Archive for the ‘defense’ Category

Liberals To Veterans: ‘You’ve Served Us Well, Troops. But Unfortunately Now We’ll Have To Euthanize You Because You’re Dangerous.’

April 22, 2014

I just want to point out that if I were a parakeet and my humans lined my birdcage with the New York Slimes, I would call the ASPCA and file a cruelty to animals lawsuit.

This worthless load of equine manure is the latest example of the true moral disease of the soul that is liberalism (my comment on this filth is below):

Veterans and White Supremacy
By KATHLEEN BELEW APRIL 15, 2014

EVANSTON, Ill. — WHEN Frazier Glenn Miller shot and killed three people in Overland Park, Kan., on Sunday, he did so as a soldier of the white power movement: a groundswell that united Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other fringe elements after the Vietnam War, crested with the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, and remains a diminished but potent threat today.

Mr. Miller, the 73-year-old man charged in the killings, had been outspoken about his hatred of Jews, blacks, Communists and immigrants, but it would be a mistake to dismiss him as a crazed outlier. The shootings were consistent with his three decades of participation in organized hate groups. His violence was framed by a clear worldview.

You can’t predict whether any one person will commit violence, but it would be hard to think of someone more befitting of law enforcement scrutiny than Mr. Miller (who also goes by the name Frazier Glenn Cross). I’ve been studying the white radical right since 2006. In my review of tens of thousands of pages of once classified federal records, as well as newly available archives of Klan and neo-Nazi publications, Mr. Miller appears as a central figure of the white power movement.

The number of Vietnam veterans in that movement was small — a tiny proportion of those who served — but Vietnam veterans forged the first links between Klansmen and Nazis since World War II. They were central in leading Klan and neo-Nazi groups past the anti-civil rights backlash of the 1960s and toward paramilitary violence. The white power movement they forged had strongholds not only in the South, but also in the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, California and Pennsylvania. Its members carried weapons like those they had used in Vietnam, and used boot-camp rhetoric to frame their pursuit of domestic enemies. They condoned violence against innocent people and, eventually, the state itself.

Before his 1979 discharge for distributing racist literature, Mr. Miller served for 20 years in the Army, including two tours in Vietnam and service as a Green Beret. Later that year he took part (but was not charged) in a deadly shooting of Communist protesters in Greensboro, N.C.

In 1980, Mr. Miller formed a Klan-affiliated organization in North Carolina that eventually was known as the White Patriot Party. He outfitted members in camouflage fatigues. He paraded his neo-Nazis, in uniform and bearing arms, up and down streets. They patrolled schools and polling places, supposedly to protect whites from harassment. F.B.I. documents show that they also burned crosses. By 1986, Mr. Miller’s group claimed 2,500 members in five southern states.

The archives also show that Mr. Miller received large sums of money from The Order, a white power group in the Pacific Northwest, to buy land and weapons to put his followers through paramilitary training. Mr. Miller’s group paid $50,000 for weapons and matériel stolen from the armory at Fort Bragg, N.C., including anti-tank rockets, mines and plastic explosives. He targeted active-duty troops for recruitment and hired them to conduct training exercises.

Mr. Miller’s downfall came after the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of black North Carolinians; as part of a settlement in 1985, he agreed to stop operating a paramilitary organization. In 1987, a federal judge found that Mr. Miller had violated the agreement, and barred him from contacting others in the white power movement. Outraged, and anticipating criminal charges regarding the stolen military weapons, Mr. Miller briefly went underground. He would write in a self-published autobiography, “Since they wouldn’t allow me to fight them legally above ground, then I’d resort to the only means left, armed revolution.” He was later caught with a small arsenal, but he began cooperating with prosecutors, testifying against other white supremacists in exchange for a reduced sentence. He was released in 1990, after serving three years.

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a nine-page report detailing the threat of domestic terrorism by the white power movement. This short document outlined no specific threats, but rather a set of historical factors that had predicted white-supremacist activity in the past — like economic pressure, opposition to immigration and gun-control legislation — and a new factor, the election of a black president.

The report singled out one factor that has fueled every surge in Ku Klux Klan membership in American history, from the 1860s to the present: war. The return of veterans from combat appears to correlate more closely with Klan membership than any other historical factor. “Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists carrying out violent attacks,” the report warned. The agency was “concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

The report raised intense blowback from the American Legion, Fox News and conservative members of Congress. They demanded an apology and denounced the idea that any veteran could commit an act of domestic terrorism. The department shelved the report, removing it from its website. The threat, however, proved real.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

Mr. Miller obviously represents an extreme, both in his politics and in his violence. A vast majority of veterans are neither violent nor mentally ill. When they turn violent, they often harm themselves, by committing suicide. But it would be irresponsible to overlook the high rates of combat trauma among the 2.4 million Americans who have served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the full impact of which has not yet materialized. Veterans of those conflicts represent just 10 percent of those getting mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the overwhelming majority of those in treatment are still Vietnam veterans.

During Mr. Miller’s long membership in the white power movement, its leaders have robbed armored cars, engaged in counterfeiting and the large-scale theft of military weapons, and carried out or planned killings. The bombing by Timothy J. McVeigh, an Army veteran, of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, which killed 168 people, was only the most dramatic of these crimes. When we interpret shootings like the one on Sunday as acts of mad, lone-wolf gunmen, we fail to see white power as an organized — and deadly — social movement.

That Mr. Miller was able to carry out an act of domestic terror at two locations despite his history of violent behavior should alarm anyone concerned about public safety. Would he have received greater scrutiny had he been a Muslim, a foreigner, not white, not a veteran? The answer is clear, and alarming.

Kathleen Belew, a postdoctoral fellow in history at Northwestern University, is at work on a book on Vietnam veterans and the radical right.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 16, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Veterans and White Supremacy.

First of all, the FACT of the matter is that the Ku Klux Klan was the product of the DEMOCRAT PARTY:

As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

So if this liberal pseudo-intellectual fraud had a shred of integrity or honesty, she would be pointing out that there is a FAR higher percentage of DEMOCRATS who are Klan members than the 22-plus million VETERANS who served their country rather than parasitically leaching off of it as have Democrats.

We’ve got over twenty-two million veterans in America.  And how many of them are guilty of this kind of viciousness?  Belew lists two out of twenty-plus million?  It’s hard to decide if this woman is more insane than evil or more evil than insane (that’s always my problem when I’m trying to understand liberals).

I see, furthermore, that Kathleen Belew conveniently forgot to mention that black leaders have long lamented the over-representation of blacks drafted for the Vietnam War - and therefore (according to this harebrained theory of Belew’s) the vicious racist hate of black service members that are clearly threatening America.  Basically, she doesn’t have to explain why this military veteran = violence crap theory doesn’t apply to blacks because she is a mindless hypocrite lacking a shred of honor or credibility.

