Archive for the ‘War’ Category

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

April 19, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

And now here we are:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Should not be released’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documents prove oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghost employees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 28, 2009

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

October 15, 2009

Biden Reveals Obama Administration Treating Afghanistan As Political Problem

October 19, 2009

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

November 24, 2009

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

December 2, 2009

Speigel Regards Obama And His Afghanistan Policy With Naked Contempt

December 2, 2009

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

April 7, 2010

Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

April 7, 2010

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

January 3, 2011

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

February 16, 2011

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

June 16, 2011

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

June 29, 2011

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

February 9, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

It was a death trap right from the start.

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

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

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.

 

 

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)

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.

A Trip Down Memory Lane Reveals What A Complete Moral Fool Obama’s Current State Department Stooge John Kerry Truly Is

September 2, 2013

Let’s see what John Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – stuff like “moral obscenity” and “a thug and a murderer.”

But like all things that emanate out of the demon-possessed soul of the Obama regime, that was then and this is now.  And what was fascist when Bush did it is the only reasonable course now.  And of course we needed UN approval then but we don’t now; and of course we needed congressional approval then but we don’t now; and of course Bush should have been impeached then for what Obama wanted to do now; and so one and so on.

Obama said Syria would be crossing a “red line” if it used chemical weapons.  Syria crossed that “red line” FOURTEEN TIMES and pretty much assured Iran that Obama would do NOTHING as they raced toward having nuclear weapons.  But what’s American credibility worth these days?  Pretty much nothing under the president who pissed away our friends while he emboldened all our enemies.

Democrats shrilly screeched that Bush had somehow undermined America’s prestige.  But consider that Bush had the “prestige” to lead 48 nations to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND against Iraq.  And Obama has so completely forfeited any and all trust from our allies that he can’t even get ONE ally to help us shoot some missiles from a ship far out to sea.

Let’s consider the comparison between John Kerry when he condemned Syria recently along with what that same traitor said when he demonized America back in 1971:

I mean, if you want to know just how incredibly evil and vile John Kerry thinks Syria is now, it’s so evil and vile that it’s ALMOST as evil and vile as Great Satan AMERICA is.  And that’s really, REALLY evil and vile.

But let’s recall that Syria wasn’t always almost as evil as Great Satan America in John Kerry’s diseased soul.  Let’s remember that John Kerry used to think – until very, VERY recently, that Syria was pretty wonderful and that Bashar al-Assad was his “dear friend.”

Let’s take a look at the abject moral idiot that Obama made his Stooge of State:

It wasn’t so long ago that Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011. Last year, he famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column this past summer:

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

As Michael Rubin recently wrote in Commentary Magazine, Kerry’s staffers described “their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as ‘my dear friend.’”

Jim Geraghty of the National Review reports that “as recently as February 2010, Kerry was telling Middle Eastern leaders that he believed Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria.” Imagine the situation Israel would be facing today if it had heeded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman’s advice. The strategic plateau overlooking all of northern Israel might today be on the verge of falling into the hands of Syrian homegrown terrorists and imported Al-Qaeda members.

Kerry clearly believed Assad was honest and a force for stability. The National Review quoted a WikiLeaks document which revealed Kerry had told the emir of Qatar in November 2010, “Assad is a man who ‘wants to change’ and that Israel should cede the Golan Heights to the Syrians ‘at some point.’”

The National Review detailed more about Kerry’s positive impression of Assad:

After a “long and comprehensive” meeting with Assad in April of that year, Kerry described it as “a very positive discussion.” A month later, Kerry was back in Syria. His spokesman, insisting that “Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so,” asserted that Kerry had “emerged as one of the primary American interlocutors with the Syrian government.” Despite the senator’s interlocutions, Assad, it appears, has made the wrong “strategic decision.”

Before Kerry took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in September, the Washington Free Beacon in an article titled “An Affair to Remember: John Kerry Hearts Bashar al-Assad” called Kerry the Syrian dictator’s “highest-ranking apologist in American politics”:

Yet for all his admiration—his numerous trips to Damascus, his many public words of praise for Assad, his insistence over many years that the butcher of Damascus is a man of peace who seeks rapprochement with Israel and the United States—Assad has never repaid Kerry’s generosity with reforms.

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

The Beacon pointed out that even the Washington Post referred to Kerry as one of Assad’s “prominent admirers” in the United States. This, despite the fact that Assad has been a key backer of the terrorist group Hezbollah and that his regime possesses one of the world’s largest stocks of chemical weapons, including the nerve agents sarin and VX.

The liberal Washington Post once pointed this factoid out:

Assad’s Western habits and seemingly moderate views had initially inspired optimism among Western acquaintances and Syria watchers about his leadership of the strategically vital country of 20 million. Assad’s pledges to implement political and economic reform once won him prominent admirers in the United States, including Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

John Kerry’s views on Syria’s Assad possessed all the moral “wisdom” of Charles Manson not too long ago:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

Kerry agreed, condemning the previous U.S. president while on the soil of a dictator who had spent the previous years assisting in the killing of American troops in Iraq. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” Kerry said.

A year later Kerry was reiterating his praise for Assad’s tyranny. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” Kerry said about the prominent state sponsor of terrorism and host of jihadist groups. “All of us have to work together in order to seize real opportunities.”

And let’s not forget that Obama’s recent pick for Stooge of State once was a clear signal of weakness, WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS:

And in 2011, when Kerry again wanted to go to Syria, his visit was blocked–by the Obama administration. “The Obama administration and France reportedly nixed a visit by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Syria. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cultivated a relationship with the Syrian regime otherwise treated as a pariah in the West in the hope of drawing it away from Iranian influence. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Kerry had planned a visit last month, but the governments of the United States and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy blocked the visit out of concern that it would signal ‘Western weakness’ as pro-Iranian and pro-Western forces jockeyed for influence in Syria’s neighbor, Lebanon,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in March 2011.

Consider that THIS is the man Obama wanted to head the State Department.  EVERYTHING about the Obama presidency heralds “Western weakness.”

Obama has ALWAYS been a weakling and a coward and a lying demagogue without shame, without honor and without any integrity whatsoever.  And so has his Secretary of State.

I mean, yes, of COURSE Bashar Assad is a “moral obscenity” as well as “a thug and a murderer.”  But he’s a “generous” “dear friend” of a moral obscenity whom Kerry “prominently admires” because of all Assad has done to bring about “peace and stability.”  You know, by murdering at least 120,000 of his own people just so far…

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who has anything whatsoever to do with Obama is a liar and a fool.

That’s why we get headlines like this one even from the incredibly liberal New York Times:

NYT: “Confusion, Anger and Mockery As Obama Delays Plan

That NYT article points out what an object of mockery America is for being stupid enough and pathetic enough to elect an Obama:

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.”

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus that “it is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”

And of course Obama is now mocked by pretty damn much EVERYBODY over there now:

“Dictatorships like Iran and North Korea are watching closely to see how the free world responds to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” the opposition coalition said in a statement issued in Istanbul.

Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

“We were expecting things to be quicker,” Mr. Nachar told reporters, “that a strike would be imminent.”

That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now in this God Damn America.

European Knights Versus Japanese Samurai

August 21, 2013

I believe it was the great Monty Python who made famous the phrase, “And now for something completely different.”  If you have ever read this blog, you will know that this article fully qualifies.

I enjoy watching the Military History Channel, and for whatever reason I particularly enjoy the programs dealing with ancient warfare.  And so when I noticed that a program about the great samurai swordsman Miyamoto Mushasi was just starting, I watched it with enthusiasm.

At some point, the question occurred to me: how would a Japanese Samurai fare against a European knight, and vice versa?  And, in this modern age where vast amounts of information are instantly available to curious minds, all I had to do for immediate gratification was to take out my gizmo and enter the question and hit enter.

I examined about a dozen sites before drawing a few conclusions.  I had expected that there would be an overwhelming favorite in such a matchup – and there was.  But I was surprised at who that overwhelming favorite turned out to be.

In short, it turned out to be the European knight (this link merely being one example where a lot of individual opinions were offered).  I had expected that, given the mythological treatment that Hollywood has given to Asian fighting styles in general and Japanese samurai and ninja warriors in particular, that most people would say without batting an eye that the samurai would cut through the knight like a shiskabob wrapped up in tinfoil.

I found what I learned interesting, and thought I’d share it with whatever small segment of the universe cares about such topics.

Knights and samurai never got together as either friends or foes in the real world.  And that was because they literally lived and fought in different worlds that didn’t even know the other existed.  That said, both groups of warriors were the absolute best in their respective world.  And they unceasingly trained themselves to fight the enemies of their respective worlds.  Which is to say they never developed the sort of tactics that each would have had to develop were they to encounter the other.

Given my experience with Hollywood lore, it did not come as much of a surprise to learn that Japanese samurai were highly trained warriors.  But I was surprised to learn just how incredibly well-trained the European knights (such as the Teutonic knights) truly were.  Yes, as some point out, knights generally had to come out of the noble class – if nothing else for the reason that their horse, armor and equipment were so incredibly expensive - but becoming a knight was not nearly so easy as being born a noble.  It turns out that these warriors began their training as early as the age of FOUR YEARS OLD by beginning their service as squires.  Like the Japanese samurai – who also almost exclusively came out of the noble class as well for the same reasons – training did not begin with combat instruction, but upon learning a system of honor and duty.

In both cases, it took years of incredible hardship to master the training to serve as the most elite warriors in their worlds.  And that training was reserved for men who had literally been born to it.

Let  me put it this way: if you didn’t have an assault rifle on you, you would NOT have wanted to go up against EITHER of these warrior groups.  Both were highly skilled killing machines.

Both groups of warriors had codes of honor and a determination to prove themselves worthy in combat to which they adhered to the point of fanaticism.  Both lived to fight; and both LOVED to fight.

One of the reasons the Crusades came about is that there were no wars at the time, and bored combat-bred knights with nothing to do was a dangerous and explosive situation.  One of the things that happened in 1095 was that the Pope made Europe’s problem with a professional warrior class the Middle East’s problem.

So in a battle between knights and samurai, who would likely have prevailed against the other?

On my view, the European knight would have been the victor.  Let me explain why in a few key points.

First, allow me to argue by way of a couple of historical analogies: although “knights” and “samurai” never faced off against each other, history does actually provide what I argue is a similar matchup as we consider the heavily armored knights versus the comparatively more lightly armored samurai: the Spartans of the Greek city state – the elite of the Western world – versus the Persian Immortals who were the elite warriors of the Eastern world.

It must have been a massive shock to the eastern Persians to find warriors who could easily destroy what they had come to believe were the greatest warriors on earth.  But the Immortals fell like wheat before the scythe against the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.  The Spartans’ superior armor combined with their phalanx system of fighting were absolutely devastating to the Persian Immortals.  The Immortals had simply never encountered anything like the Spartans and had neither the equipment nor the tactics to deal with their heavily armored enemies.

The second anaology actually comes from the greatest of the samurai swordsmen, Miyamoto Mushashi.  In his most famous duel against the other greatest samurai of his day, Sasaki Kojiro, Mushashi was forced to confront the dilemma of his opponent’s incredible reach.  That was because Sasaki Kojiro was famous for using an unusually long katana sword.  Musashi ended up overcoming this dilemma by fabricating his OWN even longer katana that he carved from a boat oar.  Mushasi ultimate won the duel by psyching out his opponent and winning the duel of the fighter’s minds – and a key way he did so was to surprisingly turn Kojiro’s advantage into a disadvantage.

I’ve watched a number of fights and duels, and whether we’re talking about boxing or some other hand-to-hand form, or whether we’re talking about weapons, having the advantage of reach over your opponent is incredibly significant.  If you have the reach advantage, you can literally strike at your opponent without exposing yourself.  While not insurmountable, you are simply on very dangerous ground if you find yourself holding the shorter weapon in a fight – whether those weapons be arms and fists or swords.

And thus it becomes significant to note that a Japanese katana – used by the shorter Japanese – was usually 36 inches long, versus European broadswords that usually measured between forty and fifty inches.  Even the four inches of difference is significant.  But when it’s a full FOOT it’s huge.  Imagine how hard it would be to land a punch on Shaquille O’Neal versus how easy it would be for that giant fist on that giant arm to smash your face to get an idea.

That said, analogies – even based on genuine history – can only take us so far, and so I’ll move on.

Let’s talk about the swords and the armor of each warrior.

Samurai swords are famous – to the point of mythology – for their quality and their razor sharpness.  But it may be surprising to learn that an English broadsword cost the equivalent of $70,000 in today’s currency to make (and the cost of outfitting a knight with horse, armor and weaponry would have amounted to the price of a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood in today’s dollars).  The European broadswords were incredibly fine weapons as well, believe me.  They were longer and heavier than Japanese katana because the combat situations that the knights fought in necessitated a longer, heavier weapon.  [And here let me point out that while fine Japanese battle katanas - which were produced in the tens or even hundreds of thousands during World War II - are numerous, actual combat broadswords are far, FAR more difficult to come by as they ceased being manufactured centuries ago.  In any test between swords, any valid comparison would have to compare an actual combat weapon to an actual combat weapon, rather than comparing an actual Japanese combat katana to a "weapon" that was made to serve as a wall ornament.  Take as an example the katanas WWII Japanese officers were issued.  These were weapons intended to be actually used in combat.  Versus the "swords" Marines were issued with their dress uniforms - which routinely sell on eBay for less than $40.  And no: Marine officers and NCOs did not charge into Japanese lines waving their ceremonial swords, did they?].

I argue that the decisive issue to answer the question of broadsword versus katana isn’t the quality of the swords themselves – which itself is highly debatable - but the rather the types of swords that they were relative to the type of fighting that would need to take place were knights and samurai to face one another.

The Japanese katana was a curved weapon, ideal for a quick explosive draw from a sheath and ideal for slashing or cutting.  In a “quick-draw” contest, the katana wins, hands down.  A straight-bladed broadsword takes longer to draw from a scabbard.

To this day, katanas are all about their capacity to make incredible cuts.  It was designed to be a slashing weapon rather than a thrusting weapon.

The problem is that slashing would have been nearly entirely ineffective against European plate armor.  And the reason the knights didn’t use curved swords is precisely because they would have been ineffective weapons against other knights.

Their swords were straight and heavy-bladed weapons designed to pierce through rather than slash through armor and the few very small gaps between plates.  It wasn’t that knights didn’t employ hacking/slashing/cutting techniques on a battlefield; it was just that they would have used a different weapon such as a mace to do it.

The European broadsword has the advantage in being sharp on both sides, which opens up the tactic of being able to attack from more angles versus a single-sided blade such as a katana.

I believe that were the Japanese to encounter armored knights, they would have quickly began to alter their swords.  It isn’t that the katana is inferior to the broadsword, it is merely that katanas were never designed to face that sort of armor.  And I would guess that a giant broadsword wouldn’t have been the ideal weapon  in the Japanese world of the samurai, either.

It should also be stated at some point that neither the samurai nor the knights fought only with swords.  Both warriors were proficient with a frankly mindboggling array of lethal hand weapons.  Knights fought with swords, axes, lances, pikes, maces and hammers as just part of a very long list.  These highly skilled warriors were capable of killing with damn near anything they could get their hands on.  And the same was true for the samurai.

Now let’s discuss the armor.  I earlier said that Japanese armor was “lighter,” but it – surprisingly – wasn’t lighter by very much.  The Japanese armor was primarily made from leather and wood.  And it turns out that leather is pretty darned heavy.  Both suits of armor weighed in in the ballpark of about sixty pounds.  Nor is the Japanese armor much more flexible.  That isn’t because there’s anything wrong with Japanese armor, but rather it is a matter of how incredibly balanced and well-distributed the weight of a suit of European plate armor truly is.  And the range of movement is simply remarkable.  If you are ever fortunate enough to put on an actual suit of combat Medieval armor, you will feel a) invulnerable and b) badass.

The steel plate armor of the European knights was simply superior.  Most likely because steel was simply available in considerably larger quantities in the West, it was used to make armor in the West and it wasn’t in the East.  Obviously, today Japan has a huge steel industry, but it was very late to develop that industry relative to the West.  Japan didn’t begin extracting iron until the 7th century AD, and they didn’t have a significant steel industry until the 19th century.  The West simply had the technological advantage that had frankly began a millennia before, just as they continued to have it AFTER the age of the knights and samurai ended with the advent of rifles (which transformed the most base peasant into a knight or samurai killer without a great deal of training).

Technology is rather important (see here for that proof).  And the Europeans had the advantage in armor technology.

Just to finish this point, when the Japanese began to trade with the West in the 16th century, it didn’t take them very long to acquire Western-style armored helmets and breastplates (i.e. the cuirass).  Which is another way of saying Japan updated its outdated armor technology.  But by then the knight in Europe had largely already been replaced by guns and had abandoned armor.

But there is more to say: the European knights and the Japanese samurai had entirely different uses on a battlefield.

Both were at their best on horseback.  And it was on horseback that their true purpose was most revealed.

The European knights were the prototypical heavy cavalry – and there was no greater force on earth to charge an enemy phalanx shield wall such as had been developed by the previously mentioned Greeks and Spartans.  Their impact on the battlefield was to mount a crushing attack an enemy formation with the aim of breaking apart its unit cohesion with crushing force, scattering if not routing the enemy in decisive charges.

You can only imagine it: a European knight cavalry charge, as something on the order of 1,500-plus pounds of armored muscle raced toward you at 35 miles an hour. And there was a nine to eleven foot-long lance pointed right at you.  Roy Cox, an expert in jousting, calculated the force at the spear tip of that lance as being as much as 50,000 pounds per square inch.  Can you even imagine that kind of devastating weight and power coming at you at that kind of speed?  When the ultimate tanks of the ancient world came at you, you either got out of their way or you died.

And that unrivaled speed, power and force was the essence of the European knight.

That was why the knights evolved in Europe; they were the ultimate heavy cavalry of the age.  Their purpose was to scatter an enemy formation.  And there was no warrior on earth that could do a better job of that.

That was not how the samurai fought.

For one thing, the samurai were superb archers (this was a skill that the knights did not tend to learn, since Western fighting had developed a specialized class of archers known as longbowmen who fought in their own formations behind the foot infantry.  They were specialized because like the knights, they were trained from childhood to reach their required skill level.  So, if we wanted to, we could re-introduce analogies by returning to a different East meets West conflict a.k.a. the Crusades.  The Eastern style of fighting was to use horseback-mounted archers, and the Western style was to use heavy cavalry to smash infantry formations.

Both tactics had their place on the battlefield.  You can’t say that one was necessarily always “better” than the other because it depends on the terrain and frankly on the quality of the warriors employing either tactic.  But suffice it to say that it is simply a fact that the knights had encountered the tactics that the samurai would have employed because they had fought eastern armies; whereas the samurai had never before seen the tactics of the knights.  And I submit that the samurai would have been shocked and routed by the sheer shock and awe of a mounted heavy cavalry knight charge into their ranks.  And I claim this supported by the fact of history that in the First Crusade, the knights prevailed because their horse archer enemy could not defeat the shock and awe power of a knight cavalry charge.  Even when the knights were vastly outnumbered and even when they were on terrain that favored their enemy.

Here is a critical point that needs to be understood to understand what would happen were the samurai to meet the knights in battle: the knights had fought enemies from all over the world, and had confronted and been forced to adjust to the tactics of horse archers (note this is a Turkish source rather than a “pro-Crusader knight” source).  The Japanese samurai never fought anyone but other Japanese samurai.  They had nothing even close to the experience in fighting enemies from all over the world that the European knights had.

I state above that a knight would very likely have prevailed in a battle against a samurai, due largely to the superiority of his armor and the additional reach of his sword in addition to the superiority of the sheer power of his tactics.  That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the samurai would have done better in a duel in which neither participant was allowed to wear armor and fight with nothing but a sword.  And this is not necessarily because the samurai would be the better swordsman, but rather because armor was more a part of the Western knight’s fighting style than it was of the Japanese fighting style.  As an example, let’s say I am trained to fight with sword and shield (as the knights did), whereas you fight only with a sword (as the samurai did when fighting with katanas).  If I use my shield, I will defeat you; but if I surrender my shield, I not only lose an important advantage, but I am at a disadvantage because I have always relied on my shield to block most of my opponents blows whereas you have always only used your sword to both attack AND defend.  If we’re both using swords alone and I don’t get to use my shield as I was trained to do, you would likely be better trained to win that battle.

I would suggest that it is simply a fact that a better armored warrior taking advantage of his shield would be far better protected than a samurai – who did NOT fight with shields.  The samurai did not use a shield because  he also needed both hands free for his bow and because he used the katana as a two-handed weapon.  Whereas the European knights DID have two-handed heavy swords, but could use them with one hand as necessary.  And I submit that fighting with sword and shield is superior to fighting with sword alone – especially when your two-bladed sword has a significantly longer reach than does  your opponent’s single-bladed weapon.

So who would have won in a battle between knights and samurai?  I submit that the knight had the superiority of defense with his superior armor and his shield as well as the superior offense with his longer sword.  I submit that a knight’s training made him every bit the equal of the samurai.  And I submit that, if nothing else, victory would have come down to the superiority of the European knight’s extensive combat experience against many nations and fighting styles.  They fought enemies from all over the world and learned how to instantly adjust in order to prevail, whereas the Japanese literally stayed on their island.

I didn’t write this article to in any way diminish the Japanese samurai.  Rather, I wrote it to emphasize the incredible training and the magnificent warrior tradition of the European knight, which, due to a hostility to all things “Western” and “Christian,” have largely been overlooked if not despised.  As a rather blatant example of this prejudice, I found it interesting that when I used the WordPress spellcheck, it recognized “samurai” but refused to recognize “knight” as a valid spelling term.

Don’t Mention The Name Of Jesus Christ In Obama’s Fascist Military. God Damn America!!!

May 2, 2013

I have been predicting (see here and here and here and here and here) that the United States military was going to hell for years now. 

Well, it is virtually official now:

Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted
By Todd Starnes
April 30, 2013

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”boykin

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Pentagon officials met with Weinstein and his group were to discuss a policy called “Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Weinstein said it’s time for the Air Force to enforce the regulation – with zeal.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law, well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

“When those people are in uniform and they believe there is no time, place or manner in which they can be restricted from proselytizing, they are creating tyranny, oppression, degradation, humiliation and horrible, horrible pain upon members of the military,” he said.

Perkins said the military regulations have “Weinstein’s fingerprints all over it.”

“It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state,” he said, referring to a Washington Post article highlighting Weinstein’s meeting with Pentagon officials. “Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense, LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,” he said.

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, warns that the Air Force policy would “significantly impact the religious liberties of Air Force personnel.”

“Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children,” Crews said. “I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope that it is willing to listen to the numerous individuals and groups who protect military religious liberty without demonizing service members.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Weinstein called proselytizing a “national security threat.”

“And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason,” he told the newspaper. “It should be punished.”

Perkins said it was troubling the Obama Administration would place so much trust in someone like Weinstein.

“Unfortunately, it appears our military is on a forced march away from the very freedoms they are sworn to protect,” he said. “This language from Weinstein that Christians who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is “sedition and treason” is a treasonous statement in and of itself.”

But Weinstein said they count thousands of Protestants among their ranks – and said they are simply going after fundamentalists.

“As soon as we find a fundamentalist Muslim, atheist, Jewish person or anybody else, we will be happy to fight them – but so far they have been few and far between,” he said.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, an executive vice president with the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he’s deeply concerned by what he call a pattern of attacks on Christianity within the military.

“Mickey Weinstein has a very visceral hated of Christianity and those who are Christians,” he said. “He’d like to see it eliminated from the military entirely.”

If the Air Force policy is implemented, Boykin said Christians who speak of their faith “could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state.”

“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.

In the meantime, Weinstein and his group said they will continue to push for the Pentagon to fully implement its ban on proselytizing.

“There is a time, place and manner in which proselytizing is not only allowed, but it’s something we support among our Christian clients,” Weinstein said. “However, you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater and you can’t scream Jesus in a crowded theater at certain times, places, and in certain manners.”

As we speak, a Christian was just sentenced to death in Iran.  His crime?  Being a Christian.  Which of course makes rabid atheists like Weinstein happy.  He wants Iran to come to America and do unto the Christians as Iran is doing unto them.  Apparently Obama agrees.

Just today, we’ve got a Christian in North Korea being sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.  What was his crime?  Being a Christian.  And the vicious communist monsters in North Korea view being a Christian exactly the same way that Weinstein views them: as seditious traitors.

There is a 100% correlation between “state atheism” and the most inhuman and murderous form of communism.  I have repeatedly documented that fact:

Obama And His Liberal Fascists Want To Ban Guns. Why Don’t We Ban Anti-Christian Worldviews Instead?

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

Secular Humanist Left So ‘Tolerant’ They Want To Purge Anyone Who Isn’t Just Like Them

Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM – Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

In yet another article, I document:

We’ve seen the kinds of places that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous other atheists yearn for: they’re called “re-education camps,” and they come only from officially state atheist societies:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

And it is no coincidence that these communist officially state atheist societies have murdered more human beings during peacetime than have been killed in all the wars in history.

Or take the Nazis. Please, as they say.

So now it is an official crime against the state to say the name of Jesus?

State atheists like Weinstein are guilty of murdering more than 100 million of their own people.  During peacetime.  I’d call THAT “horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”  But atheists like Mikey Weinstein would just call it another day at the office.

Atheist Mao murdered 45 million people in just four years - again during PEACETIME.  Atheist Joseph Stalin signed mass death warrants late into the night and murdered tens of millions - during peacetime.

Let’s consider these TRUE monsters words.  Let’s consider the worldview of state atheism:

Joseph Stalin said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Chairman Mao said:

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.”

Versus Abraham Lincoln, who said:

… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

But America has made its choice.

This is Obama’s God damn America, just as I have been saying over and over.  One day every Democrat baby-murdering queer sodomy-lover will one day burn in hell.

And the beast is coming.   Obama is his Useful Idiot in Chief.  And Americans will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

April 5, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers