Archive for the ‘defense’ Category

Obama’s Astounding And Amazingly Wicked Fulfillment Of Jeremiah 6:14

March 26, 2015

The Word of God through the voice of His prophet Jeremiah:

They offer superficial treatments for My people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. — Jeremiah 6:14

I look at what Obama is claiming he is trying to do as he negotiates with an Iran whose real leaders screams “Death to America!” and I realize that Obama has the same demonic spirit of the leaders that Jeremiah prophetically decried.

But this is actually an even more abundantly clear example:

Video: White House still claims Yemen is a success story, no matter what the reports say
posted at 7:21 pm on March 25, 2015 by Noah Rothman

As this administration has entered its waning days, it seems to have long ago gave up on appealing to the political sensibilities of average Americans. It is easy to let oneself believe that the White House has simply lost touch with reality. But there is a difference between being out of touch and simply exhibiting such childlike petulance that you refuse to accept unpleasant truths. Obama’s administration has adopted the latter approach to bad news.

For anyone in the West who has been following the collapse of the Yemeni government since a January coup by Shiite-dominated Houthi rebels toppled the regime in Sanaa, there has been precious little good news. In a nation that the president claimed represented a model of the success of his approach to counterterrorism as recently as September, the collapse of the security situation has been a startling blow to geological stability and to Barack Obama’s domestic political standing.

But the administration seems to think that the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Yemen will go away if they’re ignored. According to White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest, Yemen remains a feather in the White House’s distinctly featherless cap (Hat tip to Real Clear Politics):

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: I know you’re asked this every time something terrible happens in Yemen, but now that we have essentially complete chaos in Yemen, does the White House still believe that Yemen is the model for a counter-terrorism strategy?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Jon, the White House does continue to believe that a successful counter-terrorism strategy is one that will build up the capacity of the central government to have local fighters on the ground to take the fight to extremists in their own country…

KARL: That’s astounding. You’re saying that you still see Yemen as the model, that building up the central government which has now collapsed, a president who has apparently fled the country, Saudi troops have amassed on one boarder, the Iranians supporting the rebels. You consider this as a model for counter-terrorism?

EARNEST: Again, Jon, what the United States considers to be our strategy when confronting the effort to try to mitigate the threat that is posed by extremists is to prevent them from establishing a safe haven. And certainly in a chaotic, dangerous situation like in Yemen, what the United States will do and has done is work to try to support the central government, build up the capacity of local fighters, and use our own technological and military capabilities to apply pressure on the extremists there.

On a day when what the White House calls the “legitimate government” of Yemen dissolves and its president flees the country out of fear for his personal safety, it takes a galling level of chutzpah to insist that the administration’s counterterror approach in Yemen – one centered on building up “the central government” – remains a noteworthy achievement. But they hope that you’ll believe them and not your lying eyes. And, you know what? Many of this president’s most blinkered supporters will do just that.

It’s going to be delight to watch the White House refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell if the Court finds against the government and strips the Affordable Care Act of its life-sustaining federal subsidies. In fact, the executive branch’s abject refusal to accept any events that cut against its desired outcomes could precipitate a constitutional crisis of a previously unknown magnitude.

The presumption in the above scenario is, however, that this administration is even relevant by June when the 2016 presidential election cycle has ramped up and all the candidates have launched their campaigns. By then, the press will probably be more interested in the reaction from the president-in-waiting than the ACA’s outgoing namesake.

ABC is just as incredulous and shocked as HotAir.  Note their title: “White House Continues to Back Yemen as Model For Successful Counterterrorism.”  And note the opening words:

The White House continues to hail Yemen — a country that is descending into chaos — as a model for fighting extremism, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said today.

“The White House does continue to believe that a successful counter-terrorism strategy is one that will build up the capacity of the central government to have local fighters on the ground to take the fight to extremists in their own country,” Earnest told reporters at the White House. “That is a template that has succeeded in mitigating the threat that we face from extremists in places like Yemen.”

President Obama has long pointed to the counterterrorism campaign in Yemen as a model for the fight against ISIS.

“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years,” Obama said in September as he outlined his strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS.

But today, the U.S. strategy in Yemen has virtually collapsed amid the fall of the American-backed government. The U.S. embassy in Yemen has been shut down and U.S. military personnel have been evacuated.

“We have not seen that kind of progress in terms of strengthening the central government, I think you could make a pretty strong case that we’ve seen the opposite of that, but we do continue to enjoy the benefits of a sustained counterterrorism security relationship with the security infrastructure that remains,” Earnest said. “There are elements of the Yemeni government that we continue to be in touch with that continue to further our efforts to apply pressures to extremists that seek to operate in that country.”

You’ve got to open your mouth in amazement to the point that flies start coming in.  What does Obama’s “model for success” look like?  It looks like the leader of the country fleeing from terrorist rebels backed by the Iran that Obama is actively supporting.  It looks like all US forces themselves fleeing.  It looks like pretty much all of our intelligence and our embarrassing files and our human intelligence assets who trusted us falling into terrorist rebel (and Iranian) hands.  And it looks like the United States utterly blind, utterly weak and utterly helpless now throughout the entire region.

Obama has incredibly removed Iran from the terror list in order to get his wicked deal with the Ayatollah.  When there is NO WORSE SPONSOR OF TERROR THAN IRAN in the world today.  And when it is IRAN that is overthrowing Yemen as we speak.

But Obama isn’t merely declaring in his moral idiocy that Iran is not a terrorist nation; he is actually claiming that Iran is now our great ally against terrorism because it is fighting the Islamic State (that Obama is powerless in his cowardice to fight) in order to protect their own national interests (when Obama refuses to protect America’s).  This wicked foolishness is akin to claiming that if al Qaeda has a beef with Islamic State, that therefore al Qaeda must be a friend and an ally.  You just shake your head in amazement.

I remember it wasn’t even a year ago that Obama decreed:

  I mean, the truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.

Going on a quarter of a million civilians have been massacred in Syria since Obama’s red line disgrace.  People are being burned alive, buried alive, crucified, sold into sexual slavery.  The entire Middle East is devolving into total anarchy and war and a mad confusion.  But don’t worry; it’s all good because Obama is president.

A demonic spirit of delusion owns Barack Hussein Obama.  Period.  There is no other way to describe this fanatic denial of reality.

Barack Obama is the modern poster boy for “Peace in our time!”  But it is his wicked foolishness that is causing the world to burn even as he rabidly continues to demand that only the most superficial treatments be offered for what is very clearly a mortal wound in the rising threat of Islam as Muslims increasingly begin to understand their religion in the same manner that their beloved “Prophet” understands their religion of SUBMISSION.

It is amazing.  Peace when there is no peace.  Yemen is a model for success when it is in fact an obvious model for disaster.  Obama as a successful president when he is THE most failed president who ever lived.

There are those words from the Chinese proverb, “May you live in interesting times.”  It was actually a curse artfully disguised as a blessing.  Because non-interesting times would be times of peace and tranquility.  And we have ANYTHING BUT because of our president who reset our relationship with Russia and gave us the virulent cancer of the Russia that invaded Ukraine even as it hungrily eyes more helpless nations in the face of a US president whom everyone knows will do NOTHING; because of our president and his disgraceful “red line” with Syria that ended American prestige or trust of our allies of any meaningful American resolve; because of our president who claimed that Islamic State was a “JayVee team” (that he later dishonestly tried to say he never said) even as they were seizing city after city in the Iraq Obama cut-and-ran from and PLANNED to cut-and-run from despite the pleading of his generals from the very day the fool took office.

If you think of history as a movie, get your popcorn ready and watch as the world BURNS under this Jeremiah 6:14 disgrace of a president.

And if you are not a true believer in Jesus Christ, get ready for the Antichrist and get ready to worship him and take his mark on your right hand or your forehead.  And then get ready to burn in hell forever and ever.

The Despicable And Pathological Radical Ideological Ignorance Of Barack Obama

February 18, 2015

Franklin Graham nailed it: what if Christians had beheaded 21 Muslims?

If you don’t think the world would have railed at the identity of the attackers vis-à-vis the identity of the victims, you are a true fool and I have nothing to discuss with you because there is no point having any kind of “discussion” with people who clearly have no regard whatsoever for reality or truth.

If Christians murdered Muslims execution-style, do you think the Islamic world would not be up in arms about it and demand that something dramatic and drastic be done to prevent it from ever happening again?  I don’t have to speculate here; we just had an atheist liberal who loved abortion and homosexual marriage murder three young Muslims and “the Islamic world” is out in force decrying it.  The only difference here is that the atheist did not say in advance that he was going to specifically target for murder a bunch of Muslims and then go do it the way the Muslims who just murdered those Christians had done.

In a similar vein, if Christians were murdering homosexuals, do you think that there would be an outcry?  What if Christians started to refuse women an education, the right to drive, the right to not have to literally wear a tent over their bodies because if a man so much as sees a woman’s ankle it’s HER fault he’s lustful?  What if Christians acted in rabid violence every time their faith was insulted?

It is amazing that liberals today are embracing the religion that does all these things, in addition that allows the torture-murder of helpless victims, of Christians, of Jews and of everyone else who doesn’t bend the knee to their warped religion.  And yet embrace it they do on a regular basis as it is easy to document (and see here).

And if what Islamic State is doing has nothing to do with true Islam, where are the one-point-six damned BILLION Muslim voices screaming in anger about what the Islamic State just did in the name of Islam and Muslims and Allah????  Where are the hundreds of thousands of religious leaders of Islam decrying vicious barbarity???  The crickets are chirping, chumps.  It is STUNNING how few Muslims are speaking out against what people who claim their religion are doing.

Pew Research documented that 25% of Muslims support some form of violent jihad.  Recently, in America, a study documented that 80% of mosques recommended “violence-positive texts.”

What if a white people lynched 21 black men and a right wing Republican refused to identify the identity of the victims OR the perpetrators and simply claim that “citizens of Georgia” had been murdered?  Does anyone doubt that the left would savagely criticize the president and claim he was a racist and a bigot and a facilitator of genocide?  And yet:

That’s EXACTLY what our liar-in-chief just did:

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The White House is being criticized for its statement over the beheadings of nearly two dozen Egyptian Coptic Christians at the hands of an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-affiliated group in Libya.

The line that critics are pointing to is referring to the Christians as only Egyptian citizens.

“The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists,” the statement reads. “We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens.”

Fox News contributors George Will and Charles Krauthammer criticized the White House for not referring to the Egyptians as Christians.

“Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the room where the White House semanticists meet every morning and figure out how they could probably make this announcement without offending those who did it. I think the phrase they should come up with is non-Islamic randomness,” Will said on Fox News Monday. “That would explain just about everything that they have to deal with, but it does – at this point, it is beyond burlesque, its pathological, it’s clinical their inability and unwillingness to say – to accurately describe things.”

Krauthammer said the Obama administration is refusing to “acknowledge the obvious.”

“It’s sort of deconstructing any resistance with its refusal to acknowledge the obvious and the obvious is this. It’s not just Islamic radicalism anymore or Islamic terrorism, which is only a tactic. This is Islamist supremacy and in that sense, it is akin to Nazism. That was a racial supremacy, here it’s Islamic and the ideology of ISIS is clearly supremacist in the sense that anybody who is not Islamic, in their understanding, is to be either enslaved or eradicated. This is a genocidal movement. You kill Christians, you kill Jews, you kill Yazidis but you may in certain circumstances enslave them. That’s what we’re up against and we have an administration that will not even admit that there’s a religious basis underlying what’s going on,” Krauthammer stated.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told Fox News that the White House has a difficult time saying Christian.

“ISIS made very clear in this video that this was an execution of ‘people of the cross.’ ISIS apparently has no difficulty saying ‘Christian,’ while the White House has a very difficult time,” Perkins said.

The killings raise the possibility that ISIS – which controls about a third of Syria and Iraq in a self-declared caliphate – has established a direct affiliate less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy. One of the militants in the video makes direct reference to that possibility, saying the group now plans to “conquer Rome.”

The militants had been holding 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians hostage for weeks, all laborers rounded up from the city of Sirte in December and January. It was not clear from the video whether all 21 hostages were killed. It was one of the first such beheading videos from an Islamic State group affiliate to come from outside the group’s core territory in Syria and Iraq.

The only thing you can say here is that Obama didn’t do it merely because Obama didn’t give enough of a damn to interrupt his Palm Springs golf vacation.

Barack Obama is a rabid ideologue.  And he is determined to be as ignorant as his twisted, dishonest ideology requires him to be.

We just had that attack in France where the Obama refused to identity the victims at the JEWISH deli as “Jews.”  Even though the MUSLIMS who murdered them WHILE SCREAMING ALLAHU AKBAR did so specifically because they were Jews and because they were in a Jewish-owned business:

President Obama has raised some eyebrows by suggesting in his interview with VOX.com that the shooting at a Kosher supermarket in Paris last month was “random.” It was a comment the president made in making the case that the media overstates the terrorist threat and that his job fighting terrorism is akin to a big-city mayor fighting crime.

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama told Vox’s Matt Yglesias in the interview.

“We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive.”

So we now have the pathology, and it IS a pathology of dishonesty and hypocrisy and deceit: Obama WILL NOT refer to the murdering terrorist by their religion and he WILL NOT refer to the victims of the murdering terrorists by their religion.

Krauthammer is completely correct: in the Islamic State, in this never-before-seen-in-all-human-history-until-OBAMA-terrorist-army with wealth and numbers and training unlike anything we have ever seen before, we have something metastasizing that has similar aims to the Nazis.  They have the same “we will either murder you or enslave you” mindset that the Nazis had.  The difference is that as the Nazis fixated on Aryanism, the Islamic State is focusing on Islam.

Factoid: there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims for Islamic State to recruit from.  Versus the Nazis’ German population of 69 million.  If the rise of that small of a recruiting population was able to rise into the “existential threat” that created World War II, how will a recruiting population that utterly dwarfs that number fare keeping in mind that nuclear weapons did not exist in the 1930s???

Obama and his oft-documented lying weasel Susan Rice have stated that Islamic terrorism – well, whatever the hell they’re calling it to avoid calling it what it actually clearly is – is not an “existential threat” like the Nazis.  But to the extent that’s true, it’s only because what we’re seeing happening in the Islamic world is so much bigger and so much more dangerous that it dwarfs the Nazis.

Obama and those secular humanists who think like him rabidly ignore the religious nature of the rising threat.  But here’s the problem, set forth in Robert Spencer’s great work, The Truth About Muhammad: the founder of the world’s most intolerant religion:

Difficulties aside, the texts [the Qu’ran and Ahadith] can be read and understood.  And if peaceful Muslims can mount no comeback when jihadists point to Muhammad’s example to justify violence, their ranks will always remain vulnerable to recruitment from jihadists who present themselves as the exponents of “pure Islam,” faithfully following Muhammad’s example. — Spencer, page 8.

Jesus truly was the Prince of Peace as the Bible calls Him.  But history makes very crystal clear that Muhammad was a man of violence and forced conquest who had fought in over 20 military campaigns and who actually had more than thirty more planned at the time of his death.  In 624 AD Muhammad launched the Nakhla raid and officially began the spread of violence in the name of Islam.  Also in 624 Muhammad began the practice of ethnic cleansing against the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe.  He put that same tactic into practice again the following year in 625 against the Jewish Nadir tribe.  Yes, rather like what we saw Islamic State do in Iraq.  In 627 Muhammad beheaded all the males of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe and enslaved all the women and children.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.  And in 631 Muhammad began his warfare against the Christians.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.

It is simply a FACT of history as well as a FACT of theology that Islam has profoundly violence tendencies from their founder that justify those tendencies that Christianity just as clearly does not have.  Again, Spencer points this fact out:

The difference is that no Christian could credibly argue that Jesus, the prince of peace, taught violence, or anything that contradicted his precepts that those who lived by the sword shall die by the sword, that men should turn the other cheek, and that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.  But if Muhammad taught violence, if Muhammad conflated religion and government it will change mujahidin around the world not one bit to pretend otherwise; they will continue to invoke what they believe to be his authentic teachings to justify their actions.  The fact that truths are difficult is no reason to choose unreality and “polite fictions.” — Spencer, pp. 10-11

I was surprised and pleased to encounter an article written in the reliably liberal Atlantic in which Graeme Wood acknowledged the following:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

And what we have no in Obama is a man who is rabidly unwilling to deal with the actual reason for the Islamic State doing what they are doing.  Just as he is rabidly unwilling to acknowledge what they are doing even as the Islamic State very clearly tells us what they are doing and why they are doing it.  In the name of Allah these Muslims are rising and growing and in the name of Allah they are murdering Christians and Jews in mindboggling numbers.

Look, I understand the attempt to trivialize radical, jihadist, militant extremist Islam as “not being true Islam.”  Just as I don’t believe that the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses represent “true Christianity.”  But it is frankly idiotic and asinine of me to merely assert that these religious groups don’t somehow even qualify as being “religious.”  And it is just as intellectually vacuous for me to merely wave my hand and dismiss their claims to be “Christian” without bothering to actually show how in fact they fail to truly be the real Christians they claim to be by arguing with them and refuting them according to the Holy Bible.

But that is precisely where we are at with Islam and the liberal progressives who run interference for this religion.  There is no debate and no provision to ever have any debate.  Thus there is no chance at any possibility of reform within Islam.  But the fact of the matter is that the tens of thousands of Muslims who are flocking to Islamic State aren’t doing so in search of wealth or some end of poverty (which will be with us forever, no Obama’s blathering nonsensical rhetoric aside); rather, they are searching for meaning – religious meaning – and they are flocking to the people who are fighting for a religious cause and who are claiming the historic mantle of founder of Islam, Muhammad.

Osama bin Laden was the multi-multi-millionaire son of a billionaire five times over.  Bin Laden’s successor Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a medical doctor.  Every single one of the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were financially well-off.  Today we’ve got men who went to the finest private schools on the planet posing with the corpses of people they just beheaded.  This war has NOTHING to do with poverty.  It is a pure lie to claim otherwise.  And yet the heart of Obama, the heart of the Democrat Party, the heart of progressive liberalism, the heart of secular humanism, the heart of the devil himself, is lies, lies, lies.

We find that between tw0-thirds and eighty percent of terrorists have university degrees and we find that a full 20% have engineering degrees.  The morally idiotic notion that income or poverty or education is a significant force behind terrorism is not only a lie, but a ridiculous lie.  So why is the left continuing to push a thesis that is so very clearly not the case?  And the answer is because they want more government control, which a bigger welfare state necessarily ensures.  That’s the real agenda.

I have been pointing out that liberals actually share a great deal in common with the fascist Muslims in that they BOTH conflate religion and government whenever it suits their purpose to do so.  There is no question that Jesus NEVER called for a large government to carry out the functions that He clearly reserved to His people in His Church.  But liberals falsely and hypocritically cite Jesus all the time to justify their massive welfare state.  Similarly, it was the New Testament ideas behind the Christendom of Western Europe from which arose people who were capable of making their own decisions because:

It is worth noting in passing that the office of priest, so prominent in the Old Testament, is not taken over by the early church. Prophets and elders (cf. Ezekiel 7:26) have their counterparts in the church and these titles are used. But there is no official counterpart to the priest, for, as the New Testament teaches, the whole church is a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5), or a “royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). We who are in Christ have all “been made priests to his God” (Revelation 1:6). Each individual has access to the holy of holies, God’s throne of grace, because of the once-for-all atoning death of Christ. No officer in the church has the function of mediating between the believer and God.

No officer in the church has the function of mediating between the believer and God; but liberals teach that only Obama and bureaucrats should have this power as they seize people’s money and forcibly redistribute it according to what THEY claim is the “common good” and as they pass laws and regulations up the whazoo under the belief that people are stupid and ignorant and can not be trusted to govern themselves.

The common good was realized by the people as they freely bought and sold and lived their lives.  But now we have Obama’s “wisdom” to impose it on us instead.

Classical liberalism, as forged by an understanding of genuine New Testament Christianity, emphasized individual freedom by limiting the power of government, by providing property rights and promoting the rule of law, by promoting laissez-faire free market economics.  Secular humanist and frankly atheist progressive liberalism has turned all of these on their head and they have profoundly perverted democracy and government just as the Muslim fascists have done as a result.  The only difference is the means; the ends are identical.

I’ve pointed out that progressive liberalism is Marxist in orientation and so believes in religion as merely being “the opiate of the masses.”  They arrogantly believe that no one actually believes in God; and therefore all that is left is socialist economics as the legitimate means by which people act.  But the great Christian writer G.K. Chesterton said the truth was the precise opposite:

Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people… [But] it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticize the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. That fact is written all across human history; but it is written most plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin…Lenin only fell into a slight error: he only got it the wrong way round. The truth is that irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world.

That is exactly what has happened under progressive liberalism: the Government has become the God.  Progressive liberals have driven God out of the government, out of the schools and even out of the offices or the corporate world with their dictates of political correctness according to which if one is offended, the whole must put aside the thing that caused offense (unless that thing be progressive liberal doctrine such as homosexuality or abortion).  Government is our God and our Savior and our Provider and tells us what is right and what is wrong.  Our culture has become depraved and toxic because irreligion has become the opium of the people.  We have no values worth truly fighting for and so we are not fighting.

What is interesting is that when you read the quote by Karl Marx in context, what you find is that the Christian religion of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution was KEEPING PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE.  It was an “opium” that was preventing them from rising up in violence as Marx wanted them to do.  We find that the worst orgy of violence in the entire history of the world that followed Karl Marx’s hateful beliefs – the same beliefs which Barack Hussein Obama adheres to, for what that’s worth – came as the true religion of Christianity was abolished and a godless religion of atheism was imposed in its place resulting in the murder by the State of more than 100 million human beings during peacetime alone.

We face a terrifying crisis that we cannot possibly prevail against because our leader of the free world will NOT acknowledge the actual problem and instead continues to seek to impose a “solution” that has nothing to do with the actual problem and in fact will guarantee the very opposite result of MORE violence.  Because if you want to talk about the Crusades or the Inquisition – as Obama wants to do every time he points his wicked finger at the ancient past of Christianity to conceal today’s rabidly violent Islam – you should also talk about the violence of secular humanism that makes anything ANY other religious movement ever did pale by comparison.

The number of Christians being murdered is growing exponentially under the cancer of Obama.  Because his way is the way of the devil.

Charles Krauthammer has been brilliant in exposing Obama’s lies, deceit, hypocrisy and his “truly pathological in its inability to actually state what’s going on”:

Asked by substitute host Ed Henry whether the wording matters, Krauthammer argued that it does and compared how Winston Churchill “saved England and civilization” in World War II by using “the English language and he put it to work” while the Obama administration is doing “precisely the opposite.” 

He declared that the White House is doing so by “deconstructing any resistance with its refusal to acknowledge the obvious” that “Islamic supremacy” is at work and “akin to Nazism.”

Later, Krauthammer compared the struggle against ISIS to the Cold War in that “the leadership of the United States” will be the ones having to end the threat but, for now:

We have an administration that is truly pathological in its inability to actually state what’s going on. In the video that was released that showed the savage beheading, it was addressed to the nations of the cross. It pledged itself to the conquest of Rome. When the Pope, who is not exactly a Christian militant, who isn’t exactly a revanchist on, you know, on behalf of a Christ, says these people were killed because they were Christian and the administration says that the ones who were killed were Egyptian citizens, you’ve got a serious problem and it’s in this administration and it is with the President.

And the pope rightly points out that there are more Christian martyrs under Obama today than there were in the time of Nero.  Obama is a tool in Satan’s hand to murder Christians by proxy.

I believe that Obama believes that the notion of an all-powerful government that can impose a totalitarian system on the people is where progressive liberals and radical Muslims can come together.  Obama has already negotiated both with terrorist organizations (the Taliban and see here) and with terrorist regimes (Iran).  There is simply no question that Obama truly believes he can negotiate with the most radical and most evil people on earth.  The only question is why he believes that.

I believe that Barack Obama believes – as a secular humanist – that progressive liberalism can bargain with radical Islam on the basis of Marxist economics and reach some kind of compromise.  Just as Neville Chamberlain believed he could do so with Adolf Hitler to attain “peace in our time.”  The Bible describes moral idiots who cry out for peace when there is no peace:

They offer superficial treatments for My people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. — Jeremiah 6:14

That is precisely where we are at today under the cancer of this presidency.  We have a president who actually believes that he can politicize terrorists the way he can politicize Republicans and win a debate by framing it with rhetoric.  But Islamic State doesn’t want to have a debate; they want to burn people alive.

The fact is that one of the very first things that Barack Obama did as president was to send the bust of a man he clearly despised – Winston Churchill – back to England because he did not want that great man’s wisdom contaminating his White House. And as Winston Churchill clearly saw the threat of Nazism and enlisted the aid of an FDR who came to see the same growing threat and realized that we had to confront evil before evil confronted us after all of our allies were defeated, so history is doomed to repeat itself when fools ignore its lesson.

Which is why the beast is coming.

Obama Useless To World As Vicious Islam Burns Victims Alive

February 3, 2015

This reminds me of that scene in that “American Sniper” movie that makes the demons in Democrats and liberals start frothing and screaming in typical rabid rage.

Do our Muslim terrorist friends like to use drills on little boys like the movie detailed?  Oh, you betcha.  These demoniacs make roaches look like Mother Teresa.

Today the Islamic State – which exists entirely because of the pathological cowardice of Barack Obama – released the video of themselves burning the Jordanian pilot they captured alive.

What was Obama’s response?

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Should, in fact, this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. And it also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they’re operating off of, it’s bankrupt.

You know what I thought as I heard that?  I heard the words, “it’s just.”  Let me interpret for you: Obama said, “Nothing to see here, folks.  We’ve seen this before.  No big deal.  Don’t worry, I won’t do a damn thing to respond, you know, beyond blather out a bunch of meaningless rhetoric that I’ve proven time and time again is absolutely worthless.”

How many more people do they have to savagely and viciously murder before we realize we cannot negotiate with these monsters and we have to fight for civilization or bow down to Allah under the Islamic State’s global caliphate?  You know, the one that is entirely the fault of the incredibly pathetic policies of our Fool-in-Chief as they have forged their caliphate ENTIRELY under Obama’s regime?

Do Democrats have anything inside of them worthy of standing up to these atrocities?  Not since Lyndon Baines Johnson took the mantle of the last decent Democrat John F. Kennedy over fifty years ago, they don’t.  It’s better to be slaves than to fight back – as long as they’ve forced us to accept their socialist Government nanny state as our Lord and Savior.

Barack Obama is a liar and a coward.  Period.  They murder one of Jordan’s and the king vows to bring the gates of hell to Islamic State; they behead multiple Americans and Obama releases five terrorist generals for a traitor and tries to close down the entire prison facility.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that he is a hapless victim of the Iraqi government, that he desperately wanted to keep US troops in Iraq but those mean Iraqis wouldn’t let him because they refused to grant a status of forces agreement.

Bullcrap.  If you have a single functioning brain cell you can know that’s bullcrap.  This from February 2009:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama completely and utterly abandoned Iraq to terrorists while claiming victory.  He planned to completely withdraw from Iraq from the day he took office.  THAT IS A FACT OF DOCUMENTED HISTORY.  Anybody who claims that Barack Obama tried to keep US forces in Iraq is a stone-cold liar.

In the same vein, Barack Obama first said he had a “red line” according to which he would act if Syria’s dictator Assad used WMDs against his own people.

Assad did so and in fact did so over and over and over.  If I remember right, at the point I suppose we stopped counting because it had become a joke by then, Syria used chemical weapons fifteen times against their own people.  Including one attack that murdered 1,429 people and specifically 426 children.

What did Obama do?  He demonstrated and documented that the United States of America did not honor its commitments and would not carry out its threats.  He backed down.  He turned to the dictator of Russia who is and has been an enemy of the United States and said, “You’re my hero.”  And of course the first thing Putin did was make sure his ally Assad would and frankly had to remain in power.

The Islamic State now owns both of those regions that Obama cowardly abandoned today.  The Islamic State exists today because Barack Hussein Obama refused to do the right thing while a lethal cancer metastasized until it was too huge to do anything to stop without a massive commitment.  And if Islamic State can thank Allah up in space for their fortuity, there is no human being on earth whom they have to thank more than Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama went on the record – back when he was pretending to have some kind of policy that he backed away from like a little boy who’d just been burned backing away from a fire – stating over and over again that Assad had to go as part of any international deal.  But failing to do a single damn thing about it.  And the same man who refused to in any way arm or reinforce Iraq while the terrorists we had defeated returned and began to flourish refused to in any way back the pro-democracy rebels that were trying to overthrow Assad.  And as Islamic State began to rise in Syria, they literally joined Assad in killing those unarmed pro-democracy fighters.

What happened to the pro-democracy fighters in Syria and in Libya – thanks to Obama’s pathologically weak policy – is the exact same thing that happened to pro-democracy fighters in Poland during World War II.  Those fighters rose up against the Nazi occupation and tried to fight them without support from the Allies.  Russian forces were attacking German-occupied Poland from the east.  But what did Stalin do?  He intentionally hung back and waited for the Nazis to exterminate the Polish freedom fighters before he moved in and finished crushing Poland for communism and for Stalinism.  It sucks to fight for freedom when nobody helps you while your powerful enemies crush you and mop you up.

Now Obama once again has a foreign policy that is a pretzel looping back on itself to go nowhere.  Now the guy who Obama said had to go has to stay, because since Barack Obama doesn’t have the balls to fight the Islamic State, he’s got to turn to his good dictator buddy Bashar Hafez al-Assad has to fight them for him (Assad won’t, of course, any more than our other enemy Iran won’t fight them for us).

Please don’t forget: Barack Hussein Obama is the Disgrace-in-Chief who famously called the Islamic State a “JV team” who could claim they were putting on Kobe Bryant’s uniform but certainly weren’t professionals.  In mocking them, Barack Obama documented as a fact of history that he has no understanding and never WILL have understanding of foreign policy or the existential threats facing this nation.

If the Islamic State is “JV,” I just want to know what Obama is.  Because I don’t think this chump qualifies even as “Pee-Wee.”

The fool never had a clue what he was doing when he took office and six years later he’s proven he’s incapable of learning.

You interview liberals and they tell you they just want peace and let’s just all get along.  And the only problem with that philosophy is that the people liberals keep wanting to negotiate with – the way Obama negotiated with the Taliban AND YES THEY DAMN WELL ARE TERRORISTS and the nuclear-weapon-hungry mullahs in Iran and Islamic State – are that these people are pure evil and you don’t negotiate with evil.  There is something called “reality,” and the liberal progressives who believe they can appease psychopaths are every bit as immune to it as the terrorists who believe they can murder their way to Paradise.

Obama continues to present a false dilemma: either we do nothing or we go to total war and commit hundreds of thousands of American troops to another eternal war.  Because in Obamaland, there is nothing in-between hundreds of thousands of troops and the ZERO that his policy has been.

What’s Obama’s strategy?  Well, what’s happening in the Middle East is the Super Bowl and Obama’s playbook calls for Team USA to keep punting on 1st down until he’s out of office and the holocaust he’s fanned and started burning is somebody else’s problem.  That’s if he has any strategy at all.

The only enemy Obama will fight is American patriots.  He’ll viciously use every tool of a rogue regime to go after the tea party with his Internal Revenge Service.

But if anyone tries to make the laughable claim that Obama has attacked the Islamic State murderers, let me simply state a fact: during the Gulf War when we were actually fighting we averaged 1,100 sorties a day; under Obama’s “war” we’ve averaged SEVEN sorties a day.  Which is to say that Obama has not only gutted the Pentagon and our military capabilities, he’s gutted any actual response to evil and “fundamentally transformed” it into a joke.  Or you tell me that Winston Churchill and FDR would have sworn never to put boots on the damn ground the way Obama has promised the enemies of the United States that he won’t fight them as long as he’s president.

We lost everything we fought for in Iraq because Obama did what we said he was going to do and cut-and-ran WHEN WE HAD DEFEATED OUR ENEMY AND ONLY NEEDED TO KEEP A SMALL FORCE SUCH AS WE DID IN GERMANY AND JAPAN AFTER WORLD WAR II AND KOREA AFTER THE KOREAN WAR.  And we’re about to lose everything we fought and bled for in Afghanistan as Obama stupidly and wickedly pursues the same failed strategy of claiming victory and then cutting and running.

Without American leadership the whole Middle East is going to get uglier and uglier and more and more violent and more and more vicious until it is too late for us to stop them.

It is simply another documented fact of history that terrorists and terrorists organization and terrorist attacks and terrorism has EXPLODED under Obama’s morally idiotic presidency.

Barack Obama is to terrorism what he was to the debt.  He is the man who demonized George Bush for the debt.  We have this famous slander from the man who is now our Slanderer-in-Chief:

Obama: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

What’s our debt now?  It’s over $18 trillion.  Barack Obama has DOUBLED the debt; HE HAS SPENT MORE THAN EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF AMERICA COMBINED.

But what does this slandering, demon-possessed liar and hypocrite now say?  He proposes a criminally-insane $4 trillion budget and ridicules “mindless austerity.”  You know, after demonizing Bush for his debt and literally claiming he’s a traitor for doing what Obama has done more of than any human being who ever lived in all the history of the world.

Obama is a liar who will say anything.  Anything but the truth.

THAT’S what Obama did in the war on terror.  He demonically and slanderously demonized Bush for being responsible for all the horror in the world and demonically claimed that he was the man who could heal the planet.  And now the planet is being burned alive by terrorists because the leader of the free world is the worst fool who ever lived.

God is about to judge America according to Romans chapter one verses eighteen through thirty-one.  Democrats have mass-murdered more than sixty million innocent human beings and God is going to give us over to our enemies who will savagely massacre that insanely demonic death toll and then some.

We voted for it.  Twice.

The World’s Tragedy: The Consequences of Godless Secular Humanist Liberalism Upon A Rapidly Deteriorating World

January 19, 2015

He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’  Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” — Isaiah 6:9-10

I spotted a liberal op-ed that basically tells us that the tragedy otherwise known as progressive liberalism is as old as the 18th century and quite likely as old as time.

The article is about the “intellectuals'” disappointment with and in Barack Obama.  It begins:

When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, intellectuals everywhere hailed him as one of their own. So closely was he identified with this elite that many Democrats worried, and Republicans hoped, that voters would reject him: As Richard Hofstadter noted long ago, a strong current of anti-intellectualism has long coursed through American history.

But his pointy head in no way proved an insurmountable obstacle in 2008. Maybe because it wasn’t all that inclined toward pointiness to begin with.

Since he was first elected, Obama has distanced himself from progressive intellectuals. You can expect to hear a few of them sadly critiquing his penultimate State of the Union speech this week.

Translation: We’re completely responsible for campaigning  for this pathetic turd and getting him elected and getting his policies passed.  But you can’t blame us.  Because if he’d just been even more “liberal” than this leftist turd turned out to be, everything would have worked out wonderful.

Mind you, Obama didn’t actually present himself as a far leftist; he presented himself as someone who would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Which is another way of saying Obama lied and the “intellectuals” wish he’d been an even BIGGER liar than he turned out to be and do even MORE to tear the fabric of this nation apart by waging an even more vicious political war against the right than he has.  But “honesty” is no more a virtue of “intellectuals” than objectivity or common sense for that matter.

I won’t bore you with the whole boring piece (you can read it yourself if you’d like by clicking the link); but here is the portion that caught my eye:

In early 1765, Diderot was desperate. Thanks to his herculean efforts as editor of the Encyclopédie, the 17th and final volume of this monument to the Enlightenment was then rolling off the press. Yet the celebrated thinker was in serious financial straits. When Catherine learned of the situation, she made Diderot an offer he couldn’t refuse. She would purchase his personal library of 3,000 books and manuscripts for the then-vast sum of 50,000 livres. Not only would Diderot be allowed to keep his books until his death, but he would also be paid a yearly salary as the collection’s librarian.

The magnanimity of Catherine’s deal struck the imagination of intellectuals across Europe, who believed that true and lasting social reform could be made only from above. Since the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance, enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for. With Voltaire in the lead, the great minds of the age invested their hopes in well-intentioned kings and queens and saw themselves as qualified investment advisors.

Few intellectual ventures seemed as promising as Russia. Catherine had ascended to the throne in 1762 — in a coup d’etat and over the body of her husband, Peter III — determined to haul her vast country from its primitive conditions via Enlightenment ideals. She wrote the Nakaz, or Instruction, translating Montesquieu’s case for a rational and humane legal system into Russian. Her early enthusiasm for such progressive ideas, though sincere, would prove unequal to the challenges presented by her empire.

Okay, so let’s see: the “intellectuals” had an a priori rejection of God, the Bible and anything whatsoever to do with the supernatural.  Anybody who believed otherwise didn’t get to join the “intellectual club.”  They might claim otherwise, but they LOVE their dictators and tyrants because they keep rubbing their own faces into the fecal matter of totalitarianism, which is why they always HAVE loved Russia and totalitarianism and communism and socialism and every form of government control.  In their utter rejection of God, SOMETHING has to take God’s place – and so they worship government with a big ‘G’ and worship the power of the human State and its ability to control and dictate and bypass the democracy the despise and always have despised.  Oh, they’ll cynically use “democracy” long enough to garner the power to bypass the will of the people so they can impose their agenda with the raw force of totalitarianism and sweeping executive orders.

I mean, when Obama said

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– He wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t been said by his sort many times before.  The stupid unwashed masses.  One of the great books about wisdom in the Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been will be again and what was done will be done again.  And so we have the same moral idiocy we’ve had before because we keep turning to the same sort of fools and the same sort of fool ideas that have failed us before when they weren’t killing us by the millions before.

I mean, listen to liberalism in the words of the LA Times piece that describes the same sort of thinking we see today only near three hundred damn years ago: “the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance”…. “true and lasting social reform could be made only from above”… “enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for.”  And so with the famous atheist Voltaire in the lead, the left charged into Stalinism and has been full-throttle Stalinist ever since.

Leftist “intellectuals” have a pathological naked contempt of the people, whom they see and always have seen as inferior and beneath them.  And so they can lie to the people without shame because the people are stupid sheep and what does it matter if you lie to a farm animal as long as you get the farm animal to do what you want it to do and what you’ve convinced yourself is in the best interest of the farm animal to do.  So the left has its Grubers and yeah, got its Obama’s who with a straight face has claimed he issued far fewer executive orders than any other president when in fact he was issuing MASSIVELY SWEEPING executive orders by another name (executive memoranda).

It’s who these people are.

Before I keep going with this, let me begin with another quote about the nature of intellectuals:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

That’s right, folks.  The “intellectuals” from the left have ALWAYS loved Russia and Russia has ALWAYS been near and dear to their hearts.  They loved Hitler and his Nazi fascism, too.  They choose the most wicked side in every argument.

“Intellectual” is another word for “fool.”  This is a fact that is stated in the Bible:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:22

And we’re warned about these fools and their fool ideas:

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. — Colossians 2:8

Three of the greatest scientists who ever lived were Sir Francis Bacon, the discoverer of the scientific method and founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, whose physics transformed science and Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician and inventor of the first practical computer.  The man who discovered modern science by devising the scientific method rather than relying upon speculation and opinion wrote:

“There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth.”

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. — Sir Francis Bacon

“They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” — Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Isaac Newton has widely been called the greatest scientist who ever lived.  Albert Einstein credited Newton with his own work and claimed he’d stood on the backs of giants.  He wrote more about Christian theology than he did about science.

And Blaise Pascal – and please think about this while you’re playing games on your smart phone – wrote:

There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus. — Blaise Pascal

Pascal was pointing out something Bacon clearly understood that the left has tried to pervert ever since.  It comes from Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God set eternity in the human heart.  It comes from Genesis 1:27 that humans were created in God’s image as His image bearers.  And the next verse describes God as having given man sovereignty over the world He created for humankind.  Which is why great scientist Johannes Kepler described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

G.K. Chesterton put it even better in terms of my point when he wrote:

“For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.”

In rejecting God as their source for a worldview and for ideas, they believe in utter foolishness.  It may be high-sounding foolishness, but it is all the more foolish to be expressed in lofty words.  The left fills their minds with foolishness.  And that is why their ideas don’t work.

Leftist intellectuals are pure fools whose ideas have no contact with reality.  They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever how power works or how government truly functions or how to achieve peace or how to do anything that is truly meaningful or significant.  All they can do is mock and then mimic and then point fingers for their failures to try to blame others for their failures.

And a leftist like Obama has two choices: he can either reject the foolish and failed liberalism and try a different approach, which the leftist intellectuals claim he is at least partly doing.  Or he can keep trying to apply liberalism and keep failing, as he is very clearly also doing.

Obama is a joke.  And it would have been a funny joke if he had afflicted another country that wasn’t urgently needed in this time as the leader of the free world.  But here he is, plaguing this formerly great nation.  And so the joke is on America and it is on the whole human race.

Barack Obama has failed America and he has failed the world.  No one on earth is more responsible for the vicious wave or resurgent Islamic terrorism than Barack Hussein Obama who STILL insanely continues to reject the notion that he is in a war or that the war is against Islamic terrorism.  No one did more to underestimate the threat of terror and falsely and stupidly claim he had defeated it than Obama, no one did more to gut the resources needed to defeat Islamic terrorism while that threat metastasized into a deadly cancer all around him while he selfishly focused on his own personal politics.

And Obama failed America.  He keeps trying to play class warfare when HE is the man who widened the gap between the richest and the poorest beyond any human being who ever lived.  He dishonestly talks about his policies being exactly what the middle class needs when it was HIS policies that have crushed the middle class more than ANYONE’S in history.  Which is why all the day back in August of last year conservative writers RIGHTLY predicted the outcome of November’s election in which Republicans massively kicked Democrat and Obama ass and pointing out it was Obama’s war on the middle class come boomeranging back at his face.  That writer who predicted the result of the election called it “The Murder of the Middle Class.”  By the man who is now about to give a dishonest State of the Union speech claiming once again he is the savior of the very thing he is in fact murdering.

Obama has spent more money on government than any human being in all of human history.  And he is about to have spent more than every American president in all of human history combined from George Washington to George W. Bush.  And his policies have failed unless it was his goal to weaken America abroad and to weaken every American except the very wealthiest.  As even the LEFT that backed Obama is now pointing out.

And Barack Obama – without any question unless you ask the fool “intellectuals” – has done more to destroy democracy and more to destroy the American Constitution than any president who ever lived.  Because he is now the same totalitarian that the left has ALWAYS ended up worshiping whether some of them came to rue the object of their worship or not.

Pretty soon, because of Obama’s spectacular failure, the world will accept the coming Antichrist and worship him as their savior and take his mark of big-socialist-government domination on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And Barack Hussein Obama will have been the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.

And don’t think for one second that the same intellectuals who couldn’t wait to support Stalin before they couldn’t wait to support Hitler before they couldn’t wait to support murderous communist dictator Chairman Mao before they couldn’t wait to support Obama won’t rush to support the Antichrist, too.

What A Difference A Hypocrite – Actually Just The Whole Hypocrite Democrat Party – Can Make When It Comes To Shutting Down The Government

December 12, 2014

Last year, Obama and the entire Democrat Party came unglued over Republican obstructionism – and literally anarchy and even hostage-taking and terrorism – because the Republicans were prepared to vote against the Democrat Party agenda and risk a government shutdown.

I mean, do you remember this crap out of Obama’s White House a year ago?

White House compares GOP to terrorists as government shutdown nears
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 26, 2013

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Thursday compared Republican lawmakers to suicide bombers as the showdown over a possible government shutdown intensified.

“We are for cutting spending, we are for reforming our tax code, we are for reforming entitlements,” Mr. Pfeiffer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “But what we are not for is negotiating with people who have a bomb strapped to their chest.”

Here was Obama:

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning, everybody.  At midnight last night, for the first time in 17 years, Republicans in Congress chose to shut down the federal government.  Let me be more specific:  One faction, of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government, shut down major parts of the government — all because they didn’t like one law.

This Republican shutdown did not have to happen

Last night Democrats in the House did absolutely everything they coul to shut down the government.

But in a world and in a political party that despises truth, such facts are irrelevant.

And of course the mainstream media – being the NAZIS they are – duly drooled out the Democrat Party talking points in lieu of the actual news.

But what a difference a year makes.  And now where are all the cockroach “journalists” who had horrible labels for Republicans because they were acting like Democrats acted just last night???

They’re hiding under the refrigerator, of course.  BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE ROACHES.

Elizabeth Warren was against government shutdowns before she was for them
By Doug Powers  •  December 11, 2014 02:56 PM

Last year, Elizabeth Warren tomahawked those in the GOP “Anarchy Gang” for bringing the government to the point of a shutdown:

Warren telling GOPers last year that “this democracy has already rejected your views” is an overdose of retro-irony considering the results of last month’s election. But anyway, fast forward to this week:

Congressional Democrats objected on Wednesday to controversial financial and political campaign provisions tucked into a $1.1 trillion U.S. spending bill, keeping the risk of a government shutdown alive.

The complaints from House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats clouded the chances for passage of the funding bill as a midnight Thursday deadline drew near.
[…]
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a staunch advocate for tougher regulation of Wall Street, called for Democrats to withhold support from the bill due to the derivatives provision, which would effectively strike down a portion of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted in the wake of a financial crisis fueled partly by complex mortgage derivatives.

Shutdowns are now … whatever the socialist hypocrite opposite of “anarchy” is:

So now the Democrats are calling Republicans “blackmailers.”

Nancy Pelosi: This is ‘blackmail’
By Lauren French
| 12/11/14 2:31 PM EST
| Updated 12/11/14 9:13 PM EST

Nancy Pelosi is “disappointed” in Barack Obama for backing a bill she described as a form of “blackmail” on the part of Republicans.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a pathologically unhinged lying hypocrite.

So now voting to pass a damn budget is “blackmail” when a year ago it was the essence of patriotism and virtue.  And to vote to shut down the damn government is the essence of patriotism and virtue, when a year ago it was the essence of treason and the heart of right-wing racist darkness.

This abject, despicable display of rabid hypocrisy is nothing new.  It’s par for the course from the party that decreed “elections have consequences.”  Unless they lose said election.  This is par for the course from the party that supported the Iraq War and voted for it only to treasonously betray their very own votes the moment the political winds changed.  58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the Iraq War Resolution, including Joe Biden (D-DE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Only to turn on the American troops they themselves had voted to send to war.  This is par for the course for the party that was fully briefed on waterboarding with NO OBJECTIONSAND OH, YES THEY WERE BRIEFED – only to later lie about it and disown the truth the way the disowned the CIA officers whose “crime” was to follow the laws as the laws were at a very dark and frightening time when 3,000 innocent Americans had just been viciously murdered and no one knew whether another massive attack was imminent.  Now they put America at risk in a “report” that amounts to a giant whine in which the informed professional officials like Obama’s own handpicked CIA Directors Leon Panetta and John Brennan directly refute.  Just imagine what would have happened to their $40 million hit job if they’d actually bothered to interview the professionals who WEREN’T Obama political appointees, given what even the political appointees say.

This is par for the course from the party whose fascist president bitches at Bush for waterboarding three vicious terrorists when this aforementioned fascist bitchy president has murdered more American citizens without one scintilla of due process than Bush waterboarded terrorists.  Meanwhile, Obama’s drone strike victims number in the THOUSANDS with scores of innocent women and children numbered with the guilty.  And this Nazi dares to stand in judgment of a period of time when the New York Times was reporting that al-Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.  You sanctimonious tube of slime.

Democrats are officially outraged that the people tasked with protecting America would aggressively interrogate people who saw the heads off of children.  I can’t even begin to describe how much Democrats outrage me.

You want to talk about “betrayal of American values,” Democrat?  I’ve got an idea for you; bring to light what Obama is doing TODAY rather than what Bush did to keep the nation safe ten damn years ago.   Expose what Obama did when he covered-up his fiasco in Benghazi with lies that made a grotesque mockery of our national security; help us expose Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target his political opponents; help us expose the cynical lies that were behind the passage of ObamaCare.  Expose Obama’s violation of the separation of powers as Obama himself assured us he would be committing if he issued the executive order on amnesty for illegals that he treasonously went ahead and issued anyway.  Do that and then maybe you’d have a shred of credibility – because you sure don’t have any now.  You want to make America “transparent”???  Fine; just help us expose the wrongs of the LEAST TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT IN HISTORY even according to many doctrinaire liberals.

Democrats don’t want to talk about ANY of the MYRIAD disgraces of American values perpetuated by Obama.  And their rabid protection of the most criminally opaque administration in American history proves the don’t give a flaming damn about “transparency.”

Every day in every way, Democrats are liars and hypocrites.

 

Obama Willing To Negotiate With Terrorist Nuke Wannabe Iran Forever But No Such Deal For GOP Who Just Massively Won Elections

November 24, 2014

Consider what I’m saying here in light of the fact that a primary ObamaCare architect has now been caught repeatedly – and I mean over and over and over again – pointing out that the operating thesis of the Obama administration is that the American people are stupid and that Obama’s fascist thugs had to lie to them and manipulate them with lies in order to pass ObamaCare.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the fact that we now have the smoking gun backing up everything that reporter Sharyl Atkisson claimed when she said the Obama thug White House was out to suppress her and target her and intimidate her in a manner that comes right out of fascism rather than a free society.  We now know that a senior Eric Holder aid contacted CBS to suppress Sharyl Atkisson.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the FACT that the Obama administration is THE most fascist and THE most dangerous rogue regime in American history, bar none.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it?  They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

As for the man who revealed all the Gruber remarks?  He tried to give the story to the media, but strange thing, nobody in the press bothered to call him back.

And the crickets are still a’ chirping as the media basically continues to ignore the story that reveals that ObamaCare was in FACT the heart of darkness.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case.  And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist.  They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it.  And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines.  For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

In July 2014, you had this article title to say everything: “Iran Nuclear Talks Deadline Looms With Little Angst About Extension.”

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst?  Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously.  They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless.  And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

You might want to read my previous article, which interacts with a surprising admission of the fiasco of Obama’s negotiation strategy, titled, “Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.”  In that article I stated:

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

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

The Republican Party seized control of the Senate, won more House Seats than they have held since FDR was poisoning America during World War II, taken such an overwhelming majority of governorships its beyond a joke and dominated state houses (see also here) after Obama said “make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.”

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election.  In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

And so the Republicans who just won shocking majorities and can finally escape the tyrannous, fascist hell of Harry Reid

In reality, Harry Reid has now blocked more US Senators from offering any amendments to legislation more often than EVERY OTHER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE UNITED STATES COMBINED.  TIMES TWO.

– will get exactly ZERO-POINT-ZERO SECONDS to formulate an immigration policy with their new control that the American people gave them.

Even the New York Times has reported on Harry Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control.”

There are at least 352 Republican House-passed bills that are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk because Democrats are the REAL obstructionists as they played naked cynical politics in vain effort to protect their weaker members from taking votes that would have exposed them to the American people.

What does the fascist propaganda press do?  Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House.  Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants.  But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.”  So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARS of absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants.  He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran.  But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people.  So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle.  When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated.  Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.”  Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

 

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

September 29, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Clapper is already a documented liar:

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

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 20, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Obama boasted:

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right.  They admitted they were defeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

September 18, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proved to be a disastrous mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who was right?  Who was completely WRONG?

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

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

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

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

Obama Is Now Boxed In By The Iranian Nuclear Negotiations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible nails the essence of liberalism:

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

and as a result they are:

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

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

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

September 15, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with Obama is that reality refutes him:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that’s just GREAT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except for that reality thing again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 578 other followers