I mean, I remember an example that Belew conveniently forgot: John Allen Muhammad.  Here’s a black guy who served in the military.  And here’s a black guy that turned into a sniper hunting humans.  In fact:

“Muhammad’s goal in Phase One was to kill six white people a day for 30 days.”

Military veteran, check.  Racist, check, murderer, check.  Only the veteran was the wrong skin color for Belew.

Given the sheer number of white veterans relative to the number of black veterans in the United States military (about 80 percent of all U.S. veterans are white), and given the fact that I just (off the top of my head) produced half as many examples – we should be writing the story “Veterans and Black Supremacy” if we were going to deal with the facts.

How many black Vietnam veterans joined the racist Black Panthers or some other black race-based group???

If we talk about “minority veterans” the last TWO mass shootings by veterans at Fort Hood were BOTH “minorities” and therefore it seems that we ought to be looking at the minority veterans with “Are you about to go postal?” suspicions, shouldn’t we?  And that actually has me providing MORE minority examples of dangerous psycho veterans than Belew does white veterans.

But who the hell needs to think or reflect on actual facts when you’re a liberal?

When you are a liberal you are immune to reality.  It’s almost like it’s a sci-fi-movie extra dimension that liberals cannot see or experience or have any contact with.

Then there’s the Homeland Security Report that Belew cites: she fails to mention that the stuff she recites was WITHDRAWN when it was shown that it had no basis in fact but was basically The Democrats exercising their “loathing the military” demons.  In fact, it was so baseless and so utterly without merit that it was withdrawn within a matter of HOURS after it was issued.

This is “scholarship” with rabies.  It is diseased, frothing-at-the-mouth madness masquerading as “academia.”

But that said, let’s assume her point is valid and there is something about serving in the armed forces – especially in combat – that makes one go psycho racist.

What do we do about it?

Perhaps liberals want us to simply disband our military and preemptively surrender right now to Russia.  Just surrender.  Tell Putin that we will gladly be his slaves and work to death in his forced labor camps in Siberia scraping coal out of the ground with our bare hands.  Hell, that would make America even better at liberalism than France and France is pretty damn good at being gutless coward liberals.

The only other alternative is to just treat our veterans the way we used to treat war dogs.  The idea was that war dogs – having been turned vicious by combat – could never be reintegrated into society.  So they had to be euthanized when they came home.  You know, “Good job, Fido!  Attaboy!  But now we’ve got to put you down.”

The truly evil, violent and diseased people in America are liberals and members of liberal groups.  If anyone needs to be “put down,” it’s Kathleen Belew and her ilk.

If you agree with Kathleen Belew, then have the decency to give up your freedom and become the slave you ought to be.  Because without our veterans a slave is precisely what the hell you would BE.  Otherwise realize that it is LIBERALS who are a true danger to both sanity and freedom.

For liberal Democrats to cast this kind of hate on the people who defend our freedom is so sickening and so beneath contempt I just want to vomit.

 

 

Report Shows Obama Failed – And Failed From DAY ONE – In Afghanistan

April 19, 2014

Raise your hand if you EVER believed Obama’s incredibly stupid and naïve “strategy” in Afghanistan would work before he cut and ran on his “timetable for surrender.”

Please note: people like me were declaring Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan would fail from the first moment he declared, “If we declare exactly when we’re going to crawl out with our tails between our legs, and then leave Afghanistan to the terrorists, we’ll win.”  And people like me were right, and as usual people like Obama are a) evil because they wasted all of our blood and everything we invested and b) stupid beyond human belief.

Obama already HAS largely pissed Iraq away and wasted our victory there by refusing to stay.  Cutting and running equals LOSING.  I still remember the day that Obama demonized and slandered John McCain for declaring that we ought to remain in Iraq for a hundred years, if necessary, to peacefully secure what we won the same way we remained in Germany and the same way we remained in Japan and the same way we remained in South Korea to keep what we had won safe and free.  What McCain was very clearly saying – CORRECTLY – was that America needed to maintain a low key presence and a commitment to these countries in order to keep the terrorists who had taken over Afghanistan to attack us on 9/11 and to keep the terrorists who wanted to do the same thing with Iraq out and American influence in.

Obama said absolutely not, that his policy of declaring to the enemy exactly when we were going to withdraw and then leaving would succeed.  On Obama’s failed view, “cutting and running” would force Afghanistan and Iraq to get their acts together and fight the terrorists themselves.

But that was never going to work, and frankly the stakes were too high for America to ever stupidly believe that it had any chance of working.

And now here we are:

EXCLUSIVE: Confidential U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own
State Department tries to hide risks of corruption
By Guy Taylor – The Washington Times
Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Confidential U.S. assessments, which the State Department tried to hide from the public, show nearly all Afghan Cabinet ministries are woefully ill-prepared to govern after the U.S. withdraws its troops, often describing the gaps in knowledge, capability and safeguards as “critical” and describing an infrastructure in danger of collapsing if left to its own accord.

The State Department USAID reports, obtained by The Washington Times, paint a sobering portrait about the impact of the billions of dollars the U.S. has spent on nation-building over the past decade.


SEE ALSO: See the scathing documents detailing $600 billion squandered in Afghanistan


Treated as a whole, the reports suggest that the U.S. spending has yet to create a sustainable civilian government in Afghanistan and, in some cases, has been diverted to corrupt politicians or extremists looking to destabilize the country.

USAID officials told The Times on Tuesday that the risks of corruption and waste associated with trying to develop a government in Afghanistan have long been known and that U.S. taxpayers must be patient before they see further returns on their aid investments.

Americans need to appreciate that the Afghan government ministries hardly existed a dozen years ago, said the officials, who argued that the government has progressed dramatically over the years — giving all the more reason for Washington now to ensure that the gains are not lost and U.S. national security hurt during the years ahead.

Further, USAID spokesman Matt Herrick told The Times that “we strongly reject all claims that we have improperly withheld information.”

USAID takes very seriously its obligation to share information about its operations with Congress, auditors and the public,” Mr. Herrick said.

But questions remain about precisely why the secret assessments, which were conducted by USAID officials in 2012 and 2013 and are known in foreign aid circles as “Stage II Risk Assessment Reports,” are just coming to light.


SEE ALSO: U.S. fears Afghan services may be cut as corruption sharply reduces customs taxes


The documents focus specifically on seven Afghan government ministries overseeing the nation’s finance, mining, electric utilities, communications, education, health and agriculture.

USAID concluded outright that six of those ministries simply cannot be trusted to manage aid from U.S. taxpayers without a dangerous risk that the money will fall victim to fraud, waste, abuse or outright theft.

Only in one of the seven cases — the Afghan Ministry of Finance in March 2013 — did auditors conclude that the ministry’s systems were “adequate to properly manage and account for” money being channeled in from Washington.

But even with that conclusion, USAID auditors identified 26 risks for fraud and waste at the finance ministry. Three of the risks were deemed to be “high” and the rest were rated “critical,” including the overarching danger of the Finance Ministry simply “not being able to fulfill its mandate and carry out its operation.”

The reports, which also contain specific recommendations for each ministry to root out mismanagement, are being made public against a backdrop of mounting debate in Washington over America’s nation-building project in Afghanistan over the past 12 years.

The Times obtained the assessments under a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the chief U.S. watchdog over the State Department’s nation-building efforts.

The State Department provided the documents earlier to private groups and congressional lawmakers, but in redacted, edited and compressed formats, leading to complaints that the department hid essential information about the poor state of Afghanistan’s governing ability. The Times’ copies were mostly free of edits, laying bare the stark assessments USAID gave about each Afghan ministry.

‘Should not be released’

At the center of that debate sits serious questions about the impact — or lack thereof — of the more than $100 billion that Congress says has been channeled toward Afghanistan reconstruction.

Although the amount is far less than the $600 billion estimated to have been spent on U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, it represents the core of America’s attempt to build a government that would not crumble quickly should President Obama come through on his promise to pull all U.S. forces out of the nation by the end of this year.

USAID alone has channeled $20 billion toward the effort, according to SIGAR officials.

SIGAR and USAID have fought bitterly in public in recent weeks over whether the U.S. exerted enough safeguards over its spending and whether the State Department has tried to hide the blemishes inside each Afghan ministry.

The Stage II Risk Assessment Reports, along with a series of other Afghan ministry audits that USAID contracted out to the high-level Washington accounting firms KPMG and Ernst & Young, have sat at the center of the dispute.

SIGAR used the assessments as the basis for its scathing report in January highlighting rampant claims of fraud and abuse across the ministries. But what came next was even more eye-opening: The watchdog group wrote a letter to USAID accusing the agency of seeking at “virtually every turn” to block the information from becoming public.

“When SIGAR first requested copies of the ministry assessments at issue here, USAID stamped them ‘Sensitive But Unclassified’ (SBU), with a legend on the front covers stating that they should not be released ‘outside the Executive Branch,’ i.e., should not be released to Congress or the public,” SIGAR General Counsel John G. Arlington wrote in a March 26 letter to USAID’s legal branch.

The letter triggered speculation inside government circles in Washington that USAID might be guarding the material because of a reference that the ministry assessments had made to terrorism.

A version of the assessment, which was conducted by KPMG, appeared this month on the website of the Project on Government Oversight and highlighted how the Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development had never developed a mechanism “for screening of beneficiaries for their possible links with terrorist organizations before signing contracts or providing funds to the suppliers.”

Lack of accountability

That particular assessment, along with others that USAID contracted KPMG and Ernst & Young to conduct, were not included in the FOIA response that SIGAR provided Tuesday to The Times.

In the response, SIGAR provided The Times with more than 100 pages of the assessments that USAID officials conducted to gauge the capabilities of Afghan ministries.

The documents paint a sobering picture. In one, USAID auditors assessed a shocking lack of management over the financial dealings at the ministry overseeing all mining activities in Afghanistan.

“There is no financial management and accounting system in place to record transactions for both operational and development budget,” states the September 2012 assessment of the Afghan Ministry of Mines.

“There is no evidence of reconciliation of monthly payroll records,” auditors wrote. “In fact, staff are receiving bonuses in cash which are not declared on their bank transfer.”

What’s worse, USAID concluded, is that the “same staff is recording and reconciling transactions.”

An examination of Afghanistan’s main power and electricity generating utility, Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat — known as DABS — paints an equally bleak picture. The assessment, dated October 2012, found “significant weaknesses in DABS’ financial management and accounting system.”

“These weaknesses create opportunities for fraud, including off-balance sheet financing,” USAID auditors wrote. “Evidently DABS does not have sufficient financial management capacity to manage donors’ funds, without strong mitigation measures and/or substantial involvement from donors.”

Six of 12 risks that auditors identified for fraud and waste at DABS were assessed as “critical.” Six others, including the risk of DABS’ management “not being committed to sound organizational structure and competence,” were rated as “high.”

Documents prove oversight

Each of the assessments contains a section outlining the Obama administration’s 2010 policy to channel “at least 50 percent” of all U.S. government development aid to Afghanistan directly into the budget of the Afghan government.

Under the policy, USAID officials wrote, the agency is committed to evaluating the government capability of whatever nation is receiving aid — in this case Afghanistan. The point, the officials wrote, is to “understand the fiduciary risk environment in targeted countries” in order to decide whether a given nation’s agencies can be trusted with U.S. taxpayer money.

“If the assessment reveals clear evidence of vulnerabilities to corruption, and the partner country government fails to respond, the use of partner country systems must not be authorized,” USAID officials wrote.

Although the assessments go on to highlight such vulnerabilities across the Afghan ministries, USAID agreed as of August to channel roughly $695 million in “direct assistance” to those ministries.

USAID officials defended their actions Tuesday by pointing out that the agency has disbursed only about $200 million, specifically because of concerns about widespread fraud and corruption.

Mr. Herrick said suggestions that USAID has tried to hide the risk of such problems only “distract from the larger story that is often overlooked here — that USAID is protecting U.S. taxpayer money while providing critical development assistance and putting in place strict safeguards and oversight measures.”

“These documents, the Stage II assessments, very clearly demonstrate those oversight measures,” he said.

Another USAID official told The Times that Congress and U.S. government auditors have access to USAID documents in unredacted form either in their offices or at USAID.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, asserted that it “is a common practice to redact information from the general public about vulnerabilities and other information that could be exploited by unscrupulous actors if exposed.”

Other officials said the USAID goes to lengths to work with Afghan officials in an attempt to help them develop the capability to effectively manage their ministries on their own, rather than simply throw money at the situation. As a result, one official said, the process takes significant time and care.

Ghost employees

Officials writing the documents pulled few punches. The one conducted on the Ministry of Mines, for instance, described a landscape ripe for corruption. Operational problems, USAID auditors wrote, have created a “critical” risk of “kickbacks and bribery.”

Similarly strong language was used in a “Conclusion & Results” section of an October 2012 assessment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, commonly referred to as “MAIL.”

“MAIL’s financial management/accounting system is not adequate to properly manage and account for donors’ funds,” auditors wrote. “MAIL does not have the financial management capacity to manage proposed activities.”

USAID auditors also pointed to damaging personnel problems within the Ministry of Public Health, whose “payroll database is vulnerable to unauthorized access and modification.”

The ministry “runs the risk of paying ghost employees and making improper payments to employees,” the assessment states.

A “lack of transparency” within the ministry’s procurement and purchasing system “creates an opportune environment for fraud, waste and abuse,” USAID auditors wrote, adding that ministry was in violation of existing Afghan government procurement laws, operating with “no effective control over public expenditures.”

Thirteen of 14 risks USAID identified in the assessment were rated as “critical,” including the risks that the ministry’s officials are diverting “government resources for unintended purposes” and manipulating accounting information to “hide illegal actions.”

While a January 2013 assessment of the Ministry of Education painted a relatively optimistic view of the ministry’s future, auditors cited a “high” risk of government resources being diverted to “unintended purposes.”

USAID auditors also found a host of accountability issues associated with the manner in which not just money — but actual cash — flows through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to the ministry’s employees.

“The Ministry permits salary advances in the form of cash to staff, however, there are no internal controls to monitor and track the cash advances and [a] separate ledger to record the cash advances is not maintained,” auditors wrote in a January 2013 assessment.

We have needed all along to stay small in Afghanistan, and to just keep using our elite forces and our air and artillery power to just keep finding out where the Taliban were and taking them out.  As Bush had successfully done.

Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy was NEVER going to work.  Because we were NEVER going to be able to win the hearts and minds of such a primitive tribal people who are so easily deceived (all too much like the American people, sadly).

What we needed to do was what Bush did: drive the Taliban out and just proceed to keep them on their heels by killing them with raids when they tried to gather and terrorize the people in their villages.

Bush lost 630 Americans in Afghanistan during his eight years.  Now, you can demonize Bush as having lost to many, as Barack Obama did.  But now you’ve got to answer for the fact that Barack Obama has lost 1,687 American lives so far in Afghanistan.  And he is about to lose the whole enchilada because his strategy was wildly wrong.  And he’s ALREADY lost the Iraq War that George Bush won by refusing to stay and keep what we fought for.

Obama has thrown away three times as many American lives as Bush AFTER DEMONIZING Bush.  Only to fail those men and fail America.

Liberals won’t answer for those facts, of course, because to be a Democrat is to be a rabidly dishonest hypocrite.

But every thinking person ought to hold Obama accountable for his bovine feces rhetoric and his bovine feces results.

Obama’s failure in Afghanistan has been predicted over and over and over again right from the very start by people like me.  Because we understood the true evil that is Barack Obama and his God Damn America policies:

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan Mess Proves Why Making Iraq Central Front Good Idea

October 15, 2009

Biden Reveals Obama Administration Treating Afghanistan As Political Problem

October 19, 2009

Some ‘Change’: Closest Ally Britain Says Obama Undermining War In Afghanistan

November 24, 2009

Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’

December 2, 2009

Speigel Regards Obama And His Afghanistan Policy With Naked Contempt

December 2, 2009

How’s Obama Doing In Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq? Not So Good

April 7, 2010

Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

April 7, 2010

Napalitano Travels To Afghanistan To Make Its Border As Secure As America’s

January 3, 2011

Great General Leaving Afghanistan So Fool President Can Be The Weakling His Leftist Base Demands

February 16, 2011

Obama – Who Demonized Iraq And Afghanistan During Bush Administration – Now Warns Against Sending ‘Mixed Messages’ In His ‘Kinetic Action’ In Libya

June 16, 2011

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

June 29, 2011

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

February 9, 2012

I think those older articles establish my bona fides that I TOLD YOU SO.

And one of the things I pointed out in one of the earliest articles was why Obama was such a stupid and reckless fool to make the war on terror all about Afghanistan to begin with.  The bottom line is that Iraq was PERFECT for American policy.  It had an educated people who were capable of listening to reason; and it had flat terrain where our air and armor power could easily dominate and guarantee victory.  Obama was stupid to drag us deeply into Afghanistan – which Bush refused to do no matter how much John Kerry and then Barack Obama and other Democrats demonized him for it – because unlike those fools Bush listened to his generals and understood the folly.  That is why he kept the Afghanistan theater in low key and instead opened the theater in Iraq where we had a dictator’s ass to kick in the heart of the Arab World.

Obama’s campaign was based on demonization from the very outset.  He had made Iraq “the bad war” and – because it was deemed politically foolish to make Democrats completely anti-war – they offered Afghanistan as “the good war.”

Only Democrats are rabid liars and fools and Afghanistan was NEVER a good ANYTHING.

We have struggled massively to educate stone-age people who live in a country that is dominated by mountains and caves that defy all of our military advantages.

It was a death trap right from the start.

The rest of the world knew this: which is why Afghanistan had already been called “The Graveyard of Empires” LONG before another fool like Obama came along to experience the lessons of history anew.

Just keep voting for Democrats, America.  Because you’ve clearly demonstrated that you want to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Obama’s God Damn America Is WEAK: Obama Wants To GUT Army To Weakest Level Since BEFORE World War II

February 24, 2014

Fools never learn.

Weakness is the ultimate provocation.

Barack Obama wants to superintend the final destruction of America as he economically implodes us on the one hand and leaves us weak and blind to enemy attack on the other.

Realize that what you are about to read will actually make us even worse than we already ARE.  Because under Obama only TWO BRIGADES in the US Army are actually ready to fight.  And that will be down to zero pretty damn soon.

Let me just quote it for the record: “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America.”  — Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years, Jeremiah Wright

US Army to Shrink to Pre-World War II Levels
Luis Ramirez
February 24, 2014

PENTAGON — U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled the largest cuts to the U.S. Army since before World War II.

The Obama administration has for years spoken of a need for a smaller, more agile force. On Monday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out the budgetary blueprint for it.

He said this is a time for reality at the Department of Defense, which now is required to bring its budget down to $496 billion from a high of nearly $700 billion at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

“This will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition DoD is making after 13 years of war, the longest conflict in our nation’s history,” he said.

But the cuts go far beyond what the Pentagon was spending before the two conflicts.

They include slashing an entire fleet of Cold War era (A-10) attack jets – originally meant for striking Soviet tanks – and trimming the number of Army troops from the post-9/11 peak of 570,000 to between 440,000 and 450,000 – the lowest since 1940.

In addition to the Army, other services including the Marines are taking cuts.

At the same time, Hagel told reporters the Pentagon wants to continue to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region, and to boost special operations forces and cyber defenses.

“We chose further reductions in troop strength and force structure in every military service – active and reserve – in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities,” he said.

Hagel’s recommendations come despite opposition by some generals who argue the U.S. still needs the infrastructure to be able to fight two wars at the same time. Veterans groups also oppose reductions to soldiers’ benefits.

The proposed cuts still need to be approved by Congress, where Hagel is likely to encounter stiff resistance by those who argue that such deep reductions will result in a weaker military that is unable to deal with rising threats from adversaries like China and a continuing war against militants in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

Everywhere you look at every turn you take and in every way you take it, Barack Obama has weakened and undermined America.

Barack Obama is a weak coward who is pathologically incapable as a rabid ideologue from doing anything other than issuing executive orders and fearmongering and demagoguing and demonizing his opposition.  He cannot lead.  He does not love America.  And he has FAILED.

What is Obama saying?  That he has decimated America’s enemies and made us safe?  As this Liar-in-Chief was saying he had decimated al Qaeda even as they were kicking our ass in Libya and raising the al Qaeda flag on U.S. territory around the world???

Obama has already fled like a coward from Iraq.  And he gave away EVERYTHING that American warriors earned in blood as a result.  He’s crawling away like a coward the same way from Afghanistan, where the Taliban and even Afghanistan’s own government openly mock us.  Again, everything America fought for and sacrificed for will be pissed away by Obama.  Obama issued his famous “red line” warning in Syria and he is a laughing stock and a poster boy for weakness and cowardice as a result.  Where is the famous deal Obama’s savior Putin arranged?  It’s gone nowhere.  While Syria’s dictator Assad has since murdered ANOTHER 100,000 of his own people since Obama displayed what a joke he is.  And now here we have Obama “warning” Russia not to send troops into the Ukraine – ON THE VERY DAMN DAY THAT OBAMA JUST STATED FOR THE WORLD THAT AMERICA IS A WEAKENING NATION THAT IS FLEEING.

Vladimer Putin has wiped Obama’s nose in his own feces every single time U.S. and Russian interests have clashed.  And Obama still thinks a weaker America will somehow give us a better bargaining position.  Because he is a weakling, a coward and a naive fool and all he understands is the rhetoric of victimhood.  And all Putin understands is the politics of strength and confrontation.

Obama’s top intelligence official James Clapper recently said this:

 “In my almost fifty years in intelligence, I do not recall a period in which we confronted a more diverse array of threats, crises, and challenges around the world.”

And what is our Fool-in-Chief’s response?  To weaken America to the most pathetic level since American weakness prompted our worst enemies to ignite a world war that cost us hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

Russia and China, emboldened as they smell the noxious stench of Obama’s weakness, are rebuilding their militaries and modernizing their nuclear arsenals while Obama weakens our military and guts the diminishing and aging nuclear arsenal that we have.

How on earth can anybody think that we will have anything other than a diminishing influence in the world as we continue to become less and less relevant under Obama???

Obama just slapped a “kick me” sign to America’s back.  I wonder whose going to start kicking our sodomy-loving butt first?

Just A Few Of The Things That Sefense Secretary Robert Gates Said About Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton

January 10, 2014

Robert Gates is a serious man who has spent his career in the Air Force and the CIA, and who has been in senior leadership positions since the mid-1980s under both Republican and Democrat administrations.

Listen to what the man says about the incredibly wicked Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”

What do you say about a man who doesn’t believe in sending troops and doesn’t think they will succeed – and then sends them there ANYWAY while ignoring the military experts’ recommendations simply out of pure, cynical politics???

Realize that Obama was a pure political agitator who relied on dishonest and deceitful and disingenuous rhetoric every step of the way in his rise to power.  He ran against the Iraq War as the “bad war” but ran ON fighting the Afghanistan War as “the good war” in order to falsely present himself as mainstream and as tough when in reality he was NEITHER.  Then he was elected by an incredibly foolish and depraved American people, the liar-in-chief had to stand by his dishonest rhetoric about Afghanistan even though he hadn’t actually believed ANY of it.  Therefore he sent 30,000 men (to their graves for all he cared) as a half-ass attempt to appease his Pentagon and his own previous lies on the subject of Afghanistan.  The military said they needed twice as many men to make a success out of Afghanistan; Obama should either have sent them all or admitted he had lied to get elected and didn’t believe in the war he had falsely claimed to support and sent NO ONE.

Gates goes on:

He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. .?.?. The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Do you hear that?  Do you understand that?  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH admitted to demonizing a president during time of war out of pure, cynical, partisan politics.  They literally both admit to putting their political posturings over and above the lives of our troops and above America’s national security.

How does Obama and the Obama administration feel about and deal with the military?  Let’s use the word “shabbily:”

Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”

And when it comes to the crony capitalist fascist weasel tyrant Barack Obama, the best political description of him in terms of American political history is “Nixonian”:

Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.”

It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”

Barack Obama is a pure thug who lied and demonized and demagogued his way into office and then proceeded to create an administration that used the political machinery to punish political opponents FAR more than Nixon ever did.  Nixon got impeached for TALKING about using the IRS against his political opponents while Obama was caught red-handed ACTUALLY DOING IT.

These are evil times.  And America has become evil as it has allowed itself to be influenced by the evil times and by the evil people we have foolishly and wickedly chosen to lead us.

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

December 4, 2013

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

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

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

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

So should Americans be worried?

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

READINESS

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

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

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

THE U.S. MILITARY RATING NOW

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

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

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

THE PROBLEM

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

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

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

A SOLUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are we now?

Consider China:

China sends warplanes to newly declared air zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 16, 2013

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

1) Maintain clear boundaries

2) Be consistent

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

4) Impose effective punishments

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

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

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

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

1) Maintain clear boundaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you maintain clear boundaries, Obama?

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

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

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

What was the second rule?

2) Be consistent

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

Are you consistent, Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was third?  Oh, right:

3) Be united

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about that fourth thing:

4) Impose effective punishments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Has Already Been Proven: We Cannot Trust Judges To Approve Security Decisions In The Age Of Obama

July 10, 2013

The embarrassing NSA leaks that revealed that pretty much every American is being treated as a terrorist confirm a few things about liberalism and Obama: you can’t trust either one any more than you could trust Stalinism.

Allow me to go back to something I said way, way back in 2010 as we were greeted with the outrage of Obama’s way of administering “security” by refusing to focus on actual terrorists and instead treat EVERYBODY like a terrorist:

Common sense is like rocket science to moral idiots.  And Barry Hussein, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and everyone else he’s brought on board is a genuine moral idiot.

Liberals self-righteously tell us that profiling Muslims by race would be un-American.  Because “American” to them means that we must instead treat EVERYONE like a terrorist.  A flight attendant with a prosthetic breast is as much a security threat as a 23 year-old Muslim male just arriving from Yemen.  To single anyone out for scrutiny would make sense, and we won’t have that as long as Barry Hussein is our emperor.  Because in Obama’s liberal America we stand like sheep in front of porno-scanners that take naked pictures of us, and then we stand like sheep while we’re groped by professional government gropers.

They don’t want to violate anybody’s rights.  Far better to violate EVERYBODY’S rights instead.

Remember the ecstatic Newsweek headline, “We Are All Socialists Now”???  Socialism invariably ends up treating the people like the enemy.  Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with their Berlin Wall and all the machine gun emplacements to gun down anyone trying to get out.

If you don’t think it’s bad enough now as it is, the Tits and Ass Agency wants to unionize, which would make them even more intrusive and impervious than they already are.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war” — Winston Churchill, commenting on Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler

That’s what we did when we voted for Obama: we chose dishonor and we chose a war we could not win because we are too stupid to even fight the real enemy.

So, here we are, a few years later.  And what is Obama doing?  He’s treating every single American like a terrorist and eavesdropping on over a billion American conversations every single day.

When I’m right, you can always count on me to be right.

The NSA leaks merely prove that everything I said about Obama’s policy of refusing to profile the people and groups most likely to be terrorists necessitated treating every single American like a terrorist instead.

Don’t be angry.  You voted for it, you dumbass.  You voted for Obama.  You voted to be treated like a terrorist and have all of your calls and internet traffic monitored.  You wouldn’t have it any other way.

Now that we’ve dealt with this NSA crap in general, let’s focus on an important specific that Obama loves to assure us: don’t worry, your rights are being protected, because, after all, judges have to approve every single one of these gross violations of your 4th Amendment rights.

Well, there are a couple of things wrong with that.  First of all, there’s this from a former FISA court judge:

Robertson told a federal oversight board that Congress’ 2008 reform meant that “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance,” offering that “I don’t think that is a judicial function.”

Robertson also questioned whether the NSA’s global surveillance programs court should be given its legal basis by a court that “has turned into something like an administrative agency,” adding that the secret court is flawed because only the government’s side is heard. [...]

Robertson said he was ‘‘frankly stunned’’ by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

Liberals LOVE big “government programs,” and they are ALL ABOUT “programmatic” crap.  I mean, if they didn’t we never would have had the unmitigated disaster that ObamaCare has turned out to be (just like we SAID it would be, btw).

But this leaves out something even more fundamental.  It leaves out how treacherous, how blatantly dishonest Barack Obama and his thug administration has turned out to be.

Let’s remember Eric Holder, Obama’s “Injustice Department” lawthug was when he found a way to violate the 1st Amendment and go after a Fox News journalist.

What did Holder do?  He went to a judge to get a warrant to snoop on James Rosen.  The first judge said, “You can’t do that.  That would be fascist and unconstitutional.”  So Holder went to a second judge.  And the second judge said, “You can’t do that.  You’d be a Nazi to do something like that.”  And so Holder went to a third judge.

The third judge approved it.

Let’s say that he refused to.  Do you honestly think Holder would have said, “Well, three strikes and I’m out”???  No way, Jose.  He would have kept on judge-shopping until he found a judge who would sign off for him.

Now, the warrant that that judge signed off on was FILLED with lies that alleged that Rosen was basically a terrorist who was just about to flee the country and there was abundant evidence of his crimes.  None of that was true.  Basically, Holder lied like the rabid weasel that he is to get a warrant approved.  And then he cited the fact that he had lied to the judge as his rationale for why he was not lying to Congress when he said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”  He literally cited the fact that he had lied to a federal judge (the warrant Holder signed off on very much indicated that the FBI planned to prosecute James Rosen) as his grounds for arguing that he had not lied to Congress.

Therein lies your problem with the whole “judge” thing.  An awful lot of judges are, to put it politely, turds.  And finding a judge who will do what you want is kind of like walking blindfolded through a small yard inhabited by a dozen Rottweilers.  It won’t take you very long before you miraculously end up “finding” a big giant turd.  Only Eric Holder wasn’t blindfolded: he was actively TRYING to find a turd.

So pardon me for not being very reassured that Obama has to go before a judge (or a second judge, or a third judge) to get his fascism approved.

We now know for a FACT that Obama has recklessly and tyrannically abused government power.  He has used the IRS, the FBI, the EPA and other out-of-control government agencies to punish his political opponents.  And in fact, he’s done it way, WAY beyond the level to which the last president to try that kind of crap (that would be Nixon) ever came CLOSE to trying.

Obama is a power-mad child with a massive bureaucracy to use as toys and an entire nation to punish if he doesn’t get his way.  And this crap is out of control.

Hypocrite liberals would have been hysterically screaming in the streets if it had been revealed that Bush had been pulling a TENTH of this crap.  But Obama is doing it, so it’s okay.

It aint okay.

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

April 5, 2013

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally – to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Obama DHS: You Have A Right To Defend Yourselves From Armed Workplace Crazies With Scissors (But Not Guns)

February 2, 2013

Does this mean that Obama’s Secret Service detail has handed in their Uzis for pairs of scissors?  I sure hope they’re those safety scissors with the dull tips.  You sure wouldn’t want anybody accidentally putting an eye out while fighting to save Obama’s life, would you?

Under Obama, you have the right to perish miserably in the wake of workplace violence.  The story you are about to read is silent testimony to the fact that a crazed killer is out to murder you and your co-workers, you can’t have an actual weapon to protect yourself with – and there won’t be any cops coming anywhere NEAR in time to help you.  So grab your scissors.

And maybe you could grab a rock and a piece of paper and play with the murdering psycho for your life?

I know, I know.  That’s racist.  Thank you, President Hussein.  Praise you, messiah!  I feel so empowered with my scissors now.  While I’m waiting for my turn to be slaughtered I’ll be able to make arts and crafts!  Origami always did make me forget all about being gunned down by, you know, the only guy allowed to have a gun in your building.

Oh, origami doesn’t use scissors?  That’s okay; NEITHER DO I WHEN I’M CONFRONTING A MAN WITH A GUN.

I actually think it would have been a better idea to teach people to just give in to their terror and wet themselves.  Maybe the gunman would slip or something.

DHS Says: Confront Mass Killers With Scissors

From the New York Post:

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors

By S.A. MILLER | January 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman? No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That’s some of the helpful advice in a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available,” says the narrator in the video, which shows an office worker pulling scissors out of a desk drawer.

The video, titled “Options for Consideration,” also advises that people who get caught in an “active shooter” situation should run away, hide under a desk or take cover out of the line of fire.

Thank goodness we have highly paid professionally trained bureaucrats available to give us great advice like that. This is right up their with the DHS’ advice about stretching before shoveling snow, and remembering to take off cold wet clothes.

The nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.

“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Other survival strategies promoted in the video include hiding “behind large items such as cabinets or desks. Remain quiet. Silence your cellphone or pager. Even the vibration setting can give away a hiding position.”

They might also recommend taking down any ‘gun free zone’ signs.

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.

“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman. “Clearly, you use whatever you can” to fight for your life, he said…

What kind of crazy talk is that? We hold Mr. Feldman’s doctor contacts the authorities so that he can be put away.

The video is part of the Obama administration’s ongoing campaign to reduce firearm violence in the wake of the horrific mass murder last month of 20 children and six teachers in Newtown, Conn., said a Homeland Security official…

The video was released to coincide with President Obama’s sweeping proposals to curb gun violence in America, said the official…

The only trouble is, all the scissors in that Sandy Hook school would have been ‘safety scissors.’

Besides, once people starting hurting each other with scissors, they will have to be banned as well.

Nobody with one of the 400 million guns already in America will ever dare to attack my workplace now.  I’m armed with scissors.

Now, I guess all I need is to figure out how to do this:

Edward Scissorhands

Mind you, I’d kind of rather have a gun.  For one thing, judging by all the scars on poor Edward’s face, it would be quite a bit safer than the alternative pair of scissors that Obama says I can fight back with.  But because I live in the Obama States of America, I am now a farm animal.  And if the slaughterer comes, it is my duty to meekly comply with my turn to be slaughtered.

Wait a minute, what’s that, Obama?  I can’t have these scissors?  Because they’ve been classified as “assault scissors”?  Well, dang.  That just figures.

Democrat Women Who Don’t Demand To Be Forced To Register For The Draft As Front-Line Meat Are Hypocrites And Cowards

February 1, 2013

Another “I told you so” is in order.

I wrote an article in which I stated that if women had a right to serve in combat, then they therefore had the same duty to serve in front-line combat as every man who has been forced to register for selective service (a.k.a. the draft) has borne.

Well, line up, bitches.  Sacrifice the hiney and shut up the whiny.  Because real men don’t whine.  Strap on that hundred pound combat load and stumble as fast as your little hiney will carry you into that machine gun fire way over there in the yonder distance.  And keed doing it day after day and every damn bit as well as all the men around you, because if you fall short your fellow troops are going to die because you were too damn weak to be there.  And you clearly think you’re just as man as the rest of we the testicled ones or you wouldn’t be there.

All young men have an obligation to sign up for front-line combat if they’re called to serve.  Now all women do, too.

You want equal opportunity, do you?  Well, here it is.  Not that liberal women have the integrity to actually ASK for actual equality.  Because liberal women DON’T want “equality”; they want “entitlement” masquerading as “equality.”

And that is because the core defining essence of every liberal is abject moral hypocrisy.  Liberalism means picking out only the most self-serving elements of “equality” and leaving the rest for those who don’t vote for Obama.  Women get to choose to kill their children; men are compelled by force of law to stand by helplessly while his kid is tortured and murdered.  And if a woman chooses to keep a baby which was by definition not a “baby” the last time the sperm donor that used to be called a “father” had anything to do with the pregnancy process, men are forced to support a child they had no choice to have until that kid is over 18.  Women get to “choose” to enter whatever part of the military they want and have a RIGHT to it; men get to be forcibly compelled to serve in the most brutal combat duty whether they want to or not in time of the draft that every man in America must forcibly register to participate in.

Why such a massive and self-referentially dishonest and hypocritical double-standard?  Because women overwhelmingly vote Democrat and men overwhelmingly vote Republican.  And Democrats are just that cynical and evil.  Period.

You voted for it, girls.  You voted for Obama and Obama issued his imperial order as pharaoh over all the land via his proxy.  Now man up and put your lives on the line, honeys.  The least you can do is for once in your whiny life quit thinking “entitlement” and start thinking “duty.”  Because if you should have a right to fight on the front lines, then you damn well have the same duty as the men you so stupidly and wickedly think you are.

It’s really quite funny.  Now the same liberals who most supported allowing women with “the right to choose to serve in combat” are saying the selective service registration requirement is outdated and ought to be thrown out.  Lest women realize that Obama’s “right” just viciously screwed them right up the whazoo and start voting for the party that actually represents women and families.

But they sure as hell weren’t saying that when they were introducing bills just a few years ago when Bush was president to not just bolster selective service, but to literally reinstitute the damn DRAFT:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”

“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.

“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”

Now, liberal, you can agree with me that liberals are so cynical and so depraved that they would literally exploit one of the most sacred obligations ever imposed on Americans to rise up for the good of their nation and fight for it in time of war and if necessary DIE for it as a device to hurt or embarrass George W. Bush.  Hundreds of thousands of the most honored Americans literally left their dead and broken bodies on battlefields across the globe so that Democrats could one day use their sacrifice as a cynical partisan political attempt to demagogically attack Republicans.  Or you can agree with me that women be immediately required to register for front-line combat duty to befit the new status of “right” that Obama just bequeathed you.  Until that “right” is taken away and replaced by common sense.

Do you know which president was the last one to try to call for a forced draft?

Jimmy Carter, Democrat:

Americans have not always been against reinstituting the draft, which was stopped in 1973. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter discussed the possibility of resurrecting the draft and reinstituted the Selective Service registration requirement for young men following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, a majority of Americans favored reinstituting the draft. Support had dropped below the majority level by the summer of 1981, after Ronald Reagan had defeated Carter in his re-election bid.

You not only get to see that Jimmy Carter openly called for resurrecting the draft and forcing young men to serve, but he was the very man who reinstituted the Selective Service requirement that Democrats are now poo-pooing.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the lowest form of hypocrite.  And “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Now, I’m not actually dumb enough to believe that Democrats will show integrity for the first time in their parasitic leech lives and actually be consistent.  They won’t require women to register for Selective Service because, again, women would turn on them in droves the next election and vote for a party and a president who decries this moral idiocy as the evil that it is.

Instead, let me tell you what WILL happen.  Right now, today, in granting this “right,” Democrats are assuring us that of course, we won’t reduce our physical standards to accommodate female infantry recruits.

That’s what Canada said, too.

Back when I was serving, I read an article in the Army Times about Canada opening up infantry service to women.  All they had to do was go through the same boot camp that men had to go through.

Do you know what happened?  No woman could make it through the training.  Female Olympic athletes tried to make it through the training.  And not one could pass muster.

Because they aren’t the one thing they needed to be: MEN.

But it turns out that Canadian liberals are every bit as dishonest as American liberals.  Because you want to see what became of that promise from Canadian liberals?

Military drops fitness test for new recruits Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 9:03 AM ET CBC News

Canada’s military has dropped its physical fitness requirement for new recruits, saying it will take responsibility for whipping prospective soldiers into shape.

A notice posted on the Canadian Forces recruitment website says that effective Oct. 1, 2006, the physical fitness test is eliminated from the selection process.

“The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrollees to reach an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training,” says the notice.

To meet basic minimum requirements, people wanting to join the forces must have Canadian citizenship, be at least 17 years old and have completed Grade 10.

The change comes amid confusion surrounding suggestions that members of the Air Force or Navy could be called on to serve in combat roles on the ground in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops will be until 2009. Rotating deployments of roughly 2,000 have been in the country for the past four years.

Democrats have loathed the military ever since they voted for the president who stated that he personally was “loathing the military” when he was writing a letter to weasel out of HIS Selective Service requirement.  To whatever extent that we can’t say that they want to actively want to destroy the American military, they don’t give one damn about its quality or its capability.  It is nothing more than a social engineering ground for them.  And shame on them for it.

That’s how you know that in the not very distant future, we will be waiving our physical fitness requirement.  Because our military ultimately shouldn’t be one iota stronger than the very weakest woman who wants to exercise her “right to choose.”

It is a costly, time-intensive job to train infantry recruits.  We can’t afford to let thousands of women fail and flail away to the tune of millions of dollars.  Especially after Obama has gutted military funding past the breaking point as it is.

We’re going to dumb-down our requirements so that morally stupid women can ruin the American military.

That’s what’s actually going to happen.

If a man doesn’t register for Selective Service at age 18, he spends the rest of his life suffering for his “choice.”  He will not be able to participate in any federal benefit, including student loans or home mortgages, as a result.  And men can never go back and retroactively register.  They continue to bear that burden for the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do to undo their failure to register.

I hereby demand, in this age of Obama, that all women be forcibly required to register for Selective Service with the same possibility of front-line combat that men have had to endure.

After all, you have a “right.”  And you should have a right to die horribly as a result.

And by the way, welcome to God damn America, ladies.  Except you hypocrite Democrat women who won’t join with me in calling that girls should have the same duty to die on a battlefield that the men all around you have had since this nation was formed.

You need to understand this, women: liberal feminists have opened the floodgates of front-line combat service to you.  And in doing so, they have exposed you to the same DUTY that men have held throughout history.

And it is hypocritical in the extreme for women to say that they should get all the “rights” of this front-line combat as individual women but none of the duties incumbent upon women as a class.

Yesterday I wrote an article that basically asks the question, “How did it come to this?”  How did America so wildly fail and what caused it to collapse?

This is part of that answer.  We collapsed because there was a group of despicable liberals who literally hamstrung our military so that we could not fight.  First they gutted the military such that it lost the capability of fighting two wars simultaneously that it had held since World War II.  And then it first imposed homosexuality and then imposed physically comparatively weak women into direct combat roles that only a true fool would send them into.

Another factoid is that under Obama, the debt that he demonized Bush for accumulating is so-out-of-control that it is simply beyond unreal.

But day-by-day in this age of God damn America, we are seeing our national demise and the demise of Western civilization clearly spelled out for us.

Katie Petronio, a female Marine captain, nailed it in her article, “Get Over It!”  She points out that it is NOT female Marines – either officer or enlisted – who demanded this “right” to serve in front-line infantry combat.  This agenda is being foisted upon them largely by radical feminists who aren’t serving and frankly have no intention of EVER serving.  Captain Petronio points out that she scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine Physical Fitness Test for females.  If there is a woman who can “do anything a man can do,” Captain Petronio is that woman.  But in fact what happened was that she testifies that she was unable to perform like a man: her body broke down and she suffered severe muscular deterioration because her body didn’t produce the male hormones that enabled men to keep coming back at the job day after day after day; she would stumble and fall frequently; her lack of comparative agility and mobility put her and her unit in jeopardy.  She pointed out that her inability to perform as a man would have been able to perform affected her unit’s response time and overall capability.  She points out that as a result of her marked physical deterioration which was far more than the men experienced, she suffered polycistic ovarian syndrome which rendered her permanently infertile.  And she said that – quote – “there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.”

Again, we the testicled ones don’t have this happen to us.  It’s part of having testicles.  It’s not that women aren’t as brave, etc.  It is that they simply don’t have the physical package that God equipped men with.

And liberal feminists HATE God for that.

You need to understand this: liberals do not give one flying damn about women and they don’t give one flying damn about the military.  Their ideology, their worldview, leaves liberals hostile to reality or to the Truth and incapable of understanding how insane or dangerous their “solutions” in fact are.

Just as I was saying from my own perspective.

For convenience sake, here’s the article I wrote back in December before Obama fundamentally transformed America again with his latest outrage of giving women the right to fight if they wanted to in addition to their being given the right to murder their own child if they wanted to:

When Liberals Demand That Women Be Allowed Into Combat, They Are Actually Demanding That Women Ultimately Be Drafted As Machine Gun-Fodder

If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.

From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:

Women in combat — it’s time U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up. December 3, 2012

When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.

That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”

Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.

For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”

In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.

One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.

Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.

Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.

U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told.  Of course, women are already being raped, too.  So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land.  That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article.  Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat.  Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.

This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do?  And liberals say of course.  Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.

If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat.  Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available.  It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder.  And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?

Because women can do anything a man can do.  Including get blown to bits.

It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose.  Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.

Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.

When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right.  They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry.  And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.

Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.

There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder.  The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women?  And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.

Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants.  So women can be firefighters, too.  And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety?  Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars.  Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.

My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had.  But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.

Men and women are different.  Anybody but a fool knows that.  Which is why liberals don’t know it.

Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns.  Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight?  If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???

If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat.  ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register.  That’s what is at stake here.

There are things that women do every bit as well as men.  Fighting isn’t one of them.  Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man.  I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument.  No it wasn’t, you roach; you were a poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman who didn’t have the strength to fight you.  But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.

What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.”  Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.

Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable.  And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.

Canada and other secular humanist nations have embraced women in combat with severely dumbed-down standards to accommodate this “fundamental transformation” of the entire history of warfare.

Here’s the thing: the freedom-loving world doesn’t depend on Canada to secure the peace of the world the way it depends on America.

But now that America is merely one nation among many others, I suppose it doesn’t matter if we hamstring ourselves to our very lowest common denominator for the sake of political correctness.

Many historians credit King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans as having saved Western Civilization at the Battle of Thermopylae so that some day we could emerge as democratic republics.  They fought to the death to give the Greeks a few vital days to prepare for an army of some one million Persians who were bent on annihilating Western Civilization for good.  You’ve kind of got to wonder what would have happened had his “300″ been a bunch of women.

As Obama allows the descendants of those same Persians nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile to deliver them, I guess we’ll ultimately get to find out.

Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.

For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh.  That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.

Title IX?  We don’t need that any more.  In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL!  Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports.  If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all.  And the same is true, of course, for professional sports.  We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis.  Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else.  They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.

It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same.  And it would be insane to suggest otherwise.   I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game.  That’s probably just as true for men, right?

If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?

The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers