105

The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple. — Psalm 119:130

God never wanted us to hoard our light, to hide ourselves away in some distant monastery.  He wants us to engage culture and confront its evil with the reality of God and encounter its sin with the grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Whatever field of life we choose, whether it be in entertainment, or law enforcement, or banking, or whatever, we will face dangers.  We will be tempted to do things the ways “that seems right to a man,” we will be tempted to cut corners, to give in to peers or superiors and do things we know are wrong, to put down our light just for a moment.  And destruction can overtake us.

Whatever your path, whatever your career path, God wants you to walk His way in His light.  And when you do that, when you stay in His light and see in His light your landmarks that serve as your foundation for what is right and what is wrong and what is good and what is evil, you will remain safely headed in the right direction.

The alternative is a life of stumbling, injury, deception and death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Obama boasted:

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right.  They admitted they were defeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.

Allow me to simply start with the reporting today from the Los Angeles Times on Iran:

A year later: Iranian nuclear talks go from promise to doubt
By Paul Richter  contact the reporter
SHARELINES
▼What went wrong? Diplomats wonder a year after Iranian leader’s U.N. visit held such promise for improved ties
▼Analysts suggest Iran’s supreme leader may have decided he can live with no nuclear deal and more sanctions
September 17, 2014, 2:40 PM|Reporting from Washington

Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived at the United Nations General Assembly in New York as Iran’s new president, speaking of reconciliation and offering a new era in relations between his nation and the West.

But when Rouhani arrives next week for this year’s U.N. session, diplomats will be pondering a different question: What went wrong?

A year after that auspicious beginning, tensions with the West are as high as ever, and 10 months of negotiations over the toughest issue in the relationship — Iran’s nuclear program — are at an impasse. Now Western leaders want to know Iran’s intentions and if Rouhani is even calling the shots in Tehran on the nuclear issue and overall foreign policy.

Since November, when Rouhani’s team signed an interim nuclear accord that seemed to promise a breakthrough, “we’ve actually gotten further away from a deal,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive diplomacy.

Negotiators from Iran and six world powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — will meet Friday in New York in an effort to break the logjam and complete a deal before the Nov. 24 deadline. Next week, foreign ministers from the nations will take up the issue.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared last year that he was giving his full support to Rouhani to negotiate a nuclear deal that would ease international economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for commitments to keep its nuclear program peaceful.

But in recent months, signs suggest the staunchly anti-Western Khamenei is directly managing the negotiations. He appears determined to sharply increase the country’s uranium enrichment capability in seven years, and not roll it back, as the West demands.

Rouhani, who has lost a series of domestic political battles to conservatives, has taken a harder line on the nuclear talks. In a news conference two weeks ago, he expressed doubt that the U.S. has enough “goodwill” to negotiate an end to the standoff.

In an indication of the changing mood, President Obama plans no contact with Rouhani during the U.N. session, according to White House aides. Last year, the two leaders spoke by phone while in New York, the highest-level contact between the two countries in decades.

The central question for diplomats is whether Iran’s tougher line is only negotiating theatrics, aimed at gaining better terms, or whether Khamenei has decided he can survive a collapse of the talks despite Western threats of tighter sanctions.

Increasing evidence suggests Khamenei believes he can get by without a deal, say diplomats and analysts.

In recent comments, Khamenei portrayed the U.S. as beset by crises, including the standoff with Russia over Ukraine and the conflict with Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq. He may view American efforts to solicit Iran’s cooperation, at least on nonmilitary matters, in the fight against the militants as a sign of weakness.

At the same time, the conservative Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is hostile to a deal, is wielding greater public influence because of fears of the Islamic State threat.

Many Western analysts argue that if negotiations fail to produce a deal, U.S and European sanctions would intensify, not collapse, choking off much of Iran’s sales of 1.2 billion barrels of oil a day.

But Khamenei may believe that if the talks collapse, he could persuade Russia, China and perhaps other nations to abandon the sanctions and resume buying Iranian oil, providing the cash his government needs.

“Khamenei is preparing his country for a no-deal outcome,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who is with the Eurasia Group risk consulting group.

Diplomats say they expect Iran will try to blame the U.S. during the U.N. sessions for the deadlock in talks, and will try to build support for ending sanctions and allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure.

Wendy Sherman, the chief U.S. negotiator, predicted in a speech Tuesday that Iran would try to convince the world that “the status quo, or its equivalent, should be acceptable.”

Gary Samore, Obama’s former top advisor on nuclear proliferation, said Khamenei “seems to be very stubborn and very confident that he can retain his enrichment capability.”

While the Iranian leader may be wrong, “what matters is what he believes,” said Samore, who is now with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Robert Einhorn, another former member of Obama’s inner circle on nuclear issues, said nuclear negotiators won’t be able to resolve complicated secondary issues by the Nov. 24 deadline unless they solve the bigger question of how much enrichment capability Iran can keep.

“They’re still light-years apart,” said Einhorn, now with the Brookings Institution.

Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.

As always, whenever liberals are talking, it’s bullcrap, bullcrap and bullcrap to the nth power -NUCELEAR POWERED BULLCRAP, for that matter.  As John Bolton’s article from A YEAR AGO documents.

Notice how this article from the leftist Los Angeles Times begins as I post it below: “Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived … and offered a new era in relations between his nation and the West.”

It’s not Obama’s fault.  Nope.  It’s not the Democrat Party’s fault.  Nope.  It sure can’t be liberalism’s fault.  Uh-uh.  After all, the whole world was fooled by this weasel.

But there’s also the rhetorical question they ask, “what went wrong?”  Well, NOTHING “went wrong.”  From the point of view of any morally intelligent westerner, IT WAS WRONG FROM THE VERY START AND IT’S BECAUSE OF SUCH STUPID UNDERTAKINGS THAT YOU CAN KNOW THERE’S A PERSONAL SATAN BLINDING DEPRAVED LIBERAL HUMAN MINDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE INTELLIGENT.  From the point of view of Iran and of every other country that truly hates us and wants to see our beheaded corpses burning in flames, nothing went wrong because everything has worked out beautifully for them.

Let’s contrast the Los Angeles Times’ incredibly idiotic reporting on this Iranian disaster ALL ALONG with what John Bolton predicted for Fox News a year ago:

Hasan Rouhani is no moderate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program
John R. Bolton | Fox News
June 18, 2013

Within days of Hasan Rouhani’s election as Iran’s president, the White House and several European governments were already ecstatic at the possibility of resuming negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear-weapons program.

Of course, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps actually make key military policy decisions, not Iran’s president, but mere political reality is unlikely to slow down the Obama administration and its European Union (“EU”) counterparts.

Before even more irrational exuberance breaks out over Rouhani’s pledge to make Iranian’s nuclear program more “transparent,” however, some history is in order.

Rouhani’s long, uninterrupted devotion to Iran’s Islamic Revolution includes heading its National Security Council for sixteen years, and he was Tehran’s key nuclear negotiator in 2003-2005.

His actions during that period reveal much about him and the regime.

In September, 2003, Britain, France and Germany (“the EU-3”) made several overtures to open talks with Iran, including offering Iran nuclear-reactor technology on the precondition that it cease uranium-enrichment activities, which the EU-3 believed would effectively halt the nuclear-weapons program.

This proved to be a disastrous mistake.

Iran was to use the next three-and-one-half years to make steady progress, overcoming the scientific and technological difficulties of uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, and other key elements in its nuclear-weapons effort.

Rouhani was central to Iran’s strategy of using protracted negotiations to buy time and legitimacy under diplomatic cover. […]

Bolton’s predictive and frankly even prophetic article ends with these words that points out how the past that liberals are too stupid to comprehend show us the future:

But the catnip effect on Western diplomats of negotiating with Iran never lost its allure, which Rouhani understood as well or better than anyone.  In March, 2006, the New York Times reported on a speech Rouhani made after stepping down as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.  Said the Times:

“…in a remarkable admission, Mr. Rouhani suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them…..  ‘While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan [the uranium conversion plant], but we still had a long way to go to complete the project,’ he said.  ‘In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan.’  As a result of the negotiations with Europe, he added, “we are in fact much more prepared to go to the U.N. Security Council.’”

Rouhani deceived, mocked and disdained the West during his time as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program continued to progress.  There is every reason to believe he will do exactly the same once inaugurated as Iran’s president.

In other words, was there ever any real chance this was going to work?  Only in hell, which is where Obama and the Ayatollah and Rouhani will all one day reside together.

Who was right?  Who was completely WRONG?

To the extent that the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever the hell you want to call these vicious murderers, had anything to do with Iran’s new hardline stance, just recognize that this terrorist army grew up and became the powerful terror army that it is completely under Barack Obama and entirely due to his failed policies.

Obama was WRONG.  Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were WRONG.  The Democrat Party was WRONG.  Liberalism is WRONG.

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen?  Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement.  So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

Business Insider nailed what it’s easy to now see since happened and what will continue to happen in their article from July:

Obama Is Now Boxed In By The Iranian Nuclear Negotiations

Iran is playing the long game in negotiations over its nuclear program. And it may have already boxed in U.S. President Barack Obama, with help from an increasingly tumultuous state of world affairs.

Iran and six world powers officially agreed on Friday to extend negotiations for at least another four months. Iran has agreed to dilute additional stocks of nuclear material, in exchange for access to nearly $3 billion in assets that have been frozen in the U.S.

Some American officials are skeptical that even a four-month extension in talks will be enough to resolve some of the major sticking points among negotiators. And the reality is that as time goes on, the West will continue to lose leverage as Iran’s economy slowly crawls toward a recovery with limited sanctions relief.

“The extension was expected because Iranian nuclear intransigence is being further emboldened by the reality that Western negotiating leverage is diminishing,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider.

“The Obama administration’s mid-2013 decision to de-escalate the sanctions pressure, and the direct relief offered at Geneva, have sparked a modest albeit fragile Iranian economic recovery and increased the economy’s resilience to sanctions pressure,” Dubowitz told BI. “Tehran may believe that it can sustain these negotiations for many months if not years, provide only limited and reversible nuclear concessions, while extracting additional direct sanctions relief and solidifying its economic recovery.”

Dubowitz says that if Tehran’s bet turned out to be true, then the nuclear concessions would continue to swing Iran’s way.

“Then the Obama administration is left doing more of what it has done already — namely, defining downwards its nuclear demands until Iran’s leaders have deal terms that give them an industrial-size nuclear capacity, relative immunity from any new sanctions, and the essential elements they need to build nuclear weapons at a time of their choosing,” he said.

And yep, that’s pretty much exactly the way the following year plus has unraveled under the leadership of our Chump-in-Chief.

Look at my own title from a year ago as I asked in September of 2013:

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

Does it sound to you like I was optimistic about this the way the fools of the Los Angeles Times and the Obama administration were?

If you want a more direct statement about that time of a year ago, here’s what I wrote in a different article:

As for Iran, Obama has guaranteed that Iran will be in an economically stronger position to announce that they have joined the nations with nuclear weapons as soon as they have successfully developed the ballistic missile system they need to give their nuclear threat any real teeth.  There is frankly no reason for Iran to develop nuclear weapons until they have the means to deliver those weapons especially to Israel and the United States.

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

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

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

Let me ask you, WHO WAS RIGHT???  Was I right or was Obama right?  Was I right or was Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry right?  Was conservatism right or was liberalism right?

And for the record, this is what I’ve been pointing out all along:

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

It’s liberals’ fault that we even have to be dealing with a nuclear Iran now.  Their weakness and the weakness that liberalism imbued into America emboldened Iran to build for Armageddon and to keep building and building.  Iran can know with certainty that as long as there remains one liberal who has not been hunted down with dogs and burned alive that America will never have the resolve to stop them.

The fact of the matter is that Iran already has sufficient nuclear material to produce five nuclear bombs.  That’s enough to wipe out Israel, which Iran and terrorists refer to as a “two-bomb country.”  Obama has already given Iran the nuclear bomb; this is just a question of how many more bombs they will be able to build and how quickly they will be able to build them.  But to wipe out Israel, Iran wants to first have the means to terrorize and intimidate the United States out of direct retaliation.  Which means they need ballistic missile capability which would give them the ability to strike major U.S. cities and kill tens of millions of Americans.

So Iran invited a man they knew to be a coward and a fool – Barack Obama – to rebuild their economy for them by ending the sanctions and the pressure those sanctions had on their nuclear ambitions and their plan to destroy Israel and start Armageddon.  And thanks to the United States under Obama Iran has been completely free to keep working on the successful ballistic missile technology that will allow them to kill millions of Americans should America ever attempt to stop Iran from carrying out their Armageddon scenario.

I have frequently used “Democrat” as what it truly is: a portmanteau meaning “DEMOnic bureauCRAT.”  That’s what Democrats are: demon-possessed bureaucrats who worship the State rather than God and impose their godless State upon the rest of us with all their government control and their taxes and their regulations and their bureaucracies and their totalitarian fascist crony capitalist ambition to be able who will be winners and who will be losers.

The Bible nails the essence of liberalism:

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

and as a result they are:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. — 2 Timothy 3:7

Liberalism is the demonic hostility to the truth.  They hate the truth because it exposes them as the liars and frauds and deceivers and slanderers and demagogues that they are.  They constantly fabricate their own realities and when those realities are exposed as false they blame their opponents even though their opponents clearly had warned what would happen if liberals got their way.

Oh, Yes, The Mark Of The Beast Is Coming Soon. And The World Is Already Warming Up Nicely As It Prepares To Descend Into A Very Hot HELL.

Hmm, it’s only been about three weeks since I had good cause to point out that the mark of the beast – as prophesied in Revelation 13:16-17 – is at hand.

That last warning occurred in Venezuela, but it will be here soon as drought along with our OWN stupid and immoral socialism causes famines and empty shelves across our own land: they are fingerprinting people to keep them from being able to buy groceries.  Literally, they are controlling the sale of freaking BREAD just as the Bible said would happen.

Ultimately, when the mark of the beast is fully implemented as the Bible describes, no one will be able to either buy or sell anything without the government’s say-so.  If you do not have the mark of the beast on your right hand or on your forehead, you will be completely shut out of the economy.  That means that cash/coin money will no longer exist; that means that decentralized credit cards will no longer exist; that means that the government will have to have implemented a truly digitized currency system and have total control of the population’s access to that system.

The world during the reign of Emperor Obama has massively increased the velocity with which the Antichrist, the beast of Revelation, is coming.

Jesus spoke of wars and rumors and wars.  Where was He when He warned us of this sign of the very last days?  In Jerusalem.

What’s that region of the world look like under the reign of Obama?  Awful and very quickly getting worse and worse.  “Wars and rumors of wars” is an UNDERSTATEMENT today.

But we’re talking specifically about the mark of the beast, so let’s consider this latest:

Home Depot Data Breach Could Be the Largest Yet
By NICOLE PERLROTH
September 8, 2014 6:58 pm

Home Depot confirmed on Monday that hackers had broken into its in-store payments systems, in what could be the largest known breach of a retail company’s computer network.

The retailer said the exact number of customers affected was still not clear. But a person briefed on the investigation said the total number of credit card numbers stolen at Home Depot could top 60 million. By comparison, the breach last year at Target, the largest known attack to date, affected 40 million cardholders.

The breach may have affected any customer at Home Depot stores in the United States and Canada from April to early last week, said Paula Drake, a company spokeswoman. Customers at Home Depot’s Mexico stores were not affected, nor were online shoppers at HomeDepot.com. Personal identification numbers for debit cards were not taken, she said.

Home Depot has not yet confirmed other details.

The retailer operates 1,977 stores in the United States and 180 in Canada. That is about 400 more than Target had when it was compromised. Target’s breach went on for three weeks before the company learned about it, while the attack at Home Depot went unnoticed for as long as five months.

“Honestly, Home Depot is in trouble here,” said Eric W. Cowperthwaite, vice president of Core Security, an Internet-security consulting company. Mr. Cowperthwaite noted that it was a security blogger, Brian Krebs, not the company, that first reported the breach.

“This is not how you handle a significant security breach, nor will it provide any sort of confidence that Home Depot can solve the problem going forward,” Mr. Cowperthwaite said.

Last week, before Home Depot confirmed the attack, customers in Georgia had already filed a class-action lawsuit against the retailer for failing to protect customers from fraud and not alerting them to the breach in a timely manner.

Home Depot said it would offer free identity protection and credit-monitoring services to any customer who had used a credit or debit card at any of its affected stores.

Since the breach at Home Depot first came to executives’ attention last Tuesday, the company said it had been working with two security companies, Symantec and FishNet Security, to investigate.

Home Depot is unlikely to be the last big retailer to suffer a breach of its cash register systems. Hackers have for some time been scanning merchants’ networks for ways to gain remote access, such as through outside contractors who have access to a computer network. Once they find that opening, they install so-called malware that is undetectable by antivirus products.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service recently estimated that more than 1,000 businesses in the United States had been infected with malware that is programmed to siphon payment card details from cash registers in stores. They believed that many of these businesses did not even know they were sharing customers’ credit card information.

Besides Home Depot and Target, among the companies that have been hacked are U.P.S., Goodwill, P. F. Chang’s, Sally Beauty, Michael’s and Neiman Marcus.

Security experts believe that the same group of criminals in Eastern Europe is behind the attacks, according to several people briefed on the results of forensics investigations who were not allowed to speak publicly because of nondisclosure agreements. Buried in the malware used in the Home Depot attack were links to websites that reference the United States role in the conflict in Ukraine.

In each case, the entry point has differed, according to one law enforcement official. At Target, it was thought to be a Pennsylvania company that provided heating, air conditioning and refrigeration services to the retailer. The entry points for the other businesses are still unknown.

Studies have found that retailers, in particular, are unprepared for such attacks. A joint study by the Ponemon Institute, an independent security research firm, and DB Networks, a database security firm, found that a majority of computer security experts in the United States believed that their organizations lacked the technology and tools to quickly detect database attacks.

Only one-third of those experts said they did the kind of continuous monitoring needed to identify irregular activity in their databases, and 22 percent acknowledged that they did not scan at all.

After Home Depot confirmed the breach on Monday, a retail lobbying group in Washington said it was time the industry worked together to combat such threats.

“Any organization connected to the debit and credit card ecosystem faces constant and evolving threats,” said Sandy Kennedy, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association. “The public and private sector must continue to work together to improve debit and credit card security, identify threats and share information to best defend against cyberattacks.”

Correction: September 8, 2014
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a company that had previously been hacked. It is Sally Beauty, not Sally’s Beauty.

The issue has been what mechanism would trigger the complete abandonment of cash/coin currency, credit cards, etc. as personally and privately-administered financial transaction services in order to embrace this totalitarian governmental system.  Who would we get “there” from “here”?

Many Christian thinkers have been predicting all along that the mechanism would be rampant fraud.  As big of a problem as fraud has always been given the counterfeiting of paper currency, what we are seeing today with cashless systems has been categorically worse.  And as more and more people weary of having their identities stolen and their assets electronically drained, they will be willing to accept the government stepping in and truly taking control of the money supply and the means to buy and sell.

And the Antichrist will exploit the new financial system to his demonic political and religious agenda.  It will literally be the hallmark – the MARK – of his big-government system.

God – who knows the end from the beginning – declared it in His Word.  And it WILL happen precisely as God told us it would happen.

We’re watching the same deterioration of freedom in America that the Bible told us would have to happen for the Mark of the Beast to become a reality.  The Democrat Party – particularly in the person and presidency of Barack Obama – has officially demonstrated an abject contempt for the United States Constitution.  Barack Obama has been slapped down by the Supreme Court in UNANIMOUS DECISIONS THIRTEEN TIMES in his thug presidency.  But Obama and his Democrat Party are FASCIST and they simply do not give a damn about the Constitution or anything that in any way gets between them and the fascist power grabs they keep wanting.

We have doctrinaire liberal civil libertarian Noam Chomsky pointing out the FACT that Barack Obama is worse than George Bush EVER was in violating American’s civil liberties.  We’ve got the liberal “journalist” Piers Morgan pointing out that the liberal editorial board of the liberal New York Times stating for the record that Obama is far worse than Bush ever was.  The ACLU released a report that states that Obama is worse than Bush was on violating civil liberties.

Now, I could go on and on, but it is a FACT that Barack Obama has violated our civil liberties and violated the Constitution on a scale never witnessed by any US president.  But chillingly, all of the above people and organizations I cited above would vote for Obama again and a Democrat WORSE than Obama in a heartbeat in any national election rather than EVER vote for a Republican.  It’s just who these people are.  Obama mocked us for clinging to our guns and religion, because after all the Constitution guaranteed freedom to have BOTH; liberals are people who cling to their homosexuality and their baby-murdering abortion mills.

And according to Romans chapter one, that is why the beast is coming.  The Book of Revelation, chapters five and six, clearly present the Antichrist as the judgment of a wrathful God who finally gives the godless people the leader they truly deserve.

We have in Barack Obama a beast preparing the way for THE beast.  And if you voted for Obama, if you are a Democrat, you have already indicated that you will vote for the coming Antichrist, the true beast.  Because you have already demonstrated that you want what the Antichrist will bring: increased government power over the people in the name of implementing a Utopian agenda.

Fortunately for me and mine, an event called “the Rapture” as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–58, will happen prior to the coming of the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast.  There will be Christians aplenty during the Seven Years Tribulation that God has decreed prior to the Second Coming of Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords, but they will become Christians after the Rapture – when people they knew who told them about the Blessed Hope will suddenly and without warning literally seem to disappear from the very world.

The lives of Christians during the Tribulation are going to be characterized as terrible and short as they are murdered by the millions as martyrs.  We’re already witnessing this in advance: the number of Christians murdered in 2013 was DOUBLE what it had been just the year before.  And that was before the ISIS crew really got started.  God’s prophetic Word even tells us how they would be murdered: it says in Revelation 20:4 they would be “beheaded.”

Tell me if that doesn’t sound like something you’ve heard is going on these days.  These last days just before the Rapture with the Tribulation coming right on its heels and you will die a horrible death if you don’t take the mark of the beast and you will burn in hell for all eternity if you DO take it.

If I have yet hold on to a spirit of anger due to the pathetic disgrace that is preceding the last days – which I confess as sin simply because God told us in His Word that this great falling away, this terrible apostasy, would come first – I do NOT have a spirit of fear.  And that is because I know I won’t be here when the same world that so welcomed and celebrated Obama will welcome and celebrate the coming beast.

Lord Jesus, I offer this prayer to the Father right now, even for my enemies, that they would see the terrible error of their ways and embrace You before it is too late for them to be caught up with You in the Rapture.

For the rest of you, this world is already starting to truly heat up as it prepares to descend into hell.

 

Obama’s ISIL Speech And His Whole Foreign Policy: What A Giant Crock Of Crap

I can’t help but think back to the Jimmy Carter years and marvel at how history keeps repeating itself because we keep allowing the same sorts of fools to make the same sorts of idiotic mistakes.  So we go back to 1979, when the Soviet Union, realizing that Jimmy Carter as a liberal was a pathologically weak and cowardly disgrace, invaded Afghanistan.  And Carter’s “show of resolve” was to boycott their damn Olympic Games rather than actually DO anything.

It was as a direct result of the correctly perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter that the United States was forced to begin the process of intervening in Afghanistan.  It was Jimmy Carter who began to arm the Taliban, dumbasses.  It was Jimmy Carter who because of his failed presidency set up the crisis that has metastasized into the cancer that it is that still haunts the United States decades later.

And here we are, another liberal and another complete meltdown of foreign policy and national security that will have massive consequences on the United States until the day we collapse and miserably perish as a nation.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted to perish as a nation, pure and simple.

History is a terrible thing when you doom yourself with terrible leaders.

From the very beginning of Obama’s speech on September 10, it was obvious that the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race who has been seen by more people lying than any human being who ever lived was even more full of his special brand of fecal matter than usual.

Take when Obama said “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state,” for instance.  Obama’s “argument” that Islamic State wasn’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Muslim runs afoul of this very simple historic reality: by his “reasoning” there haven’t been any “Muslims” or any “Islam” since at least 656 AD – when the very first Shi’ites murdered the very first Sunnis.

I actually have in my possession the hard article from uberleftist Time Magazine dated March 5, 2007.  Check out the title: “Why They Hate Each Other.”

Well, according to Obama, they hate each other because they’re not Muslim.  Or else they wouldn’t be killing Muslims, would they?

Take, for example, the Iran-Iraq War.  One-and-a-half million Muslims were killed – by other Muslims.

I mean, by Obama’s argument, the Sunnis aren’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Shi’ites and the Shi’ites aren’t Muslim because most of their victims have been Sunnis.  So there ARE no “Muslims” and there’s no such thing as “Islamic.”

But there you have it: Barry Hussein, in his demonic wisdom, has just solved the problem of Islam the same way he solved the problem of the war on terror that we are reeling from now: he just defined it away.  Because he is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue and without integrity and because he is a true fool.

Obama says Islamic State isn’t a “state.”  Well, THAT’S convenient, given the fact that they BECAME a “state” under YOUR failed watch due to YOUR failed policies.

I remember as an example going against Republicans when George H.W. Bush said, “There’s no recession.”  Well, shoot, I had got out of the Army and graduated from college just in time to run full facial into that “no recession.”  But yes, there was TOO a recession.  And all denying facts does is make those who share your ideology look like FOOLS.  Which is precisely what everyone who share’s Obama’s ideology is right now.

Islamic State has seized territory the freaking size of the United Kingdom. It has trained, expert fighters who were part of Saddam Hussein’s officer corps.  And to make it even worse, it has FAR more and better funding available than Osama bin Laden’s pre-9/11 attackers ever dreamed of having to finance their operations.

We just learned that Obama’s dismantled “intelligence” service has underestimated the number of ISIL/ISIS fighters by a factor of three.  They are mustering THREE TIMES the number of fighters that we thought just a short time ago.

The problem with Obama is that reality refutes him:

ISIS can muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, triple previous estimates: CIA
A new CIA assessment reportedly shows that the Islamic State can gather many more fighters than was previously thought. A spokesman for the intelligence agency told CNN that their recruitment has been stronger since June, ‘following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate.’
BY  Michael Walsh / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Published: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM/ Updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

The CIA estimates that ISIS has more than three times the number of fighters it previously thought.

The Islamic State can call upon between 20,000 and 31,500 terrorists throughout Iraq and Syria, according to a spokesman for the intelligence agency.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman told CNN.

Experts used to think the number of fighters for the jihadist group, whose savagery has been widely condemned, topped out at 10,000.

The CIA assessment’s new figure was revealed on the 13th anniversary of 9/11 — a day after President Obama outlined his plan to “dismantle and ultimately destroy” ISIS in an address to the nation.

Obama’s denial that “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state” is an even MORE profoundly stupid misjudgment and dismissal than his infamous “JayVee” remark that the lying fool now denies making.  But again, as evidenced so many damn times it’s beyond unreal, Obama is a fool who believes that denying simple factual reality is the secret to success.

If you like your health care plan and your doctor you can keep your health care plan and your doctor; if you don’t like Islamic State let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist and maybe it will somehow go away.

And it doesn’t matter how much of a lie that is.

And yet that factual denial of reality is the quintessence of Obama’s “strategy” and his “speech.”

Here’s the Los Angeles Times – note, NOT Fox News because they don’t like Obama because they’re racists – assessment of Obama’s “plan”:

Analysis Obama strategy in Iraq, Syria hinges on long shots
By Patrick J. McDonnell
SHARELINES
▼Sunni-Shiite divisions in Iraq too profound for quick fix
▼U.S. envisions unity and an effective army in Iraq, and a reenergized ‘moderate’ rebel front in Syria
▼Iraq, not Syria, seen as key concern for U.S.
September 11, 2014, 7:10 PM|Reporting from Beirut

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama’s strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed “moderate” rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Well that’s just GREAT.

If you like your Islamic State, you can keep your Islamic State.  If you DON’T like Your Islamic State, you can get your head slowly and agonizingly cut off with a deliberately small and most likely intentionally dull knife.

Obama says he’s going to destroy ISIL in one breath and he denies the possibility of American boots on the ground in the next.  Those two statements are mutually exclusive and fundamentally incoherent: if your goal is actually to destroy ISIL, YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE DESTROYED.  That very much includes relying on the full panoply of US military force (at least the force that’s left after Obama dismantled it in the name of his fool’s “peace dividend” that was irrational and based on a demonic Obama lie to begin with).  Obama’s promise that he will not send troops is tantamount to a promise that he will not destroy ISIL.  As is painfully obvious to anybody who realizes that if the US doesn’t send troops, there won’t be anybody to fight ISIL with any backbone whatsoever:

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday Arab states would play a critical role in a coalition against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but no country in the alliance was talking about sending ground troops to participate.

You know, versus the 37 countries that sent 26,000 troops into harm’s way that Barack Obama and his demonic Democrat Party slandered as “cowboy diplomacy.”

Allow me to pour something called “reality” on Obama’s “strategy”: SOMEBODY HAS TO SEND TROOPS OR PLEASE JUST SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS AND SUBMIT BY BARING YOUR THROAT TO THEIR KNIVES.

The ONLY ground force that is capable of defeating ISIL is US – US as in “U.S.”

I remember just a year ago when Obama and Kerry argued that their aitrstrikes would be “unbelievably small.”  And the attitude was, “Well, hell, don’t even bother, then.”  And here we are.

If all of the above isn’t frankly insanely idiotic enough, take John Kerry the day after Obama’s speech denying that the U.S. was at war with the Islamic State that Obama denies is Islamic and denies is a state:

“If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [ISIS], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Kerry said Thursday on CNN. “I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan.

Okay, nothing to see here, folks.  Don’t get all worked up just because this ISLAMIC STATE CALIPHATE my boss created just sawed two Americans’ heads off in a declaration of war against America.  Now please go back to sleep.

Fine.  If we’re not at war with these people, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THEM???

Don’t worry.  It will be “unbelievably small.”  Pinpricks, really.

Let’s just let history keep repeating itself until we’re all just shocked and appalled that we’re suddenly in ARMAGEDDON and there’s no way out because every path leading away from the end of the human species was long since eroded away by cowardly, dithering liberals.

There comes that point where you either show yourself to be serious or you show yourself to be a joke.  And Barack Obama is a joke and he is not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything other than his fascist domestic ideological agenda.

Obama’s “strategy” rests on refusing to ever send US troops back to the region that he himself acknowledged George W. Bush left safe and secure and stable and instead relying on fighters that he openly MOCKED just a short time ago.

I love this headline because it has the virtue of being so completely true:

Obama has a plan for ISIS in Syria. It’s the opposite of his old plan.

The article points out:

The administration’s longstanding position has been that ISIS’s Syria presence is a problem, but not one that the US can solve through military force. As recently as August 8, Obama downplayed the idea that arming supposedly moderate Syrian rebels — most notably those under the banner of the Free Syrian Army — would help to build a strong fighting force.

He told the New York Times that “there’s not as much capacity as you would hope” for molding an effective group out of “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” The administration actually did propose spending $500 million in late June to arm and train the rebels as a counterweight to ISIS, but very few people believed that would be enough help to make the rebels competent to destroy ISIS.

And as for airstrikes in Syria, he said in August that “we can run [ISIS] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they’re coming right back in” without an effective local partner…

Obama mocked arming these very same people his “strategy” now completely depends on as a FANTASY just ONE MONTH AGO:

Obama Admits Arming Moderate Syrian Rebels Has ‘Always Been A Fantasy’
By: DSWright Monday August 11, 2014 10:01 am

Though many have critiqued President Barack Obama’s strategy of bypassing a terrorism law to give weapons to so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, few have touched the level of comprehensive disdain the president himself has with his own policy.

The weapons the Obama Administration sent to Syria famously ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Some of those weapons are likely being used now in Iraq against government forces and to commit the kind of massacres President Obama ordered American air power in to try and stop.

In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama not only declined to defend his policy of giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but offered a withering critique of his policy and the reasoning behind it.

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

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. It was President Obama who, despite warnings and protests from numerous groups, bypassed a law against arming terrorists to give weapons to the Syrian rebels. Now it was all a “fantasy” and had no hope of working?

Well, Mr. Wright, I suppose you can put either reset your jaw or just start stomping on it while it’s on the floor.  Because Obama just went back on the policy he had just went back on.

Barack Obama is demon-possessed, and that’s the moral equivalent of being completely INSANE.

You want more pretzel-twisted Obama “logic”???  Obama is now demanding that he can do what he wants based on a resolution that he demonized and later tried to repeal:

WASHINGTON (AP) – On the cusp of intensified airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is using the legal grounding of the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush relied on more than a decade ago to go to war. But Obama has made no effort to ask Congress to explicitly authorize his own conflict. […]

As a U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2007, Obama tried to prevent Bush’s administration from taking any military action against Iran unless it was explicitly authorized by Congress. A Senate resolution Obama sponsored died in committee. […]

The White House has cited the 2001 military authorization Congress gave Bush to attack any countries, groups or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Earnest on Thursday described the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, generally known as the AUMF, as one that Obama “believes continues to apply to this terrorist organization that is operating in Iraq and Syria.” […]

The White House also finds authorization under the 2002 resolution that approved the invasion of Iraq to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction…

Obama is using both authorizations as authority to act even though he publicly sought their repeal last year. In a key national security address at the National Defense University in May 2013, Obama said he wanted to scrap the 2001 order because “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.” Two months later, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to consider repealing the 2002 Iraq resolution, calling the document “outdated.”

This is the God-cursed, demon-possessed, dishonest, ignorant FOOL that you trusted your lives and the lives of your children with, America.

By the way, those two resolutions used the word “war” a total of nine different times.  Since Obama has refused to use the word “war,” they clearly don’t apply.

I don’t know about you, but I think about this dishonest, depraved fool who by his own rhetoric is the very worst kind of hypocrite, and I feel like vomiting until every piece of intestine I’ve got is lying on the floor in a bloody pile.

What Obama should ask for is for Congress to pass an “Irresolution to Surrender” rather than a resolution to fight a damn war.  Because he HAS no resolve and under his “leadership” America never will have any “resolution” to do anything other than bow down before his Muslim masters.

And ALL liberals are demon-possessed; it is as quintessential to being a progressive liberal as being a total hypocrite is to being a progressive liberal.  Thus Jay Carney helps CNN prove that they are a network of propagandists that make Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda look honest by comparison and claims that no one could have possible known that terrorism would be so resurgent if we abandoned Iraq.

Except for that reality thing again:

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

Everything Bush said would happen if we abandoned Iraq has happened.  Every single damn thing.  Anyone at this point who says Obama was right on Iraq is worse than a fool; he or she is demon-possessed.

Let me start with Syria and work my way back to Iran.  In Syria we had a unique situation as described by the UK Telegraph:

There’s a remarkable piece in the New Yorker about how President Obama is grappling with his wrenching dilemma over what to do about Syria. It’s one of those examples of American journalism that gives you a genuine feel for the atmosphere behind the scenes – and of how, in the words of one former US official, “all the options are horrible”.

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

“There may be another time in history when a President’s entire national security team recommended a course of action and he overruled them, but if there is I’m not aware of it,” says Senator John McCain in the New Yorker.

If things had become better in Syria, then it could be said that Obama was right and everybody else was wrong.  But, you see, things are so much worse in Syria due to Obama’s dithering inaction it is beyond UNREAL.  And Obama’s foolishness will haunt us for years to come; we had a real opportunity to knock out Assad because there is no question his regime was teetering when literally even ALL his OWN advisors and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the conservative Republicans were urging him to arm the pro-democracy rebels.  We had a real chance – even Obama’s own top experts agreed on that – to have a pro-democracy government rise in Syria.  But because Obama refused to act decisively, the “pro-democracy rebels” – having no weapons and no support and no means to fight – were killed off by both Assad’s regime and by the better organized and better funded and better equipped terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL.  And our opportunity vanished.

And now if we bomb Syria, but refuse to put boots on the ground as Obama is insisting upon, who is going to benefit most from bombing ISIL in Syria?  Bashar al-Assad and his thug regime, that’s who.  Because rest assured HIS boots on the ground will be there to mop up and occupy what we refused to enter.

So now – thanks to Obama – we get to choose between a vicious terrorist army and a vicious dictator thug who has always supported terrorism.  Because when evil rules, there ARE no good choices.

And we’re also in the same sort of  horrible position in Iraq.  Because thanks to Obama’s total abject failure there, helping Iraq means helping Iran.  It didn’t have to be that way.

Obama LIES when he claims that it wasn’t his fault he pulled out of Iraq and that he tried but could not reach a status of forces agreement that we needed to keep our troops safe in Iraq.  Bullcrap: Obama was crystal clear from day one that he was abandoning Iraq.

As Obama abandoned Iraq, he took credit for the “victory” that Bush had won by fighting even as he claimed credit for getting us out.  Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama claimed that Iraq was and would remain “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But the FACT is that General Petraeus was begging Obama NOT to abandon Iraq even in 2009 as Obama took office, but Obama was already overruling his key general back then.  And as Obama was actually announcing his pullout in 2011 that he’d already said he was going to follow through with in 2009, key generals who been the architects of the successful surge strategy were stating at that time that Obama’s fool strategy would end in DISASTER.

We would have had an Iraq that was free of ISIS/ISIL on the one hand, and significantly free of Iranian influence on the other.  But now, thanks again to Obama, we are cursed with both dominating Iraq.  And we have literally become the ally of the most dangerous and most poisonous regime on the face of the earth as we help IRAN drive out the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory they now dominate.

There are no good choices now.  Obama has made any good choice impossible.  There are only bad choices or even worse choices guaranteed down the road if we fear the death toll that will be caused by the bad choices.

You need to understand something: what is happening now is the result of a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party believes we have to confront evil and declare war on it and fight it and kill it.  The Democrat Party denies the existence of evil.  They simply do.  They view themselves a ubersophisticated, and able to see all the many nuances and shades of gray that they mock black-and-white- and right-and-wrong-seeing Republicans for not understanding.  And professing themselves to be wise, Democrats become fools and complete moral idiots.

And now we’re going to start paying in spades for our “No, no, NO!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” president.