Archive for the ‘United States’ Category

Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)

March 25, 2014

Was Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s territory (Crimea) a big deal?

The NATO Secretary-General thinks it is:

(CNSNews.com) – Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of its Crimea region is “the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War,” NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.

“We have seen Russia rip up the international rule book,” Rasmussen told an audience at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “Trying to redraw the map of Europe, and creating in just a few weeks the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War.”

The only real country left in Europe thinks that it is:

The Ukraine crisis is the worst in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall and diplomacy is now essential to avoid military escalation, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

Russia’s intervention means “the threat of a division of Europe is real again,” Steinmeier said as he arrived for an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.

This ought to be a much worse crisis – and a much bigger deal – than it actually is: because the fact of the matter is that we signed a treaty to protect Ukraine and to keep this very thing from happening.  And we are more obviously weaker now than we have ever been now that we have dishonored ourselves by abandoning our commitment.

Every nation on earth will start to scramble to acquire nuclear weapons to protect their borders and there will be NOTHING we can do to persuade them to give up those weapons.  Because we have now proven that our word is no good and we will ultimately renege on whatever we promise we’re going to do.

This is a crisis that will continue to build and build long after Ukraine leaves the media’s ADD-style attention span.  You know, while the mainstream liberal media is micro-fixated on that Malaysian airliner that nobody has any idea whatsoever happened to.

But please don’t think Barack Obama did anything stupid while all this was going on: he still spent his usual countless hours formulating his NCAA brackets.

Of course the same Democrats who had demonized George Bush just for playing golf while there was a war going on only to hypocritically shrug their shoulders while Barack Obama has played more than seven times more golf than Bush did (164 rounds compared to Bush’s 24).

I noted in my obtaining of the above facts on presidential golf that the U.S. media that criticized Bush so heavily for golfing have been strangely silent about Obama’s “love for the game.”  It has been the FOREIGN media that has attacked Obama for his golfing as the classic evidence of an absentee president who fiddles around on the golf course while the world is burning.

When we compare Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama we get a bare-chested man riding a stallion compared to a weasel-thin, dumbo-eared metrosexual riding a bicycle while wearing mom jeans and a geeky helmet.

And don’t think the world – and particularly all of our enemies – haven’t noticed what the man who has gutted the American military is: weak.

I have on numerous occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain was, like Obama, a ruthless tyrant when it came to domestic policy.  Because of the power of his office, he could simply dictate.  And dictate he did.

But when it came to dealing with aggressive and even hostile foreign governments, the world sat in stunned horror as Chamberlain proved himself to be an empty suit.  He couldn’t dictate to Hitler with an executive order.  So he did nothing while Hitler grew stronger and stronger and bolder and bolder and more and more aggressive.  Until it took a war to stop him.

That’s where we’re at now.

Democrats want to tell us that Putin invaded Georgia and seized their territory when Bush was president.  And that is true.  But please consider two things that make that meaningless: 1) George Bush TRIED to avert the Russian seizure of Georgia in April of 2008 when he proposed that Georgia AND UKRAINE be allowed into NATO.  That move would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks.  Don’t tell me that Bush didn’t wisely see what completely blindsided Obama coming.  But weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism is weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism both here and in Europe.  And liberals wouldn’t tolerate such a “provocative move.”  Oh, no.  The spirit of Obama is the spirit of weakness and appeasement.  If we bare our throats and demonstrate to our enemies by our nakedness that we are not a threat, their reasoning goes, we will avert war and live in a Utopia of peace and harmony.  You’re seeing more of the same as we speak with Obama’s giveaway of the internet to countries that are hostile to us.  And 2) Putin seized Georgia with less than three months left in Bush’s presidency – and you tell me if you have any honesty whatsoever what Democrats would have done had Bush moved aggressively to respond to Putin after Obama and Democrats had spent basically eight years demonizing him as a warmonger.

What was Obama’s response to Putin over Georgia once he got into office?  Did he stand up to Putin?  Did he push for the rest of Georgia not yet seized and Ukraine that had not yet had its territory seized to become part of NATO like Bush had done?  Nope.  He was pretty good at spending time with his NCAA brackets between rounds of golf then, too.

Bush TRIED to solve the problem in Georgia and Ukraine before either happened.  What did Obama do???

In fact what Obama did was issue his infamous “reset” button with Russia.  He and Hillary Clinton, being as incompetent as they are morally stupid, botched that horribly, of course.  But it sent a crystal-clear message to Putin: America under Obama is weak.  They will let me get away with murder.  And so murder I will.

More evidence (and more conservatives who saw Putin’s aggression coming): Sarah Palin:

Remember what a bimbo the mainstream media made Sarah Palin out to be (remember, it’s OKAY to trivialize a woman as long as it’s liberals doing it to a conservative).

But in 2008, Sarah Palin predicted something in which she turned out to be right and every liberal on earth turned out to be a morally idiotic jackass.

She predicted that if coward and fool Barack Obama were elected president, it would embolden Russia into invading Ukraine given the kind of idiocy and naïve weakness he displayed when Putin invaded Georgia:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Of course, the mainstream media savaged her for that.  What else is their mission if not a fools’ mission???

And Mitt Romney:

In their third presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney when he said that Russia remained a threat to the United States. Here’s what Obama said in the debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.“And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Here’s how Mitt Romney responded. Notice how Obama tries to cut Romney off before he can make his point:

MR. ROMNEY: I’ll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Number one —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same . . . paragraph, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone.

Mitt Romney didn’t have “rose-colored glasses” when it came to Russia and Putin.  History records that Barack Obama had the most asinine-looking rose-colored glasses ever devised when it came to them.  And Democrats have the naked dishonesty to stupidly try to argue that nobody could have seen Putin’s seizure of Ukraine coming.

And, oh, yeah, that “flexibility” thing.  Remember that?

How did I title my article on that one?  “Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

Obama’s open-mic moment with Russia:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir

And what do we have now?  The “worst crisis since the end of the Cold War” being played out after Obama has “more flexibility” to appease our enemy whom Obama went very much on the record to say was NOT our enemy at all.

How “flexible” are you feeling now, I wonder, Obama, you jackass?

So here’s the deal now that Obama has pulled America’s pants down and bent over for Russia and begged to have our national security and our prestige butt-raped: just like in World War II, we’re going to have to fight a world war to get our prestige that our weak, cowardly, gutless puke pissed away.

Obama’s “strategy” – if you could call his doing nothing a “strategy” – is this: where the world became outraged after Hitler’s second violation of a sovereign nation, what if instead of fighting the world had done NOTHING?  What if we’d just allowed Hitler to have what he wanted and not do anything about it?

You see, THAT’S “peace” to a liberal.  There is no war because we won’t fight.  No matter what.  And no matter what Hitler – or Putin – or any other thug does, we won’t fight.  So we have “peace.”

Here’s the really funny thing about this: I’ve been reading liberals’ op-eds on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and the consistent theme is that Republicans don’t really have a solution now, either.  So you can’t blame Obama for being weak because Republicans don’t want to go to war, either.

DAMN THESE PEOPLE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST.

Here’s the simple fact: as I already documented above, the “Republican response” would have begun going on six years ago back when we truly could have DONE something short of going to world war three.  The “Republican response” would have began with Sarah Palin’s wisdom – and then after that Mitt Romney’s wisdom – that Russia and Putin were true threats.  Which is something our failed Disgrace-in-Chief STILL doesn’t understand.

The “Republican response” would have been NOT to gut America’s military so that we are clearly too damn weak to do a damn thing about much of anything.  That probably would have stopped Putin right there.

The “Republican response” would have been to follow through on what Bush started and LEAD by insisting that Georgia and Ukraine become protected by NATO membership.  That DEFINITELY would have stopped Putin.

We never would have BEEN in this situation had there actually been a “Republican response.”

There comes a point when idiots have so destroyed something that it cannot be made right again.  And don’t try “spin” reality such that Republicans who CLEARLY saw this disaster coming and SAID it was coming wouldn’t have done anything different to avert it.

Now the same media that literally mocked Sarah Palin for seeing the Russian threat and mocked Mitt Romney for “stealing a [functioning] national security policy from the 1980s is dishonestly trying to say that Republicans should have to fix the world that Obama has damn-near singlehandedly broken beyond repair.

Remember Obama boasting of how he would restore America’s prestige?  Where is it now after Obama has repeatedly issued “red line” warnings and then done NOTHING and countries like Russia push us around like we’re the pussies that we have become under Obama?

It aint over.  Putin gave a speech justifying what he did in Crimea by talking about his duty to protect ethnic Russians wherever they may be.  And the thing is that following the collapse of the former Soviet Union – whose territory Putin wants to reclaim for Mother Russia – there are “ethnic Russians” all OVER the place.

Putin gave himself the carte blanche right to invade and seize virtually every single country in eastern Europe.

And now he’s massing Russian troops in a very possible move to invade Ukraine and seize the rest of it.

And Obama has already promised that there is no possible way that he will respond militarily.  Because he is a weak and stupid man who lays all his cards down on the table to make sure his enemies know his vulnerabilities in advance.

You wonder what Hitler would have done had Neville Chamberlain said, “Do whatever you want.  I won’t stop you.”  Probably nothing good.

Here’s one on that: Vladimir Putin has built his new hegemony primarily upon his exporting of Russian oil and natural gas and his ability to shut the tap on any European state that would oppose him.  What has Barack Obama done to counter this hegemony?  Has he promised to increase American oil and natural gas exports and essentially taken Putin’s power away without firing a shot?  That would counter his “oil is evil” philosophy, wouldn’t it?  And so while Putin is lording it over Europe and Europe is cowed into refusing to go along with any tough sanctions against Russia as a consequence, Obama STILL won’t allow the Keystone oil pipeline which he has kept shut down for YEARS.

This isn’t even about going to war – although Obama was nothing short of a FOOL to simply take war completely off the table and signal Putin his abject weakness in advance – it’s about simple reality and Obama’s inability to understand it.  OIL IS REALITY; Obama’s alternative energy is magical unicorn fairy dust.  Obama’s refusal to harness reality makes him a weak fool.

Meanwhile, China, which like Russia and very much unlike America has also been strengthening its military, ALSO has territorial ambitions.  Because weakness is the ultimate provocation.

And like Russia, they know we will do NOTHING.

World War II was the result of European and American weakness.  World War III will result from the same liberal weakness in Europe and America.

And you can lay the blame for that coming global war ENTIRELY on Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s feat.

A nation that allows tyrants to become emboldened has a death wish.  And America proved that it has a death wish when it stupidly elected and then even more stupidly re-elected Barack Obama.

I have long marveled at the precision of Bible prophecy in the last days.  The Bible rightly predicted that Israel would miraculously and against all odds be regathered as a nation.  It foresaw the rise of Russia as a world power which it had never been in history.  It described a last days confederation of countries led by Russia and Iran (Persia) that EXACTLY matches the Islamic states relative to their enmity to Israel today.  It anticipated the coming together of a European union which had never in history happened.  It knew that one day China and the kings of the east would be able to assemble an army of 200 million soldiers when at the time the prophecy was given there weren’t two-hundred million human beings on the entire planet.

The Bible prophecies all of these things and many, many others which have come to pass in these the last days of human history before the coming of the Beast.

But it never once mentions America.

That used to bother me greatly: how could it be that the mightiest nation in the history of the world isn’t even mentioned in Bible prophecy?

The answer is terrifying: the United States isn’t mentioned because it either won’t exist at all – having catastrophically imploded – or it will be so weak and so irrelevant that it won’t matter at all in the last days.

When you voted for “God damn America,” you voted to go extinct like the Dodo bird.

In the end, a leader will come in fulfillment of every Democrat’s and every liberal’s and every socialist’s fondest dreams.  His government will so take over the world that literally no one will be able to buy or sell anything without the government’s approval.  He will promise a Utopia but deliver the whole world into hell on earth.

And Barack Obama – along with the Democrat Party and everyone who supports them - is his useful idiot.

You won’t be able to stop him politically because Democrats and liberals all over the world will vote for him.  You won’t be able to fight him because liberals will take away all of your guns.

The coming of Antichrist and his mark of the beast didn’t have to happen, but the God who knows the end from the beginning knew 2,000 years ago – knew in fact before the foundation of the world – that the terminal generation of Americans would be a stupid and depraved one.

 

 

U.S. GUARANTEED Ukraine’s Borders: It Is Simply STUNNING How Obama Has Played The Part Of WWII Patsy Neville Chamberlain

March 5, 2014

You’ve got to love the symbolism.  Russian media frequently shows Vladimir Putin as a bare-chested martial artist who goes hunting.  And then they show Barack Obama as a scrawny wuss who wears mom pants while riding a bicycle with a geeky helmet on his dumbo-eared head.  Will the real man please stand up?  And Obama is either having a fundraising party or going on vacation.  But it certainly aint him.

Do you want to know what is happening right now?  We’re replaying World War II all over again – only in this new incarnation, it is Neville Chamberlain who is the hero by allowing Hitler to do whatever he wants under the belief that if you allow evil to rule, evil will eventually stop on its own (and as everyone who isn’t a fool knows, it won’t).

I have in numerous articles compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  And Obama has now BECOME Neville Chamberlain: a petty tyrant domestically who proved himself to be a pathological coward in every way that counted.

Did you know that Ukraine had a TREATY that the United States under Bill Clinton signed swearing to PROTECT Ukraine and specifically Crimea FROM RUSSIA???  Do you have any idea what the CONSEQUENCES are of just letting Russia make the America that put its credibility and prestige on the line look like a bunch of weak and ineffectual cowards???

As weak, as pathetic, as godawful as I thought Obama has been, even I didn’t begin to grasp just how truly and stunningly demon-possessed-naively-incompetent Barack Obama and his administration is.

As we speak, Sarah Palin’s prediction is coming about with biblical accuracy:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Realize that Palin was saying this in the aftermath of Putin’s seizure of two republics from the sovereign nation of Georgia with less than three months remaining in George W. Bush’s presidency.  Putin took advantage of the fact that Democrats and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had demonized Bush as some kind of vicious warmonger, such that Bush could do nothing.  It was the end of eight years in which Democrats had demonized Bush as a monster who had started two wars.  Had Bush confronted Putin strongly over Georgia, Obama and Democrats would have been saying, “You see?  There he goes again starting wars!”  It was going to be up to Democrats what kind of response America gave.  And they promised to be completely different from Bush’s aggression.

You tell ME what Democrats – and particularly Obama – would have said if Bush had sent troops to the Ukraine.  Anybody who tries to argue that Bush didn’t go into Ukraine so Obama shouldn’t have to is a dishonest idiot.  Because you shouldn’t blame Bush for not doing something you damn well know you would have demonized him for doing had he done it.

Bush started out strong and ended up weak in his foreign policy because Democrats had demonized him every single time he tried to stand up for America.  Obama started out weak and has just gotten weaker and weaker and weaker until America under his failed policies no longer matters in our enemies’ calculations.

Most Republicans would support Obama if he offered a strong response against Russia.  Democrats NEVER support a Republican president for ANY strong response ANYWHERE.  And that is a fact.

And the Democrat response, as history records, was pathetic.  Obama radiated weakness, as Sarah Palin pointed out.  Putin STILL has those republics in Georgia that he invaded and he has never given them back and never will.  And Obama literally said his policy was weakness and not to do a damn thing which told Putin WHAT about invading Ukraine???

Putin has been planning this seizure of Crimea.  Do you know what was holding him back?  It wasn’t fear of America under Obama’s gutless cowardly leadership.  Putin fears Obama the way a bear fears a cotton-tail bunny.  The only thing that made Putin hesitate to seize Crimea from Ukraine was the Olympic Games.  And with Sochi over with, Putin moved right in.  Rest assured, whatever “unrest” happened in Ukraine happened because of Russian agitation according to Putin’s plan.  And that unrest gave Putin all the pretext he felt he needed to do whatever he wanted while Obama sat there like a weak, skinny little punk who was too weak and too afraid to do anything and knew he was too weak and too afraid to do anything.

Sarah Palin understood the essence of Obama was an empty suit who could give speeches and sign executive orders but had no integrity and no leadership.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and see WHAT Ukraine gave up to HAVE that treaty and what America’s betrayal – specifically Barack Obama’s betrayal of America – will now cost Ukraine:

Ukraine to disarm, Clinton says CLINTON IN EUROPE
January 11, 1994|By Carl M. Cannon

BRUSSELS, Belgium — President Clinton, hailing “a hopeful and historic breakthrough,” announced yesterday an agreement that would finally remove all nuclear weapons from Ukraine — the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

The bulk of that arsenal is pointed at the United States from the time when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but it is fear of Moscow that has lately made Ukrainians anxious about giving up the weapons as agreed to under earlier treaties.

The agreement announced yesterday contains guarantees that neither Russia or the United States would launch a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Ukraine will also get hundreds of millions of dollars to help dismantle the nuclear arsenal and considerable assistance in advancing its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Many details about the nuclear removal appeared to remain unsettled yesterday, but a clearly delighted Mr. Clinton said that he would stop off at the Ukrainian capital of Kiev tomorrow to thank Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk personally before going to Moscow.

Details had to be worked out, and here was one of the big details finalized in 1997:

KIEV, Ukraine — Ending one of history’s oldest fraternal feuds, Russia and Ukraine signed away a millennium of rivalry and resentment Saturday with a friendship treaty destined to shape a new era of relations between Europe’s biggest states.

With his signature on the accord pledging respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin gave up Moscow’s long-running claims on Crimea. An accompanying agreement resolved years of dispute over who will inherit the Soviet-era Black Sea Fleet.

The opening la-de-da words of that one reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s epically stupid “reset” (well, actually “overcharge”) button with Russia as she and Obama affirmed that absolute, historic GUTLESSNESS was the way to power, prestige and wealth.

Let’s revisit an event in 2008, when Russia was building a dam that called into question Ukraine’s sovereignty.  It mentions the specifics of the treaty that Clinton had committed the United States to:

On Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. ambassador to Kiev, John E. Herbst, told journalists this week that the U.S. supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And so yes, Russia didn’t just attack Ukraine.  Russia attacked the United States of America:

Ukraine’s territorial integrity guaranteed under 1994 deal
AFP
March 3, 2014 10:06 AM

Moscow (AFP) – Former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko claimed on Monday that by “occupying” Crimea, Russia had not only declared war on Ukraine but also on Britain and the United States.

That is because on December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia along with Britain and the United States signed an agreement in which the three powers guaranteed the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.

The Black Sea peninsula is currently under de-facto occupation by pro-Kremlin troops, a situation which has been embraced by the local Russian speaking population fearing Kiev’s new authorities.

However, under the terms of the 1994 so-called Budapest memorandum the three major powers affirmed their commitment to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. It was signed three years after Ukraine became an independent state.

Russia, the US and Britain also agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons would ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

In the memorandum, they also agreed to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Kiev should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

In breaking America’s word to Ukraine, Barack Obama may just as well have issued an official decree in a speech from the Oval Office that he was abrogating all treaties and that the United States could and would break any and all treaty agreements and promises at any time if they inconvenienced Obama in any way, shape or form.

Think about it.  Because every single nation on earth that has ever depended on any agreement with the United States is sure thinking about it.

I remember the Democrats and Obama mocking the forty nation “coalition of the willing” that George W. Bush assembled when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq beginning in 2001.  Do you know how many nations Barack Obama – the arrogant Chump-in-Chief – has been able to muster lately?

Try a big fat ZERO.

When Obama issued his infamous “red line” warning to Syria, how many allies were willing to go with him?  ZERO.

As Obama announced his policy of sanctions against Russia in the aftermath of this new Hitler annexing Poland issue, how many allies could Obama muster just for a miserable sanction???  ZERO.  Not even Britain will go along with the Sissy-in-Chief.  And it is DEMOCRATS who are resisting Obama’s pathetically weak response.

Think of it, because it is astonishing: the man who mocked Bush’s coalition has pissed away every friend we have and all the clout we had such that he doesn’t have even ONE ally on earth.

This is because Barack Obama has spent the past five years abandoning every single friend and emboldening every single foe.

Obama has weakened America on every imaginable level: we are weaker economically under his failed leadership, with the all-important measure of labor participation (the number of working-age adults who have a damn JOB) at a 37-year low.  Obama has weakened America militarily, having after spending YEARS undermining our military just called to make it weaker than at any time since before World War II just when America should have been showing STRENGTH instead.  And Obama has weakened us diplomatically by betraying our friends and emboldening our enemies across the world.

Do you know who also refused to take our side against Russia?  China.  Do you know why?  Because China has hunger for territorial seizure, too.  And they want to get some of what Russia just got.  You can count on China doing what Russia just did.

We’re going to learn the answer to the question, “What if Hitler and Stalin ruled the world and America was too weak and too isolated to do anything about it.”  Because that’s what’s happening now thanks to false messiah Obama.

The United States will literally have to fight a World War III at unimaginable cost to get back the credibility and prestige that Barack Obama foolishly and frankly insanely pissed away.  And if we don’t demonstrate a powerful willingness to fight World War III, we will instead decline and decline and decline some more as the American standard of life that DEPENDED upon U.S. power dwindles into poverty.

THAT is your future because you were stupid enough and depraved enough to elect and then incredibly RE-elect Barack Hussein Obama.  And one day you’ll burn in hell for it along with all your other sins against God.

This is the thing about liberals.  Liberals are people who are utterly without genuine principle.  Which means they will make a deal, promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, and so on, but the moment it is politically expedient for them to abandon their promise, you can count on them to make themselves liars and hypocrites.  It is simply who they are.  Period.  End of story.

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

December 4, 2013

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

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

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

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

So should Americans be worried?

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

READINESS

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

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

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

THE U.S. MILITARY RATING NOW

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

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

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

THE PROBLEM

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

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

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

A SOLUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are we now?

Consider China:

China sends warplanes to newly declared air zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 1): The Fool Says In His Heart There Is No God

November 4, 2013

What is this class going to be about?  It’s going to be about Jesus according to His words in John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”  This class is going to be about Jesus as the only possible fulfillment of desperate human need.

I titled this, “Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God.”  Let me try to explain why.  The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was fully human in every way, human in every way that it is essential to be human, and fully God.  Passages such as Philippians 2:6-8 teach “the kenosis,” the emptying of Jesus as He laid aside aspects of His deity – WHILE REMAINING IN HIS NATURE GOD – in order to become fully human and experience the essence and the angst of human limitation.  How was He able to do this?  The short and simple answer is the Virgin Birth in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6.  Jesus, according to John 1:1-3, was the Word who was with God and was God.  We’re taught that ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY CHRIST.  And so when we read Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we now know that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  And so when we read Genesis 1:27 which says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

God created man.  But we can be even MORE specific: The Son of God created man.  Christ created man.  Christ, who would assume human image, created that very human image that He knew He would one day assume.  How could Christ assume human image?  Because Christ created man in His image, and more precisely because Christ created man in an image that He could one day assume Himself.

There’s a beautiful, simple poem: He came to die on a cross of wood, but made the hill on which it stood.”

Consider again John 14:6.  No one comes to the Father except through Jesus.  Jesus is the unique answer to the human condition, the only antidote to the fatal disease of sin.  He is THE way, THE truth and THE life.

So the title: Jesus as the Son of Man, in His humanity, shows you what is necessary to live a life that is pleasing to God.  Jesus as a human being showed us what kind of life – THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can earn/merit/deserve the reward of heaven rather than the judgment of hell.  If anyone thinks he or she is good enough to deserve to go to heaven on their own merit, all he or she has to do is live as perfect a human life as Jesus did.  What we find in studying Jesus’ life is that if you ever had so much as a single sinful THOUGHT, let alone act, you don’t measure up to God’s standard of a righteous life.  Everything Jesus thought and said and did were in perfect alignment with the will of the Father.  YOU try living up to that.  But Jesus in His humanity, in coming to seek and to save us, lived a perfect human life on earth because He knew we could not in our fallen state live the sinless lives a perfect holy God demanded.  As the Son of Man, Jesus lived a perfect human life in our place – the same way that Adam as the first man stood in our place and represented us (but led mankind into sin).  And Jesus in His deity, Jesus as Son of God, showed us what kind of life – AGAIN THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can gain heaven for any other human being.  In His deity as the Son of God, Jesus was able as GOD ALONE IS ABLE to save the entire human race by uniting in Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of God.

But having said that by way of introduction, let’s step back and consider the alternative to Jesus as “Son of Man, Son of God.”  Let’s suppose that the human race were left to its own devices, and that we were the answer to our own salvation, as secular humanists and atheists claim.  Let’s present the alternative scenario that the human race is the byproduct of meaningless, purposeless, random evolution and take some time to see where this scenario leads mankind in the question, “Where does morality come from?”  I want to argue for God on the basis of the simple fact of moral laws and our resulting moral intuitions .

When I got out of the army my knee was ruined and I was broken more than merely physically.  I was like many who couldn’t understand why God would have allowed me to go through such an ordeal or why He hadn’t healed me.  Frankly, had I had a better grounding in the Scripture, I would have known that God never said that bad things would never happen to His people.  I would have known that God has a plan that weaves things that we consider bad at the time to create an ultimately much greater good for us.  But I was young in years and young in my faith.  And I became bitter.  I went from wondering where God was, to wondering if He cared, to wondering if He was even there at all.

It’s interesting that the Bible never really seriously addresses the objections raised by atheists, other than to say it is fools who say that there is no God.

Here’s a great quote about “intellectuals” and “fools” from George Orwell: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”  It is amazing to contemplate how utterly divorced from reality many – if not most – intellectuals are.

Basically, God is simply presented as a fact of reality in the Bible.  And if you want to know why you should believe in God, all you have to do is look around you and see the purpose and beauty and design of creation (e.g. Romans chapter one).  God is an obvious brute fact, and it is fools who entertain foolish speculations to suppress the truth in their wickedness.  They can’t believe because they won’t believe.  All the evidence in the world won’t change what amounts to a bitter, cynical, poisonous attitude.  I think this is true, and as an example I think that the field of psychology backs it up: you can’t change a heart or mind that doesn’t want to be changed. Until someone is ready to change, all the logic, all the reason, all the facts in the world simply won’t matter.  And I present myself and my weight as an example.  Until I was ready to do what I had to do, NOBODY was going to be able to argue me into doing what I had to do to lose weight and get healthy.

There’s an appropriate line of dialogue that was said many times in Three Stooges episodes: “I can’t see, I can’t see!”  “You’ve got your eyes closed.”  “oh.”  When you are finally ready to open your eyes, you can see all the light you want to.  I was NEVER an atheist, but I had been spiritually traumatized into closing my eyes to God.  And I simply couldn’t see all the reasons I had to believe because I wasn’t looking.  Now I can see so many; but atheists won’t look at all those reasons.  Their eyes are closed.  2 Cor 4:4 takes it even further, pointing out that Satan as “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel.”  Open your eyes.

Last night on my walk, it occurred to me at a certain point as I walked in the dark that I’d better check for coyotes.  Once a coyote had tried to come up from behind and ambush my dog at this point.  So I turned on my flashlight and my blood pressure shot up as I saw a coyote moving toward us.  Only it wasn’t a coyote; it was a plastic bag caught in a shrub at just the right height to fool me.  We tend to see what we expect to see, don’t we?

But let me take you to a realization that I had during my quest for light (while like a “stooge” I was wandering around with my eyes shut).  I realized something important: it occurred to me that if in fact there were no God, and if evolution were true, that there was no real, objective morality – and that I could literally do whatever I wanted no matter how “evil” society claimed it was.  Murder, rape, you name it: there is no ultimate penalty for these things if there is no God who rewards or punishes.

I knew enough about the natural world at that point to understand that it is impossible to look at nature and find any grounds apart from God or religion for morality.  As an example, many matings in the insect and even mammalian world would for us constitute acts of rape.  And in the case of praying mantises or black widows, the females often get even by killing and eating the father of their children as soon as the mating is completed.  I watched a documentary about higher primates that showed a dominant female chimpanzee’s baby dying because she couldn’t produce milk.  As dominant female, what did she do?  She seized the baby of a less-dominant female.  And what happened?  That baby died because the dominant female couldn’t produce milk.  Is that wrong?  That’s NATURE, baby.  In the world of nature, do we arrest lions for crimes: “You murdered that zebra.  We’re going to have to put you in prison for your crime.”  It would be idiotic.  Anyone who understands the nature that humans ostensibly come from according to evolution understands that nature is utterly cold, utterly cruel and utterly amoral.

You can’t give what you don’t got.  Nature can’t “evolve” morality in humans because it never had it to give to begin with.  And the entire history of the natural world screams that cold hard brutal fact.

Does morality come from nature?  Not.  Would you like to depend on the amorality of nature to save you from anything?  I sure wouldn’t.  What about “herd morality”???  Does morality depend on what society says?  When we stand before God, will he turn to an opinion poll to judge us for our sins???

Where does morality come from, then?  Does it come from human government?  We can look at THE two most totalitarian forms of human government in history – communism and fascism – and see that theory get blown apart.  Surely if morality comes from government, then the more control exercised by government the better, right?  It turns out that the more government the WORSE.  Communism is identical with “state atheism”; every officially state atheist government with the exception of the French Revolution has been communist, and every single communist regime has been officially state atheist.  And no form of government has crushed the human spirit with more brutality than communism – which is responsible for the murder of more than 100 million of its own citizens just during peacetime alone.  Communism is the closest thing humans can come to “a boot stomping on a human face – forever.”  We can also consider the Darwinian and atheist project of Nazi fascism.  One of the greatest scholars of fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence.”  I.e. a transcendent God and an objective, transcendent moral law.  The great French thinker George Steiner noted that “By killing the Jews, Western culture could eradicate those who had ‘invented’ God.

Proto-Nazi 19th century German scholars such as Julian Wellhausen and Friedrich Delitzsch began in the 19th century with the theological project to undermine God, undermine the Bible and undermine the Jews who wrote the Bible.  Proto-Nazi 19th century German philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and then Martin Heidegger, savagely undermined any grounds for God, for Christianity, or for any kind of objective moral values.

Nazism was inseparable with the “Gottglaubiger,” the Nazi Party member who declared that he had officially rejected Christianity.  The men closest to Adolf Hitler noted in their personal journals that Hitler was an atheist.  Consider Joseph Goebbels, who in a 1939 diary entry noted a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”  Hitler said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”  And just as Hitler wanted to solve “the Jewish problem,” we find that he also intended to solve “the Christian problem.”  In 1941 Hitler declared: “The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure.”

Adolf Hitler summed up the ultimate Darwinian philosophy, saying, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

What else is Darwinism if not the struggle for survival in which the stronger kill or replace the weaker???

Does morality flow from the power of human government?  Adolf Hitler certainly believed it did.  He said, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”  Chairman Mao certainly believed that it did.  He said, “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” God is the State.  The State is God.  And whatever the State decides is moral is moral and whatever the State decides is immoral is immoral.  Does that work for you???

The Bible reveals a big problem with “human morality” from the LAST TIME God judged man’s sins: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5).  I see this as something that neither nature nor governance can solve.

One of my problems with morality coming from government or human culture is the way morality “evolves.”  I think of the United States and homosexuality.  On April 17, 2008, as epitomized in Barack Obama, morality was the view that: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”  But that view is no longer “moral”: now a person holding to that view is intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and cruel.  Now the moral thing to believe according to our culture and recognize that homosexuals’ relationships are every bit as valid as those relationships between a man and a woman and that the moral person must respect the full and equal rights of gay citizens.

I mentioned Nazism’s project to destroy objective, transcendent morality: such morality holds that objective moral laws apply to all times, to all cultures, period.  It is wrong to torture a baby for fun.  It has always been wrong.  It has always been wrong no matter what any culture or any group of people thought about it.  And it will always be wrong even if the whole world says otherwise.  That view of morality has largely been destroyed as much in our world as it was in the world of Nazi Germany.  And it has been replaced with the secular humanist/atheist concept that morality (like everything else) “evolves.”

What makes something “right” or “wrong”?  What makes something “moral” or “immoral”???  If something isn’t moral just because Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin said so, why would it be different if Barack Obama – or ANY leader ANYWHERE – said so???  Who makes human rules for humanity?  If it’s some group of humans, just what is it that makes them so superior to the rest of us that they get to make the rules for the rest of us?  And if there is no group of humans that gets to make the rules, then where else would any true moral laws come from???

Is it human nature to merely be a herd animal, which chews its cud and does what the rest of the herd does?  That doesn’t seem to be the way we are, given all the arguing and discussion rather than all the cud-chewing and mindlessly following.

In my own case, to return to my realization as an adrift young man, if there is no God, there ARE no moral rules.  I could do anything I wanted.  No one had the right to tell me that something was right or that something was wrong.  They were merely imposing their own values on me and they didn’t have any more right to make the rules than anybody else.  The Bible described such thinking: “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

What kind of world do we invariably end up with when it is up to human minds to decide what is right and what is wrong???  I think history has already declared that it is a very ugly world.

Is mass human death a tragedy?  Not according to the leaders of big government, who don’t care how many of their own people die as long as they have enough others to continue to do their bidding:

Chairman Mao:

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.”

Chairman Mao:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

I submit to you that we’re seeing the exact same demonically ideological disregard for the lives of one’s own people in Barack Obama with his ObamaCare rollout.  There was no question that the website was not ready, that it would crash, that it was unsafe and that people who trusted its use would be subject to widespread identity theft and hacking.  Obama didn’t care; he cared only about getting the turkey to fly whether it was ready to fly or not out of pure political considerations rather than any concern for the American people.

We’re seeing pure lies pumping out of the Obama White House to justify the fact that the president of the United States lied to the American people and became, in effect due to all his exposure, the most documented liar in the history of the entire human race.  White House officials and their spinners are claiming that there’s nothing about the Affordable Care Act that is causing millions of people to lose their insurance, and they demonize the greedy insurance companies and say that Obama can’t do anything about what the insurance companies do.  That is – just like Obama’s promise ,”If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” – a complete lie.  Not only are 15 million Americans finding that out right now, but 93 million more Americans are set to learn it the hard way in January 2014.  The insurance companies are cancelling millions of Americans’ insurance policies because ObamaCare loaded up policies with required regulations that none of these plans can meet.  Again, the White House knew in 2010 that ObamaCare would FORCE insurance companies to cancel over 70% of individual insurance plans within three years of ObamaCare’s implementation.  And so we are now seeing horror stories such as a woman with severe cancer who had not “substandard insurance” but “WORLD CLASS INSURANCE” in mortal danger of losing her insurance and therefore her LIFE because of ObamaCare.

Obama: “No matter, keep going.”  And none of the catastrophe he’s created matters because like Mao Obama is a rabid ideologue who demands his “signature legislation” be implemented now matter how awful it is or how terrible its consequences will be on America and its people.

What I’m trying to tell you is that when it comes to looking to your government for morality, you can’t look at the communists and the fascists – who ought to have THE most moral governments if morality in any way, shape or form comes from government – and say, “that’s just them.”  No government is moral, and morality comes from no government.  Least of all our own as we have now nearly completely abandoned the Judeo-Christian worldview that gave the United States a chance at becoming a moral city on a hill.  No nation that has mindlessly spent itself into well over $200 trillion in unsustainable and unpayable debt has any right to call itself “moral.”

I previously told you how bloody and dark and amoral and indifferent “the world of nature” apart from God was.  Does the morality of human government seem any better?  It has been frequently pointed out that any government that can give rights can just as easily take them away.  Now we are living in a time when what was right has become wrong and what was wrong has become right.

I think of some of Jesus’ most powerful words: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).  What did He mean?  Is He referring to people that nature lost?  Is He referring to people who aren’t yet eligible for some government program to help them?  Or is He referring to a far deeper and more fundamental problem with human nature that can’t be transformed by Nature and can’t be transformed by Nurture (i.e. a government nanny state)???

The Bible reveals something that we should all know from our self-introspection:  “ He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecc 3:11).  That is that we have eternal souls.  No temporary fix will work for beings that live on forever long after our bodies are dust.  The only solution is an eternal solution; and therefore the only one who can save us is an eternal God.

Nature cannot save us because amoral nature cannot give us what it never had to begin with.  Herd morality, society says morality, or government morality can’t save us because human beings are individuals and not herd animals and because governments are THE most immoral entities on earth rather than the most moral.  And human beings cannot save us because no matter how they present themselves as messiahs, the fact of the matter is that they are fallen human beings tainted by sin and they are merely liars and charlatans and demagogues.

We are a world in desperate need of salvation.  My generation was literally born into a world that had become capable of utterly destroying itself within a matter of minutes with nuclear annihilation.  And that threat continues to hang over this world that common sense assures will one day erupt into WW3.  We need a Savior.  We need a Messiah.  And no human government and no human leader can take the place of the true Savior of the world that the world needs – Jesus of Nazareth.

Click here to see Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2)

Click here to see Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3)

How The United States Of America Will Catastrophically Financially Implode SOON

October 15, 2013

Let’s start with this:

China calls for dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency
Upset that the U.S. fiscal impasse threatens to trigger a default that would roil financial markets worldwide, Beijing suggests ‘building a de-Americanized world.’
By Jim Puzzanghera
October 14, 2013, 5:23 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Five years after the U.S. financial crisis helped cause a deep global recession, foreign leaders are worried that history is going to repeat itself.

The fiscal impasse that has partially shut the federal government now threatens to trigger a U.S. default that would roil financial markets worldwide, leading an agitated China to suggest replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency.

“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” China’s official state-run news agency, Xinhua, said in an English-language commentary Sunday.

There is no viable alternative to the dollar as the centerpiece of the global financial system, and there probably won’t be for the foreseeable future, experts said.

But Washington’s debt limit standoff — coming on the heels of similar brinkmanship in 2011 — could accelerate efforts to find an alternative.

“The U.S. remains the core of the global financial system at this point,” said Nicolas Veron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. “But the sort of thing happening in the U.S. might move people toward a system less reliant on the U.S.”

China echoed calls from world financial officials urging an end to what it called the “pernicious impasse” in the U.S. over funding the government and raising the $16.7-trillion debt limit.

The Treasury Department has said the debt limit must be raised by Thursday or it will run out of borrowing authority. That would leave it dependent on just cash on hand and incoming revenue to pay the federal government’s bills. Given the world financial system’s dependence on the dollar, a default on payments of interest or principal on U.S. Treasury bonds would be catastrophic for the global economy, analysts said.

Treasury bonds and other dollar-based investments are used as the main form of collateral worldwide, so questions about their security would cause more problems than the financial system failures in fall 2008, said Benjamin J. Cohen, an international political economy professor at UC Santa Barbara.

“It would make the Lehman Bros. episode look like a garden party by comparison,” Cohen said.

The U.S. debt limit standoff was the main topic at the recent meetings in Washington of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Global finance ministers are worried that the uncertainty surrounding a U.S. default “would mean massive disruption the world over, and we would be at risk of tipping yet again into a recession,” Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Most countries hold their foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars because the currency is viewed as the world’s most stable.

“The very fact that more than 60% of central banks’ reserves are in dollars gives them every reason to be concerned,” Barry Eichengreen, a professor of economics and political science at UC Berkeley and a former senior policy advisor at the IMF, said of foreign governments. “If the bank in which you held 60% of your savings was threatening to default, you’d be concerned too.”

U.S. financial markets rebounded Monday amid optimistic reports from Capitol Hill about negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to end the standoff.

China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, with about $1.3 trillion in Treasury bonds, and probably more in other dollar-denominated investments. So the Beijing government is worried about the effect of a U.S. failure to raise the debt limit on those holdings.

The Xinhua editorial took swipes at the U.S. for claiming “the moral high ground” while “covertly doing things that are as audacious as torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders.”

Although it slammed the U.S. for the Iraq war and military activity around the world, the article focused much of its fire on the U.S. role in the global economy, saying “the world is still crawling its way out of an economic disaster thanks to the voracious Wall Street elites.”

“Most recently, the cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations’ tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized,” Xinhua said.

The editorial called for a “a new world order” in which “all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.”

That new order should start with respect for the sovereignty of other nations, the editorial said. It also should include major financial reforms, such as allowing developing and emerging economies to have more say in the operations of the IMF and the World Bank.

China has been pushing since at least 2009 for the dollar to be replaced as the world’s reserve currency. The nation has not only called for a new international currency to be developed but also has been taking steps to make its currency, the yuan, more acceptable as a potential alternative.

“They never lose an opportunity to take advantage of embarrassing behavior by the United States,” Cohen said. China made similar calls in 2011, when a debt limit standoff was resolved at the last minute.

But the Chinese currency and its financial system are not ready to be the world’s reserve currency, experts said. Even the euro and Japanese yen aren’t prepared to do that because they lack the liquidity of the dollar.

Still, the latest Washington crisis could push the world to seek ways to diversify the financial system away from its dependence on the dollar, Cohen said.

“The only thing that can hurt the dollar these days is political dysfunction in Washington. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “The more we play these games in Washington, the less confidence people will have in the dollar and the more incentive people will have to do this diversification.”

The first thing I couldn’t help but notice is how communist China’s demagoguery sounds almost exactly like Obama’s demagoguery.  They’re both talking down America hoping that the worst will happen to this country because each (i.e, China and Obama) believes their political goals will be attained through America’s demise.  But moving on…

I don’t know whether the Los Angeles Times – which is staffed by liberal ideologue propagandists as opposed to actual “journalists” is simply being incompetent in this story or being the propagandists that they are (i.e., the backstory is that the “default” is the Republicans’ fault, and ergo sum the global meltdown over the “default” will be all the Republicans’ fault, too).  But here’s a fact that kind of pees all over some of the main assertions in this story:

From November 24, 2010 (the money quote is boldfaced at the end):

China and Russia have agreed to allow their currencies to trade against each other in spot inter-bank markets.

The motive is to promote the bilateral trade between China and Russia, facilitate the cross-border trade settlement of [the yuan], and meet the needs of economic entities to reduce the conversion cost, according to Chinese officials.

This latest move — a continuation in a series of efforts by both countries to move away from  U.S. dollar usage in international trade — further threatens the dollar’s reserve currency status.

The dollar has this status because it is currently the currency of international trade.

For example, when Malaysia and Germany exchange goods, the transaction is often denominated in dollars.  In particular, oil — something that all modern economies need — is denominated in U.S. dollars, so the currency is almost as indispensable as oil itself.

The dollar reserve currency status allows the U.S. to run up high deficits and have its debt be denominated in the U.S. dollar, which in turn enables it to print unlimited dollars and inflate its way out of debt. America, understandably, wants to protect these privileges. [...]

Meanwhile, China and Russia are gradually revolting against the U.S. dollar. This latest move to shift bilateral trade away from it is significant in itself because China-Russian trade — previously denominated in dollars — is currently around $40 billion per year. For Russia, trade with China is larger than trade with the U.S.

Moreover, as this policy extends to Russian exports of oil and natural gas to China, it threatens the global petro-currency status of the U.S. dollar.

According to the International Energy Agency, China is already the largest consumer of energy,  although the U.S. is still the largest consumer of oil. However, China, now the largest automobile market in the world, is expected to rapidly increase oil consumption.

Russia is already the second biggest oil exporter and the biggest natural gas exporter in the world.

In other words, the growing importance of Russia and China in the global energy picture — and their phasing out of dollar usage for trading energy commodities — would marginalize the status of the dollar.

Russian ambitions against the dollar for energy exports go back to 2006. That year, former President Vladimir Putin made plans to set up a ruble-denominated oil and natural gas stock exchange in Russia.

So, in fact and contrary to the Los Angeles Times “reporting,” the movement away from the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency in fact PREDATES the financial crisis – and goes back to at least 2006 (I would argue it goes back even further than that, but I’ve proven my point: the financial crisis happened in late 2008).  So the LA Times is simply wrong in its thesis that the debt ceiling issue – which they over and over again hype as a “default” – is just plain bogus.

When we consider that Barack Obama demonized George Bush and ostentatiously voted against his debt ceiling (and didn’t bother to even show up and vote when the debt ceiling was raised other times during the Bush years - such that HE NEVER DID VOTE FOR A BUSH DEBT CEILING INCREASE other than when he voted for TARP - you also see the deceitful and dishonest propaganda that is going on.  It’s always “that was then” with these people; it’s always “It’s only fascist when THEY do what we did” with them.  Such as the fact that Obama did a press conference demonizing the GOP for not voting for his debt ceiling hike without ever bothering to so much as mention the fact that Obama did the exact same damn thing and how could the Republicans be anything but just as evil as the man who was now demonizing them???

Nor will that same blatantly dishonest media point out that Democrats shut down the government over the debt ceiling EIGHT TIMES during the Reagan presidency.  Because that would prove the lie to Obama’s “this has never happened before” and “no party has ever been this bent on destroying America” load of garbage.

Nor will they point out that it has largely – if not exclusively – been OBAMA who has fearmongered the debt ceiling rather than the Republicans.

The dishonesty of the mainstream media is simply breathtaking.

Having said that, let’s continue and examine this “default.”  Because it, too, is just a lie of propaganda:

Black’s law dictionary has this to say about “default”: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].

Come October 17 if our dysfunctional Washington hacks do not raise our debt ceiling, ominous forecasting of imminent default on our $17 trillion burden pound the airwaves. Prevarications foisted by the progressive press-corps regarding the United States becoming delinquent on its Treasury debt are as preposterous as they are disingenuous.  Whether premeditated lying or, equally likely, out of a stark darkness of matters economic the result is the usual fear mongering we have come to expect from their rumor mills.

Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming “prioritization of payments”.

Democrats are truly evil to fearmonger a “default” to falsely demonize and slander their opponents at the expense of the U.S. economy.  And Barack Obama is the most recklessly irresponsible president in the entirety of American history to join them in their lies.

To wit, we could easily pay our debt and NOT default.  And we could do that for not months but for years to come, if necessary.

If that isn’t enough, Republicans have already done the leg work to prevent any kind of “default”:

Sen. Pat Toomey and more than 30 Senate colleagues will introduce the “Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting America’s Soldiers and Seniors Act.”

The bill is meant to offer a stop-gap if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling and the Treasury Department thus falls short of having enough cash to pay all the government’s bills in full and on time.

Toomey’s proposal would require that revenue going to Treasury first be used to pay interest on U.S. debt, Social Security benefits and active-duty military pay.

If there’s not enough revenue available to cover those payments when they’re due, the bill would also give limited authority to Treasury to raise the debt ceiling just enough to borrow the difference between revenue on hand and what’s owed on the priority payments.

I’ve pointed out the fact: if there IS a “default,” it will be because Barack Hussein refused to allow the Treasury to make the interest payment that the United States could in fact make.  He has already demonstrated that he is a genuinely evil man who is trying to make the political impasse as harsh and as painful as he possibly can in order to falsely demonize Republicans.

There is one and only one genuine fact in the Los Angeles Times piece: that of China’s demand that the United States be replaced as the reserve currency of planet earth.

That WILL happen soon.  Because Democrats WILL NEVER REIGN IN THEIR DEMONIC SPENDING.

The true debt of the United States is not the “paltry” $17 trillion that we keep hearing about; it is actually well WELL over $222 TRILLION.  Our actual debt, our “fiscal gap” between our debts and our ability to actually pay for all the crap Democrats keep imposing on America, is going up about one trillion dollars every single MONTH.  Because politicians are liars who paper over debts with more debts and then cover those debts up with still more debts.

Democrats are the worst addicts who ever existed.  Heroin, coke, crank, meth, crack addicts got NOTHIN’ on Democrats.  Because Democrats are addicted to money and the power that their money buys them – and they are addicted to it TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT A TIME.

The only reason Democrats can keep this insane game of insane spending going is because America is the world’s reserve currency.  The fact that all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars has given us an unprecedented ability to basically just print money and keep escaping the consequences.

We have been just plain flat-out DEPRAVED in our spending.

As an example, do you know what triggered to insanely-titled-by liberals “Arab Spring” in which Arab regimes fell to be replaced again and again by terrorist-sponsored governments?  Food riots induced by Obama’s Fed as they kept printing more and more money and basically just adding more and more zeroes to the Federal Reserve computers.  As we printed more money, the Arab states that depended on the stability of the dollar saw massive inflation (because THEY can’t print more dollars their dollars became worth less = worthless).

Well, as Obama’s reverend once said, the chickens are about to come home to roost.  And they will roost on a collapsed, doomed, dead former United States of America.  And very soon.

One day, soon, the world will have had enough.  One day, soon, our stint as being the reserve currency and maximally exploiting that status with reckless and immoral spending that we can’t possibly afford will be ended FOR us.

And China will step in and take ownership.  And kick you and our family out of your home in the cold if you can’t pay their “damned American imperialist” rent surcharge.

Our time is coming.  We’ll get ours.  We’ll get what we deserve as a nation for being wicked enough to elect and then re-elect Obama: we’ll get Dodo bird extinction just like we deserve.

The United States is nowhere mentioned in Bible prophecy; that’s because America will have collapsed and simply be irrelevant as we enter these last days just before the beast of the Book of Revelation comes to impose his mark and doom the world to suffering and hell.

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

September 18, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was on September 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 16, 2013

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

1) Maintain clear boundaries

2) Be consistent

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

4) Impose effective punishments

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

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

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

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

1) Maintain clear boundaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you maintain clear boundaries, Obama?

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

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

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

What was the second rule?

2) Be consistent

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

Are you consistent, Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was third?  Oh, right:

3) Be united

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about that fourth thing:

4) Impose effective punishments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 6, 2013

First of all, we should not bomb Syria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush voices criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.

Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.

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

Please don’t be a damn lemming.

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

Obama’s line -

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

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

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

Your calculus.  Your equation.  YOUR RED LINE.

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

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

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

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

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

So what SHOULD Obama do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 4, 2013

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

Left Decries America, Ignore Global Evil Of Leftist Regimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But was that ever quite true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For The Record, Yes, Obama’s Dithering Delay In Syria Could Cost USA Dearly. In Fact, IT ALREADY HAS.

September 3, 2013

Two years ago, Obama told the world that Bashar al-Assad had to go.  For two years, Obama did NOTHING to bring that statement about.

One year ago, Obama said that any use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” for him.  Syria used chemical weapons FOURTEEN TIMES before cynical politics more than American credibility and prestige prompted Obama to finally do anything while 120,000 Syrians perished miserably.

There was a time to act in Syria.  The problem is that it was a long damn time ago.  Tragically for the world, Obama dithered and demagogued rather than led and acted.

Now we face nothing a series of impossible choices.  If we do nothing, we embolden Syria and worse – Iran – to continue to not only use weapons of mass destruction, but to build nukes so we can REALLY face a global crisis.  When Obama was elected, it amounted to a 100% money-back guarantee that Iran would get its nuclear weapons program because Obama and Democrats would not stand up strongly when we needed a red damn line that actually had some giant fangs in it.

And yes, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is all about Democrat dithering (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  You literally can’t shake a stick at all this evidence against Democrats and against the Obama regime.  We saw all this coming a long time ago but Obama dithered.  Now we’re seeing Islamic jihadism resurgent around the Islamic world; we’re seeing strong stable allies like Egypt fall and Jordan jeopardized.  Obama has emboldened our enemies at the very same time he has caused all of our former friends and allies that George W. Bush certainly had to distrust us and refuse to back us.

One of the things that is going on is the dismissal of U.S. intelligence proof that Syria was behind the use of chemical weapons.  Do you want to know WHY?  Go back to Democrats doing everything they could to undermine American intelligence JUST BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH WAS PRESIDENT and you’ll see why we distrust our intelligence now.  If that isn’t enough, just take a look at all the evidence that Obama massively and illegally expanded these intelligence programs after deceitfully and sanctimoniously saying he wouldn’t be like Bush and he would end these things that he instead made far larger and far more dangerous.

Obama claimed that Bush had no right to authorize an attack on another country without congressional approval.  But apparently that was because he felt that Bush was merely a man while Obama views himself as some kind of a pharaoh god king who transcends the limitations he asserts for mere mortals.  Because he claims that by virtue of his deity he has the authority that he said that Bush did not have.  Obama argued that Bush had to have a United Nations mandate then and thinks that he doesn’t have to get one now because it turns out that with countries like Russia and China it’s just as impossible for Pharaoh god king Obama to get UN backing as it was for George W. Bush.  Obama claimed that Bush was some kind of rogue cowboy who acted alone when Bush had 48 allies who were willing to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND while Obama can’t even get England to back us in lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria.

Let’s go back and remember what Obama said when George W. Bush was president and Obama was just another dishonest and dishonorable demagogue rather than THE dishonest and dishonorable demagogue-in-chief:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Replace the name “Saddam Hussein” with Bashar al-Assad and explain the difference to me.  Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on his own people to an even greater extent than Bashar al-Assad has done.  There were at least 300,000 in mass in mass graves in Iraq.  If it wasn’t right to go then it isn’t right to go now.  Which is why the rest of the world – by its isolation of Obama - is pretty much telling us with their silence that this is “A dumb war.  A rash war.”  And they’re doing so by the same despicable arguments that one Barack Hussein Obama once employed when he was doing everything he could to undermine one George W. Bush.

You kind of want to know why “an outrageous chemical attack” is only “outrageous” when a Democrat president who used to say it doesn’t matter suddenly decides for his own naked political interests comes to the opposite conclusion from what he thought when a Republican was running things.  You want to know why John Kerry as Secretary of State asserts that doubts about the intelligence amount to cowardice and treason when he was one of the many Democrats who publicly doubted the intelligence when a Republican president’s picture hung in the CIA and NSA buildings.

That’s why the question as to whether chemical weapons were used isn’t “settled.”  And of course, it’s why even IF the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, it’s no reason to believe Bashar al-Assad authorized it.  And if you think otherwise, liberal, then explain to me how the IRS used the equivalent of chemical weapons against Tea Party conservatives but Obama can’t be blamed for it.

You start to see how Obama’s constant double-standards has undermined his own perch at the top of the wobbling pole.

Obama needs to finally OWN his disgrace.  HE disgraced the presidency both BEFORE and WHILE he was president.

The sheer weakness and complete lack of honor of this man who sits in our White House makes me sick.  But Democrats have been despicable for decades now.

Obama assured us “that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”  I would argue that is hogwash.

A news article has a sentence that pretty much puts the kibosh to the Obama lie (quickly butt-kissed by the career butt-kissers at the Pentagon) that delaying the strike against Syria won’t compromise anything:

Pentagon officials say strike won’t be hurt by delay
Jim Michaels and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 11:12 a.m. EDT September 1, 2013

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials said Saturday that U.S. intelligence capabilities allow the military to track any movement of Syrian targets, which means a missile attack against Syria would be effective despite President Obama’s decision to delay a strike until Congress gives its approval.

Obama said Saturday that waiting would not weaken the U.S. ability to strike Syria if he gives the order. He said Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people deserves a military response.

If Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces try to hide its military assets, U.S. intelligence capabilities can find them, defense officials told USA TODAY. The U.S. military will also likely target buildings.

The United States has powerful signal intelligence capabilities, with the use of drones and satellites, and has the ability to monitor communications.

“Our intelligence and targeting capabilities offer the president and the nation tremendous advantages,” said a defense official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak about a potential strike.

Moreover, the official pointed out, buildings that could be hit by missiles do not move.

However, the extra time will let Assad move weapons, such as artillery or rocket launchers, into populated areas and use civilians as human shields, said Charles Wald, a retired Air Force general who led the planning of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban.

“It’s almost immoral to give the enemy more time to prepare,” Wald said.

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations,” said Colin Kahl, an associate professor at Georgetown University and former Pentagon official. “But that was happening already,” he said.

A delay may add some complexity to the mission, said a second defense official speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason. But the delay does not translate into protection for Syria’s military assets. U.S. intelligence and targeting technologies provide “tremendous advantages,” the official said, adding that if the Syrian regime thinks it will gain by a delay, it would be sorely mistaken.

Obama said Saturday that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.”

The Navy has positioned five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, within cruise missile striking distance of Syria. The ships can each carry up to 90 cruise missiles, though typically they carry less in order to make room for other weapons and personnel. A Marine troop-carrying ship has joined them.

U.S. military officials and analysts have said any attack will be aimed at military and intelligence targets, particularly units linked to the Aug. 21 chemical attack. It will not be designed to remove the Assad regime.

“We continue to refine our targeting based on the most recent intelligence, and the chairman assured the president that we would have appropriate targeting options ready when he called for them,” said Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for Dempsey.

Here’s the sentence:

Moving weapons from “a remote air base to a building near a school … does change the military calculations

Yes, smarmy, arrogant Obama-worshipers: you’re right that Syria would probably not be able either move many of the targets that military planners are targeting in a manner that would keep us from re-locating them.  But Syria doesn’t HAVE to move the targets.

Syria has two other things they could move while keeping all of their precious targets in plain view.

One would be his chemical weapons.  If the U.S. were to hit any of those chemical weapons, we would send giant lethal clouds of WMD in whatever direction the wind was blowing.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

If you think the Arab world isn’t ALREADY pissed off enough at Obama’s incompetence, well, we’d find out pretty quick that nope, they’re capable of being even MORE pissed off if Obama ignites any poison gas.

The other would be civilians – a.k.a. “human shields.”  Syria could chain a bunch of crying women and children to every one of their chemical weapons located at every single one of the locations the U.S. has targeted.  Thanks to Obama’s dithering, Syria has plenty of time to do that.

And it would be Obama murdering them, wouldn’t it?  I mean, it wouldn’t have been Syria that detonated those chemical warheads; it would have been Obama and his God Damned America that did it.  American cruise missiles would hit, and then all of a sudden there goes tons of poison gas from the very sites that those missiles had just hit.

What would our “plan B” look like if Syria were to use all the time and heads-up that Obama has given them to pull off that trick???  What would Obama’s “narrow” option be then???

Now, we can hope that Syria’s leaders are as incompetent and stupid as OUR leaders are.  And we can hope they won’t think of that.  But according to the article above, it pretty much sounds like they already have.

But it’s just hard to imagine anybody else would be as incompetent and stupid as our leaders have proven themselves to be.

Obama’s delaying could also give Russia more than enough time to position weapons capable of sinking a U.S. warship, if that’s what Russia wanted to do through its proxy Syria.  This isn’t the same Russia that was weak when Bush I and Bush II were presidents; it is a Russia resurgent under the weakness of Obama and it is a Russia that seems quite willing to let Obama know what it thinks of him.

That’s one reason why we shouldn’t compare Syria to Iraq, as Obama says we shouldn’t: Syria is armed with more recent Russian weaponry given to them by a far more dangerous and aggressive Russia.

What would happen if Obama tried to act tough to cover himself for his “red line” idiocy and Syria attacked us right back?  Would Obama skulk home with his tail between his legs or would it be Gulf of Tonkin, part deux???

I’m going to guess one of the reasons the U.S. strike will be utterly feckless and ineffective will be that there just won’t be any target we can strike that something really bad wouldn’t happen were we to hit it.

Any strike against Syria frankly already should have HAPPENED.  Any strike on any target should be a) massive and b) by as much surprise as we can attain.  Thanks to Obama’s weakness, we shall have neither.

What should Republicans do?  How should they respond?

Well, if they want to win this POLITICALLY they should be like Democrats were with Bush.  Do you notice Obama is going to Republicans trying to find somebody to help him?  I mean, where are the damn Democrats?  That’s because no Democrats have anywhere near the courage and integrity needed to do the right thing in this nation of God Damned America.  Here’s a statement in a Reuters article about which party has that integrity to do the right thing and which one has its finger to the political winds:

No one knowledgeable about Congress was willing to predict with any confidence how it would deal with a resolution to permit strikes in Syria.

The uncertainty is compounded by Obama’s often strained and distant relationship with Congress.

A House Democratic aide, on condition of anonymity, said “the vote will depend on the Republicans” because Democrats “will be split down the middle.”

That’s it, dishonorable Democrats.  Vote “present,” just like your messiah did when he was a senator.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you are.  Vote just like the despicable, dishonorable cowards you’ve been for well over forty years.

Do you want to know where Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is on Syria?  Good luck finding out where that cynical coward stands:

One voice in Washington that has been remarkably absent from this week’s Syria debate has been that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t said anything at all about President Obama’s plans for military strikes against the dictatorship in Damascus. As someone who dominated the US foreign policy landscape over the past four years, Clinton’s silence on Syria is striking. What explains this?

I mean, hey, other than the Benghazi debacle where somehow HRC was strangely completely absent and to this day nobody knows where the hell Obama was, wasn’t Hillary Clinton supposed to be the greatest Secretary of State in the history of the world???  Surely such a great statesperson has something to say.  But what we’ve got from her instead is this.

And what are key Obama figures doing on Syria?  Playing naked politics even as their false-messiah boss keeps disingenuously asserting that stuff like this transcends politics.  As soon as Obama got through meeting with his political advisers and decided to “punt” to Congress, David Axelrod – who basically CREATED “Black Jesus” Obama - immediately came out and wrote:

“Big move by POTUS.  Consistent with his principles.  Congress is now the dog that caught the car.  Should be a fascinating week!”

Of course, just the day before getting congressional approval had NOT been “consistent with Obama’s principles” because Obama had repeatedly said he didn’t need to do it and had no intention of doing it.  Maybe Axelrod was describing “Obama’s principles” when BUSH was president???  And note how politically and how cynically politically Axelrod puts this act of cynical presidential hand washing.

And keep in mind that Obama punted to Congress when Congress won’t be back to do anything about it until at least September 9.  When they DO come back, they’ll have their hands more than full dealing with the budget and the sequester and the debt limit.  And I’ll bet you anything you want that Obama will be politicizing the hell out of the whole godawful mess.  Because that’s the only thing he can do well.

You see, if Republicans want to win, they need to be the same sort of naked gutless and soulless political opportunists that Democrats have been.  They need to hold back on the vote until AFTER the Democrats have voted.  If the Democrats split down the middle, defeat the damn authorization bill and blame Democrats and say that the president couldn’t even convince his own damn party.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if Bush were president.  And then start pounding the airwaves with the “Obama has isolated himself and isolated America” rhetoric.  You know, the same way Democrats would have done if the shoe were on the other foot.

Republicans – if they were like Democrats – would be flooding the airwaves crying that Obama is taking us to war only because his foolish “red line” bluff was called and he looks like a weakling and a fool now.  The only difference is they would actually be RIGHT to say that whereas the Democrats really don’t give a rodent’s posterior about the actual facts when they demagogue.

The biggest political problem Republicans have is that, unlike Democrats, they actually care about their country rather than using every issue as an opportunity to hurt the other side.  And in this God Damn America that Obama and Democrats have forged, doing the right thing morally is the wrong thing politically.

The day Republicans start acting like the Democrat Party, America will fall.  Because the Democrat Party is the party of Pandering via-socialist giveaways and it is the party of weakness and suicide.

In the meantime, Obama’s dithering and delays and weakness have already irreparably harmed America.  This is the Arab consensus of Bush v. Obama:

Mohammed Yassin, a 45-year-old Palestinian in Gaza said Obama did not look like  the “tough guy Bush was”. Employing an Arab nickname for Obama, derived from his  Kenyan father’s name, Yassin said, smiling: “Abu Hussein has no balls.”

“No balls Obama.”  This is a particularly dangerous attitude in a part of the world where ONLY dictators can govern because only strength and power are respected and any hint of weakness is something to exploit and attack.

Even the überüberliberal Los Angeles Times acknowledges “No Balls Obama’s” lack of resolve with their headline:

To Mideast, U.S. policy on region seems adrift
Middle East friends and foes alike seem to find President Obama’s lack of decisiveness confounding.
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Jeffrey Fleishman and Paul Richter
September 2, 2013, 7:00 a.m.

Is there any wonder the Arab world believes Obama has no balls when even his most ardent, most partisan, most ideologue supporters (i.e. leftwing journalists) don’t think he’s got any balls???

In the Middle East in particular, what Obama just did is tantamount to a man backing down from a fight in front of everybody after doing a lot of tough talking, but saying he’d come back later (with his friends from Congress – and THEY’D show you!).  Oh, and when Obama and his friends finally show up sometime later, they won’t be kicking ass because that would involve them putting their boots on the ground, wouldn’t it?  Nope; they’ll come in with a little token show of force and a lot more tough posturing.  The obvious conclusion to everybody who watches Obama cringe away to Congress is that he’s a coward and a weakling.

That’s why Obama is less respected and more hated by Arabs in the Middle East than George W. Bush ever was.  That is why Obama’s approval in the Middle East is lower than Bush’s EVER was.  That is why the United States is less popular under the failed regime of Barack Obama in the Middle East than it EVER was during the Bush administration.

For the record, Bush demanded that Libya dismantle its chemical weapons, and Gaddafi took one look at what he’d just seen Bush do to Saddam Hussein and he dismantled his chemical weapons.  THAT’S the only way to deter a threat in the Middle East.

Obama projected abject weakness and indecision and wavering in the Middle East at a time that we needed to project strength and stability and resolve.  And the Middle East has dissolved into chaos as a result of Obama.

America’s image as a nation of strength and resolve has been pissed away.  And we are back in the days that Bill Clinton created when one Osama bin Laden watched years of Clinton’s cowardice and concluded that:

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press

That was before the last massive attack against America.

Next up, a nuclear armed Iran with no fear of America and a rabid desire to strike at the Great Satan.  Because, let’s suppose Republicans come through when coward Democrats won’t and Congress authorizes the “very limited strike” against Syria that Obama wants.  Is anybody truly so stupid that they think that a “very limited strike” will frighten Iran away from crossing the finish line with its nuclear program and becoming IMPERVIOUS to such strikes?  Does anybody actually believe that a few cruise missiles will do anything other than EMBOLDEN Iran?

The day that America elected the weakling Obama was the day that America voted for ultimate nuclear Armageddon.  And every day that passes makes that fact more and more clear.

P.S. For the record, I am dead set AGAINST the kind of strike that Obama has called for because it would do nothing save allow Obama to declare that he’d lived up to his “red line” bovine feces.  That said, I’d be FOR a strike in Syria: provided it was a DECISIVE strike that truly made Syria rue their use of chemical weapons and Iran think twice and then think twice again about their nuke program.  I would like to see John Boehner present TWO bills authorizing the use of force, with one representing Obama’s gutless limited approach and the other representing the kind of sustained ass-kicking that the situation calls for.  And within that latter bill a clear statement declaring that anything SHORT of a sustained ass-kicking has been specifically banned by that bill.  And we would put boots on the ground ONLY to establish a perimeter around and then remove the chemical weapons stockpiles from Syria.  And let’s vote and see what happens.

Btw, if you want to know why we didn’t find Saddam’s wmd stockpile when we invaded Iraq, it was because Saddam sent them to his fellow Ba’athist thugs in Syria.

As part of any resolution to attack Syria, we would have to have a contingency plan for dealing with the al Qaeda element taking over if our strikes collapsed Assad’s regime.  We would be voting to hang in there and help – by whatever means were necessary – to secure a democratic successor to the thugs who now run the country.  Or at LEAST a “pro-democracy thug” such as what we’ve now got and frankly had before with Mubarak in Egypt.

Nothing less is adequate.  Nothing less will do anything but create more harm and more havoc than good.

Furthermore, given that the United Nations Secretary General has already stated that anything Obama does SHORT OF ABSOLUTELY DAMN NOTHING would be illegal, either do nothing or stomp enough to leave a nice big splash.  If we lob so much as ONE missile into Syria, it will be an act of war.  Don’t be half-assed when you play at war, Obama.  If you want to send “a shot across the bow,” please do it here rather than with your toys stationed in the Mediterranean.

Also for the record, I think the reason the world has so completely isolated Barack Obama is that the world wants to back a winner.  Forty-eight nations got behind Bush and put boots on the ground because Bush was a winner and they could count on him to hang tough.  Nobody is backing Obama because they know that he is a loser who will abandon both his positions and his friends who got behind his positions the moment it serves his political posturing to do so.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers