Posts Tagged ‘egypt’

Russia Looking Better Than ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ America: Obama Has Truly Poisoned America And Poisoned the WORLD To The USA

July 14, 2014

It wasn’t that long ago that I was watching a Fox News exchange between a liberal contributor and a conservative (you don’t get to see those on most other networks simply because they REFUSE to have conservatives to actually HAVE an “exchange”).  The conservative demanded that the liberal name ONE nation that Obama has improved relationships with rather than making relations WORSE.

And the liberal dodged the question three times before finally responding with “Canada.”

And I immediately thought, “That’s bull.”

Keystone decision a setback for U.S.-Canada relations

Canada May Sue U.S. Under NAFTA Over Keystone XL: Report

So yeah, as usual, liberals are either ignorant fools or moral idiots or both.  Obama has literally “fundamentally transformed” the entire WORLD against failed America.

Our enemies are emboldened and our friends are dismayed under this failed, cancerous presidency.  All over the world, America’s historic allies are now either gone – such as in Egypt, where Obama literally spearheaded the ouster of a vital strategic ally for more than three decades to replace him with the a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood – or they have been weakened and undermined.

How do you think Ukraine feels?  They made a deal to give up their massive nuke arsenal – which common sense told them they needed to protect themselves against Russian aggression – on the promise of US president Bill Clinton that the U.S. would secure Ukraine’s borders.  How did that idea to place trust in an America run by Democrat Party fascists go?  About as well as could be expected of the party of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…”

It is a fatal, lethal mistake to EVER trust Democrats, as Ukraine learned to its horror when Russia invaded – as Sarah Palin predicted they would when Putin understood what a truly weak and pathetic fool Barack Obama is – and the US did NOTHING to honor its commitment.

It is stunning to read the article below and find that as evil as Russia is, Barack Obama is so evil and so completely untrustworthy that our historic allies are choosing the lesser evil (Russia and Putin) over the greater evil (the United States and Obama).  That’s how depraved this fool is.

Now Israel is on the list of nations that are learning that to trust the United States is tantamount to suicide.  Because Democrats are craven liars and there is no relying on craven liars.

Ultimately, the Bible warned us 2,600 years ago that in the very last days, the Tribulation described in Revelation would be inaugurated when an abandoned Israel will sign a seven-year pact with the Antichrist, the beast of Revelation.  And they will do that because of the wickedness, the cowardice and the betrayal of one man – Barack Hussein Obama.  Now that Israel realizes that the United States is far more enemy than friend, they will have no place left to turn BUT to Antichrist.

It is a sad and loathsome fact that as hundreds of rockets rain down on Israel from Hamas-controlled Palestine, FIVE world leaders actually reached out to Israel before Obama paused in his endless fundraising long enough to give Bibi a call.  That’s when you know that your historic closest ally and friend in the world has abandoned you.

You ought to realize the eternal hell that awaits you because of what you voted for when you voted for Obama, Democrat.  Because when you voted for Obama, YOU VOTED FOR THE ANTICHRIST – whose useful idiot Obama truly is.

Add Germany to the list of nations that Obama has destroyed relations with, as an article in even the liberal Los Angeles Times points out:

The German-American breakup
By Jacob Heilbrunn
July 10, 2014

When candidate Barack Obama spoke in July 2008 in Berlin near the Brandenburg Gate, he told a rapturous German audience that peace and progress “require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.” It was supposed to be the opposite of George W. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, which alienated the Federal Republic of Germany and much of Europe. Yet six years later, relations between Washington and Berlin are more mistrustful than ever.

The main problem is that President Obama has been listening all too well to Germans — spying on them from more than 150 National Security Agency sites in Germany, according to secret NSA documents that former contractor Edward Snowden leaked to the weekly Der Spiegel.

Germans, who acutely remember the totalitarian surveillance of Nazi Germany and East Germany, cherish their strict data protection and limits on state monitoring. The pervasive spying on one of America’s most valuable partners — including the snooping on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone from a rooftop listening post at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin — has enraged the German public.

Now, with the fresh revelation that the CIA recruited an intelligence official as a spy, and the possibility of a second spy in the Defense Ministry, the fury is reaching a tipping point. U.S. Ambassador John B. Emerson was called on the carpet by the German Foreign Office on July 4 about the first incident. On Thursday, Germany ordered the CIA station chief in Berlin to leave.

And the brouhaha isn’t going away. German President Joachim Gauck, widely revered for his years as a Protestant pastor and human rights activist in the former East Germany, said that if the spying allegations were true, “enough is enough.” Karl-Georg Wellmann, a prominent member of Merkel’s Christian Democratic party, is calling for the expulsion of any and all U.S. agents.

What’s more, leading German politicians are calling for reassessing negotiations with Washington over a transatlantic free-trade agreement that could be vital to the economic futures of both Europe and the United States. And Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere announced that Berlin would terminate a no-spy agreement it has enjoyed with the U.S. and Britain since 1945 and begin monitoring them in Germany. As Stephan Mayer, a spokesman for Merkel’s party, put it, “We must focus more strongly on our so-called allies.”

So-called? Such statements, unthinkable only a few years ago, accurately reflect a broader antipathy toward America among the German public, which largely sees Snowden as a hero, particularly for his revelations about the extent of American surveillance in Germany.

Ever since the Bush administration launched the Iraq war in 2003 — which then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder vehemently opposed — many Germans have come to view America as a militaristic rogue state, more dangerous even than Russia or Iran. Indeed, a recent Infratest Dimap poll indicates that a mere 27% of Germans regard the U.S. as trustworthy, and a majority view it as an aggressive power.

The result is that Germany is undergoing a fundamental transformation. After the Nazi defeat in 1945, the republic’s first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, emphasized that Germany had to end its tradition of trying to maneuver between East and West as an independent power. Instead, it had to bind itself to the West, economically and militarily. Only Washington could guarantee a free and democratic West Germany. But it is precisely this tradition that is coming to an end as Germany begins to act on what it perceives as its new national interests.

Already Germany is much more sympathetic to Russia than the United States. Schroeder, the former chancellor, serves on the board of Gazprom and is a buddy of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Another former chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, said that it was “entirely understandable” that Putin would annex Crimea. What’s more, German business interests dictate that Berlin seek to maintain a friendly stance toward Moscow.

Similarly, Germans are allergic to any military confrontation with China, which has emerged as one of their most important trading partners.

It shouldn’t be entirely surprising that decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reunified Germany is moving from docile Cold War ally to a sovereign power that feels less inhibited by its Nazi past and less indebted to the United States.

But there’s no reason for the U.S. to antagonize a longtime ally, either. The two sides need to forge new ties based on mutual respect. They continue to have many common interests in trade, in deterring Russian aggression and in combating terrorism in the Middle East.

In trampling on German civil liberties, the Obama administration is besmirching America’s image and allowing Germans to feel morally superior to their former conqueror.

If Obama is unable to rein in spying on Germany, he may discover that he is helping to convert it from an ally into an adversary. For Obama to say auf Wiedersehen to a longtime ally would deliver a blow to American national security that no amount of secret information could possibly justify.

It’s buried in an article that tries repeatedly to assert that “good liberals need to remember not to forget to blame Bush,” but here’s the key paragraph:

The result is that Germany is undergoing a fundamental transformation. After the Nazi defeat in 1945, the republic’s first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, emphasized that Germany had to end its tradition of trying to maneuver between East and West as an independent power. Instead, it had to bind itself to the West, economically and militarily. Only Washington could guarantee a free and democratic West Germany. But it is precisely this tradition that is coming to an end as Germany begins to act on what it perceives as its new national interests.

One of the things that leaps out was very likely completely unintended by this liberal intellectual: the phrase “undergoing a fundamental transformation.”  I mean, that is positively funny between the hysterical crying jags as we weep for America.

Allow me to remind you of Obama’s promise (and the only one this pathologically wicked liar has kept):

“Fundamental transformation” that breaks the spine of America’s strategic policy that has prevented World War III for sixty years, CHECK.

Thanks, Obama, for snatching defeat from the hands of a victory America won at great cost DECADES ago but that you have now pissed away with your stunning incompetence and your pathological fascism.

Just as he more recently pissed away all the gains we won in Iraq and WILL piss away all the gains we won in Afghanistan due to his same utterly weak and utterly failed strategy.  Because this fool just doesn’t LEARN.

At the rate we’re going, Obama is going to piss away the Revolutionary War before the fool is out of office.  [Frankly, given the fact that in our Declaration of Independence our founding fathers grounded our right to separate from Britain in the fact that GOD gives us our rights, we are now so secular humanist that we have crossed that threshold where if we had any integrity we would apologize to Britain and return to servitude to them because WE have rejected as a nation the very foundation upon which we separated ourselves from England in the first place]

I’ll just say this: the TEA PARTY knows EXACTLY how Angela Merkel and Germany feels as the Obama thug Internal Revenge Service attacked Obama’s enemies.  If you don’t understand by now that it is simply what this fascist thug does, you’re a fool.

The funny thing is that we need Eric Snowden for that one, too, given that Obama has launched a cover-up that dwarfs ANYTHING that Nixon ever tried.

As I write this, 38 news organizations are decrying Obama’s “politically-driven suppression of news.”  What this fascist thug is doing and has done is stunning.

Whether it is the freedom of the press or the freedom of religion – THE two most sacred freedoms this nation bestows – this fascist Obama has pissed all over EVERYTHING that America stood for.

It’s really no surprise that Russia – as wicked as that country under Putin clearly is – looks a hell of a lot better to the rest of the world than America under Obama.

 

 

Advertisements

Was Muslim Brotherhood Cheated By Democracy? As A California Prop 8 Voter, Join The Club (BTW: I Didn’t Start Rioting)

July 9, 2013

I have a confession to make that always makes me rather ashamed: I subscribe to the LA Times.

The paper is a piece of trash.  They routinely substitute their liberal opinions where the NEWS ought to be.  But BECAUSE it is a complete piece of trash, they have t sell it for virtually nothing.  The last two years, I literally received a larger gift card (this year was for Target stores) than what I paid for the subscription.  And as worthless as the “newspaper” is, there are quite  few valuable coupons.

Anyway, it has been rather interesting to read liberals whining about the Egyptian military and it’s “coup” to remove the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi.

I kind of read the Declaration of Independence, you know, the part that says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And I kind of figure that, yes, you’re damn right they had a right to remove that fascist Islamic terrorist turd, Morsi after he tried to impose sharia law on an Egyptian people who very clearly did not want it.  And thank God for the Egyptian military for helping the Egyptian people alter or abolish their godawful terrorist sharia law Muslim government.

But let’s deal with this line of reasoning that declares that the Muslim Brotherhood put aside its terrorism long enough to become good democrats and won an election among a disorganized and factionalized people.  And that therefore the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi ought to be able to remain in power, you know, because of the popular vote.

I remember thinking that way myself.  After all, I went to the ballot box and I voted for Proposition 8.  And it won with a clear majority of the people.  And so according to “democracy” marriage in California is the union between one man and one woman.

Well, until a homosexual militant judge decided he didn’t like what the people had declared and decided that one man ought to overrule millions of voters.

And then until the Supreme Court – now nothing more than a political body of black robed masters – decided that the California people who had voted for Prop 8 had no legal standing.  Whatsoever.

So don’t tell me that it sucks that democracy gets abrogated.  I know damn well how it feels.  In fact, Proposition 8 was the SECOND attempt by California voters to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman: we’d voted the same damn way for Proposition 22.  It was overturned by the same genre of homosexual militant black robed masters on some incredibly trivial legal grounds, too.

But let me get back to Prop 8 as it relates to Obama.  Obama was elected in November 2008 with 52% of the vote.  He seemed to think it was a mandate.  You know, the way voters like me probably felt that the 61% vote for Prop 22 made that a “mandate.”  But of course it wasn’t, was it?  Obama was re-elected in November 2012 with, again, 52% of the vote.  And this time he declared that it was very clearly a mandate.  But, of course, when Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote, that most definitely was NOT a mandate at all.

What is “democracy”?  It is whatever liberal fascists say it is, that’s what it is.  You have a right to vote the way the Nazi “Democrat” Party wants you to vote or your vote gets thrown into the toilet bowl and flushed.

So I know damn well what it’s like to live in a third world banana republic where you get to vote as long as you vote for your dictator and his dictator regime.

What’s the difference between the people who voted for Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 and the Muslim Brotherhood?  We don’t resort to rioting in the streets and murdering women and children when we don’t get our way, that’s the difference.

I suppose I should point out another difference between people like me and people like the Muslim Brotherhood – and yes, the “Democrat” Party: it is that as a conservative and a Republican and very much a Christian, I worship GOD rather than the state.  Muslims, on the other hand, worship a political system masquerading as a religion, which seeks to impose a totalitarian sharia state on everyone it possibly can.  And “Democrats” pretty much do the same damn fascist thing.  Modern liberalism is MARXISM.  Marxism is an anti-Christian blasphemy that replaces God with the State.  Their Lord and Savior is the State, not Jesus Christ.  They worship big government and the power of the state rather than the God of the Bible.  And they are utterly wicked as a result.  When you worship God, you demand a limited government to make room for a big God; when you worship the State, you demand a massive government to diminish God and usurp His place as Savior and as Lord.

The difference is the peaceful Tea Party versus the violent, out-of-control fascist liberal mob known as “Occupy.”

That, of course, is the real crux of the issue.  It’s how fascist turds like Morsi and our own fascist turd Obama believe that they can win an election with a bare majority and somehow have a “mandate” to abrogate whatever previous law they didn’t like and install dictatorial bullcrap in its place (like DOMA, like immigration law, like NSA mass eavesdropping, like ObamaCare for that matter).  In that last case, the “law” says that ObamaCare “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”  As the article I linked to points out, “the law” very much does NOT say that “the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.”  In this case, Obama damn well knows that ObamaCare is so disastrous and so profoundly unpopular that if it were to be implemented according to what the “law” says it must, it would be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats in November 2014.  And so Obama once again decided to just ignore the damn law – even though it is his very own damn law.

Allow me to quote a prominent Democrat: “This is the law.  How can they change the law?”  Well, they can change the damn law if and only if they are damn fascists – which is exactly what they are.

That’s on top of the law being very clearly written as a “fee” and NOT a tax, which made it blatantly unconstitutional – until the Supreme Court decided to ignore “the law” and turn the “fee” into a “tax.”  Even though that meant ignoring the “law.”

And even though key swing “Justice” Kennedy (yes, there’s those quotes again) observed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”  Because who needs that damn Constitution, anyway?  When it keeps getting in “Democrats'” way?

Obama DID promise to “fundamentally transform America.”  Constitution and all.  So I guess we got what we “voted” for the same way Egypt got what they “voted” for when they elected terrorist turd Morsi.

Just what is “sharia law” anyway?  At its most fundamental level, it is the forced imposition of a worldview upon a culture.  In the case of Obama and his conversion to sodomy from promising the American people that he opposed it when he ran for president in 2008, his version of sharia is homosexual marriage – which had never existed before not only in America but in all of human civilization prior to the year 2001.  Literally, the iPod is older than homosexual marriage!  Liberals try to tell me I’m the one whose all about sharia because I want to preserve the understanding of marriage as it has existed from the time that the very first human being began to walk upright.  They forget the fact that they are the radical ideologues who are out imposing themselves and their warped and depraved worldview onto culture that is already more than warped and depraved enough, thank you very much.

But I’m branded as “intolerant” because I agree with what the “world’s most tolerant man” promised America how he felt about marriage in 2008.

You want another example of the fact that liberals practice their own version of sharia law?  Well, do you know how it is a crime according to sharia law to say something bad about Muhammad?  Try going to any number of liberal-owned countries like the U.K. or Holland and try saying something bad about homosexuality.  People are now being ARRESTED for saying homosexuality is a sin, as the Bible overwhelmingly declares that it is.  A man went to jail for saying a police officer’s HORSE looked gay, for crying out loud.  A student was told by a liberal to remove her cross at a liberal university.  During the presidential campaign, liberal teachers attacked students for wearing Romney t-shirts (but never Obama t-shirts, of course).  And of course liberals love to force us to quit drinking soda or force us to eat the foods they want us to eat.  We just had liberals try to outlaw fires in fire pits on California beaches  because of their global warming crap.  Liberals are now literally trying to outlaw human behavior dating back to freaking CAVE MEN.  Because liberalism equals fascism equals their own weird version of sharia.  And one is as intolerant as the other.

You don’t have ANY examples of conservatives doing crap like this.  Other than the fact that they stood up for the view of marriage that every civilization IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET HELD.  And of course which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama falsely and dishonestly claimed that THEY supported until they had the chance to impose their fascism on society.

Liberalism is fascism, and fascism imposes itself on society by force of raw government power.

Murdering babies was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Sodomy was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Homosexual marriage was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  And murder and rape and child molestation are next on the docket, have no doubt.  Because morality is a constantly evolving thing, a spinning merry-go-round that just like “democracy” means whatever liberals say it means at any given moment.

Maybe decent people should have turned violent and started rioting and murdering people, after all?  Because as our democracy is stolen by liberals one giant chunk at a time, that pretty much seems like our only recourse, doesn’t it?  That was pretty much the condition our founding fathers found themselves in – having to deal with a tyrant king – and that is basically the state of affairs we find ourselves in today in this the age of Pharaoh-god-king Obama and his constant torrent of lies and abuse of his Internal Revenge Service to persecute the people on his enemies list.

In these last days, as “America” is “fundamentally transformed” into “God damn America, we’re going to increasingly begin to race toward Sodom and Gomorrah until we get the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that we deserve.  And then we’ll worship the beast and take his mark just as Revelation chapter 13 promises that we will.  What will increasingly happen in the last days is that evil will so prevail and so contaminate and encompass everything that there is no “right way” but only various shades of evil.  Violence will become the state of affairs because nothing else will work.  But of course violence only works until the next violent group comes along as violence begets more violence.

I hope you noticed that I kept putting “Democrat” in quotes.  That’s because it is a word that fascist “Democrats” intended to hearken to the term “democracy.”  Only it very clearly doesn’t.  Rather, it is a “homophone” – which refers to a word that sounds the same as another word but means a very different thing.  “Homos” seem to be a recurring theme with the “Democrat” Party.

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.”

FACT: Obama Regime Completely LIED About The Riots Burning The Muslim World That Prove The Obama Foreign Policy A Catastrophic Failure

September 20, 2012

As I easily document below, the official Obama position was that the violent anti-American riots that began across the Middle East (and which have now spread to 33 Islamic countries) were “spontaneous” outbursts that were – and this was what the Obama White House said – “in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video.”

We now know that that was an outright lie.  And it is a lie that was spawned not because of any inability to understand the facts, but rather because Obama’s reelection has resulted in EVERYTHING – including American foreign policy – to be cynically and deceitfully politicized.  Obama could not face these attacks having been in any way preplanned or coordinated, because then he would have to answer for his administration’s abject failure to be able to see such attacks coming and prevent them or at least limit the damage.  Obama failed in his most basic duty to protect America and protect her territory and her interests at home and abroad.  But as a political weasel, he demanded his appointees fabricate and conflate his political interests with American foreign policy concerns.

We now know for a FACT that the very first protest (read “riot” given that they overran the walls of our American embassy and not only destroyed the grounds but took down the American flag and put up a sharia/al Qaeda flag in it’s place ON UNITED STATES TERRITORY) had absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie/video that Obama’s goons repeatedly cited:

Report: Riots Actually About Release of Blind Sheik
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 09.12.2012 – 2:20 PM

USA Today reports that the riot at the U.S. embassy in Cairo appears to have been planned well before the Egyptian media reported on the anti-Islam YouTube film that was blamed for sparking the protest. The protest was reportedly announced on August 30 by Gamaa Islamiyya, an Egyptian terrorist group, to call for the release of its leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman — aka the blind sheik, who is serving a life sentence for the first World Trade Center bombing:

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others. …

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Based on the report, it sounds like the anti-Islam YouTube video was a secondary issue — a way for Islamist leaders to stoke anger and draw more bodies out to the embassy protest. If the storming of the embassy was organized by Gamaa Islamiyya — as opposed to a spontaneous uprising — why hasn’t the State Department’s response reflected that? It’s hard to imagine they’re not aware of the group’s activities. In June, the State Department actually issued a visa to a member of Gamaa Islamiyya — again, this is a designated terrorist organization — and met with him in Washington, as part of a delegation of Egyptian leaders. During the meeting, he reportedly asked White House officials to release the blind sheik. Here was the State Department’s defense at the time, which is even more astonishing in light of the latest news:

“We neither had then, nor do we have now, any reason to believe that this particular individual — who at the time of his application was a member of parliament — would pose a threat to the United States,” [State Department spokesperson Victoria] Nuland told reporters.

Nuland pointed to rapid changes in the Middle East, where an Islamist was declared the winner Sunday of Egypt’s first democratic presidential elections a year and a half after street protests toppled strongman Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s a new day in Egypt; it’s a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. So new political personalities are coming to light,” Nuland said.

“We have more folks who want to come here, want to know us, want to learn about the US, want to develop relationships with us. We have the same interest with regard to them,” she said.

Apparently State miscalculated on that “develop relationships” part.

It was previously documented that the worst attack which resulted in the murder of a US ambassador (the first time since the pathetic CARTER was president) had nothing to do with the movie/video.  I wrote on September 18:

Obama White House, State Department LIE Exposed: There Were NO Demonstrations Over Movie Clip Prior To Terrorist Attack On Consulate In Libya

An article ran on Yahoo News cuts right to the gist of the crucial issue about this story:

The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.

Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.

But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)

It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless. White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:

JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

More from Jay Carney:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”

Obama’s handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had this to say:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.

There were NO demonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe. Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack. Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
Published September 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”

The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”

The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”

The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”

Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

And if that isn’t clear enough:

On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.

“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.

Anti-Obama? Yep. The mobs of demonstrators in Cairo, Egupt chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still one billion Osamas.”

And they burned pictures of Barack Obama in effigy in cities like Karachi, Pakistan. While Obama watched lots of football. And tweeted about Beyonce and Jay-Z, you know, to show “he was in touch.”

In fact, they burned American flags and pictures of Obama pretty much all over everywhere.

It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z. He did more than that.

He also squeezed in an interview with a radio host who calls himself “Pimp with a Limp” (although he had to skip some more of those silly Daily Intelligence Briefings) to do so.

As was the phrase, “Death to America!”

I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.” And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.

Caught in so many transparent, documented lies that its beyond belief, Obama has now instructed his State Department to play his “Fast and Furious” game and refuse to answer any more questions.

The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.

We now now that al Qaeda in a preplanned attack – not a “spontaneous mob” that erupted as the result of some stupid cheap basically homemade movie clip – was behind the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the targeted murder of an American ambassador.  We now even know the name of the al Qaeda terrorist who led the attack.

Obama and his entire administration lied like the vicious weasels they are.

This is now also out as a confirmed FACT: that the Obama administration had TWO DAYS OF WARNING PRIOR TO THESE ATTACKS AND DID NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Everything about Obama and his failed foreign policy is just lie after lie after lie.  The entire Obama administration lied and lied and lied for an entire week in an attempt to deceive the American people to cover up their pathetic ineptness.

Obama and his supporters HAVE to lie about EVERYTHING – whether it be his failed foreign policy or his failed domestic policy – because if Democrats told the truth for once in their lives, they would lose in a landslide.

As Obama’s Foreign Policy Completely Melts Down Two Months Before Election, Desperate Mainstream Media Propagandists Gang Up To Slander Romney Statement

September 14, 2012

The most blatant way the mainstream media engages in bias is their answer to the question, “What is news?”  Because their answer INVARIABLY undermines conservatives and strives to support liberals.

As an example, what was the story two days ago?  Was the story about a planned, coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya that resulted in four Americans (including the United States Ambassador) being murdered?  Was the story about the fact that Obama had information about the attack plans on the US Consulate in Libya for 48 hours and did NOTHING? Was the story about a coordinated mob of AstroTurf Muslims overrunning the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt while Egyptian security forces conveniently vanished, with the United States flag torn down and desecrated and replaced with a flag that al Qaeda has flown?  Was the story about how on Obama’s watch and just two months before he comes up for reelection the name “Osama bin Laden” is now written on the United States Embassy entrance or how under Obama that entrance now states, “There is no God but Allah”?  Nope.  The media says that wasn’t the story.

Obama demagogued Mitt Romney for “shooting and then aiming.”  In an eery repeat of Jimmy Carter before the American people fired his incompetent ass.  Read this to see HOW eerily similar Obama is to the failed Jimmy Carter.

Do you know what they say the story was?

Let’s look at what all the journalists from all the various media outlets coordinated with one another to make sure that Mitt Romney would get attacked no matter who he picked (we know know the CBS reporter was Jan Crawford and she was sharpening knives with NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro):

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

And so, sure enough, the story, the “news”, was NOT about the meltdown of Obama’s entire foreign policy which had famously even been criticized by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2008 Democrat primary race.  The “news” was NOT that for more than nine hours the ONLY official American statement coming from the United States government was this:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

 Now, that statement is so gutless, so cowardly, and frankly so un-American that it is beyond unreal.  And THAT was the ONLY official statement for half a damn day after it was issued.  Note that it literally agrees with the people who are attacking American soil by climbing over the walls of our embassy and tearing down our flag and burning it.  Note that it decries not the despicable ACT-OF-WAR actions of the Egyptians but rather an American who is practicing his constitutionally (at least up to now) right to free speech.

I note that that official statement from the US Embassy in Cairo was so despicable that it has since been taken down “like it never even happened.”  The Daily Caller, in citing the statement by the embassy, provides the official link The Obama cowards who run the government have now scrubbed that link so the statement is no longer officially available.  Nothin’ to see here, folks.  Because under Obama the 1984 “Ministry of Truth” is now itself a truth.  That’s how despicable that statement was.

The “news” was not about the fact that Obama denounced the same statement that had motivated Mitt Romney to come out as the White House finally – FINALLY!!! – issued a statement saying that the Embassy had not cleared the statement before issuing it.

I provide the timeline in an article here that itself has PLENTY to slam about Obama’s pathetic failure.  At the time Romney spoke the embassy statement above was the only official US government statement.  As you can see by looking at the timeline, the initial embassy statement came out around noon EST, and there had been no other statement other than a subsequent statement from the embassy confirming its initial gutless statement documented above.  Romney’s statement came out at 10:25 pm EST; Obama disavowed that embassy statement – 11 hours after it had been issued – at 11:04 pm EST.  And then at 12:11 AM EST the very same Obama who disavowed the statement that Romney attacked and the very same Obama who purged the despicable thing from the internet has the tiny little balls to demonize Mitt Romney for being the first man who wants to be president to repudiate it.

So Mitt Romney comes out and attacks a despicable, weak, pathologically gutless statement that had been the ONLY official statement for half a day while Obama continued to campaign.  And the mainstream media want to make the story – the “news” – about Mitt Romney being the only man to show any kind of presidential leadership whatsoever.  Particularly given that since Romney made the statement, his prescience has only been confirmed.  Because the disaster that he correctly saw on Tuesday is FAR, FAR worse than any of these insipid liberal turds thought it was.  We’ve got the murder of an American ambassador. 

Now, when you consider the fact that an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED IN A PLANNED ATTACK, does that statement from the United States Embassy in Cairo look strong or does it look WEAK????  Do you know that information and STILL think that we ought to be criticizing an American citizen for exercising his right to make a stupid Youtube video or do you think that maybe some outrage to be directed at the murderers of our ambassador???

As stated, we now know that the Youtube film had NOTHING to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya where our ambassador and four other Americans were murdered.  We now know that what happened was a deliberate, planned, carefully coordinated attack timed to correspond with the 9/11 anniversary that employed the AstroTurf mob as a diversion.  And we now know that Libyan government officials were complicit in the murder of the US ambassador and literally told the murderers where to find him after he relocated to escape the compound.

Does that development make the embassy statement that Romney rightly attacked look bolder, or does that development make it look all the more gutless and cowardly???  Which one???

For the mainstream media to try to make the story about Mitt Romney – who again exercised LEADERSHIP – in attacking the utterly indefensible – is the most blatant and most snivelling and most desperate act of media propaganda that I have ever seen.  And you can search over my blog and see that I’ve documented a BUNCH of media propaganda.

This was Mitt Romney’s statement on a statement from the US Embassy in Cairo that became official Obama policy by his sheer failure to issue anything to replace it with:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Now, who should have come out and issued a statement immediately denouncing that gutless, weak, frankly un-American statement from the US Embassy in Cairo?  It should have been the president.

But instead it was Mitt Romney who exercised presidential leadership.  But the media chose to attack him in a coordinated “gotcha” moment with the pretense and pretext that somehow unlike candidate Obama when HE was running for president Romney doesn’t have the right to criticize the president’s foreign policy.  THAT is what the media chose to focus on to make “the news.”

Did they make the news about the fact that Obama chose to continue campaigning as if nothing had happened?

Obama’s Going to Las Vegas
By Fred Lucas
September 12, 2012  

(Update: In a second schedule update issued around 10:42 a.m. on Wednesday, the White House indicated that President Obama would continue with his campaign trip to Las Vegas after issuing a statement on events in Libya and Egypt in the Rose Garden.

The only change in the updated schedule is this: “Shortly after (the Rose Garden statement), the President and Secretary Clinton will visit the State Department in Washington, DC. This visit is closed press.” The updated schedule still states that “In the afternoon, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada.”)
 
(CNSNews.com) – On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.
 
Before he leaves, the schedule indicated, Obama will “deliver a statement” in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m., the White House said.

As bad as that is, even THAT story turns out to fail to reflect just how cynical and disinterested Obama is in the unfolding disaster involving our embassies/consulates in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all across the Middle East.  Because it turns out that Obama chose to skp the intelligence briefing, too:

Unreal: On Day Following Libya Assassinations, Obama Skips Another Intel Briefing
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Sep 13, 2012 03:11 PM EST

Is anyone surprised by this revelation? Our Commander Campaigner-in-Chief has made his priorities crystal clear:

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

On Monday the same Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, reported that the president has missed 62 percent of his daily in-person intel briefings in 2011 and 2012. President Bush almost never missed a briefing after 9/11. I recognize that a president’s schedule is extremely demanding, especially in the teeth of a campaign, so passing on these meetings occasionally would be understandable. I cannot, however, fathom how the president could justify canceling and not re-scheduling his intelligence briefing the day after an active US Ambassador was murdered in the line of duty, and as an international crisis continues to spread. The White House offers a two-fold defense on this: First, make snide remarks about President Bush, then insist that Obama is so sophisticated that he doesn’t need experts to brief him:

As the article title says, this is positively UN-FREAKING-REAL. 

Why isn’t THAT the “news”???  Other than the fact that this is the most propagandistic media since Joseph Goebbels ran the “news” for his buddy Adolf???

Here are some MORE “Why isn’t THAT ‘news'” questions:

Why isn’t it “news” that NO Marines were guarding the United States Consulate in Libya where US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DOCUMENTED AND CREDIBLE THREATS??? 

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s State Department had forbidden the Marines at the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt from carrying live ammunition – again, in spite of documented and credible threats???

Why isn’t it “news” that due to Obama’s pathetic failure to protect American assets in spite of documented and credible threats, a US Ambassador was raped BEFORE being murdered???

Why isn’t it “news” that the safe house that the ambassador fled to devoid of any Marine guard???  Not that it would have mattered if they couldn’t have live ammo.

Whyisn’t it “news” that Egypt warned Obama on September 4 of an attack against the US Embassy???

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama said that Egypt – a country that had been an ally for going on forty damn years before Obama toppled Mubarak – was no longer a US ally?

President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

Why isn’t it “news” that the US State Department almost immediately issued a correction saying the president of the United States is an idiot fool and that yes, Egypt is in fact contrary to what the dumbass in chief said, an “ally.”

(CNSNews.com)  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Egypt remains a U.S. ally, despite a statement from the White House that the country is not an ally.

“Yes,” Nuland said during a news conference Thursday, when asked if Egypt was still a U.S. ally.

Why isn’t it news that the Obama Administration frantically tried to put their idiot president’s babbling tongue back into his fool head by doing their own blathering and saying:

“‘Ally’ is a legal term of art.”

The distinction by the White House was so byzantine in trying to argue that Obama WAS TECHNICALLY NOT AN IDIOT that their own language would rule out ISRAEL as an ally:

As Politico’s Byron Tau points out, that would mean other designated major non-NATO allies — including Israel — aren’t technically “allies,” at least according to Obama’s “legal term of art” definition. Complicating matters further is the fact that the term “ally” is in the title of the designation.

Which makes the entire White House idiots.

Why isn’t the Obama acts of dhimmitude (his apologize for America tour, his bowing down before the King of Saudi Arabia, and his increasing the payment to Egypt to $2 billion a year AFTER that country elects the Muslim Brotherhood, and his refusing to cut off that aid even as they openly piss on America “news”???

The MSM had over ten minutes of “coverage” on the “wrongness” of Mitt Romney’s statement versus 20 seconds of “analysis” of Obama’s Middle East policy, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center reported last night on Hannity.  It is beyond amazing.

The US embassies in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, and in much of the Arab world were well-known to be particularly at risk during the period around the 9/11 anniversary.  But Obama was too damn busy campaigning to protect them.  He was too damn busy campaigning to bother to show up at critical intelligence briefings after they were attacked.  We find that Obama was instrumental in the undermining and overthrow of American ally Hosni Mubarak and that he stupidly declared first that the Muslim Brotherhood would not take over and later that it would not be a bad thing that they had.  Which is to say that the REAL “news” is that Obama should be wearing this ensuing disaster like an albatross around his skinny little weasel neck.

THAT would certainly be the story if George Bush or any Republican were president.  And it would be the story if the mainstream media hadn’t become a pathologically dishonest propaganda machine.

While all this is going on, Obama has refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu – and then lied about refusing to meet with him – during a period when Israel is just about to be forced to attack Iran because Obama failed to deal with their nuclear program in any way, shape or form.

I remember well when Obama was constantly demonizing Bush as “the bogeyman” on the one hand and constantly promising that under his messiahship there would be “a new beginning” on the other.  Obama was going to make our enemies love us with his lofty words by repudiating the Bush doctrine of confrontation through strength against America’s enemies.  It’s past time to ask as we look at the entire world erupt into flames how that messianic Obama doctrine is working.  It sure doesn’t seem like it to me.

The Cowardice And Dysfunction Of Obama On Prominent Display As A United States Ambassador Is MURDERED And The Obama Administration APOLOGIZES

September 13, 2012

Why the hell did Obama not place our embassies on high alert prior to the anniversary of 9/11?  Does it have anything to do with the FACT that Obama doesn’t bother to attend more than half of his intelligence briefings???

I reported the facts as they became available yesterday.  The facts are far, FAR worse than the initial reports suggested.  We heard yesterday that an American may have been killed in Libya; make that FOUR Americans INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR.  Second, the report was that the attacks were the result of a video that was produced by an American in America exercising his rights to free speech.  That is now known to be false; as there is simply no way the incredibly coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya could have been pulled off without careful advance planning (see also here and here).  Even the damn MOB was part of the plan, with the terrorist attackers using it as a diversion.  The planning was so extensive, in fact, that the Libyan government itself is now implicated; and further in the aftermath of the attack, it is now being reported that Libyan intelligence officials who should have been protecting the ambassador were instead tipping off the terrorists to the ambassador’s new location after he fled (see also here and here).

What I reported about Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter STANDS:

I’m trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before: our embassy being attacked and overran, our economy in the toilet, and a pathetic failed Democrat president doing nothing. Does that bring back any memories? Hmmm:

The timeline is astonishing.  Notice the pathetic weakness of initial responses by the Embassy – which is under the control of the White House – and then by the White House itself.  Notice also that Mitt Romney denounced those responses and that AFTER THAT the White House issues an “us too” walkback of the previous statements.  Notice also the initial statements condemned the free speech of an American citizen far more than they denounced the acts of violence which resulted in the murder of four Americans including a US Ambassador:

September 12, 2012, 1:29 PM
Who Said What: Timeline of Statements on Libya, Egypt Attacks
By Danny Yadron

Here is a timeline of the news reports, official statements and Twitter posts regarding the attacks on the Cairo, Egypt, embassy and Benghazi, Libya, consulate. All times are EDT.

Tuesday midday: Hours before protests escalated at embassies in Cairo and Benghazi, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement that appeared to condemn an anti-Islam movie promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose previous burning of Qurans sparked deadly protests. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” it said in part.

Tuesday afternoon: The Cairo embassy stands by its original statement. “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy,” it posts on Twitter. That post has since been deleted but has been preserved on sites including Buzzfeed and Twitchy.

Tuesday 4:29 p.m.: After the Cairo embassy’s Twitter account acknowledged that “protestors breached our wall and took down flag,” it posted this string of Twitter posts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry. An example:

2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this.

Shortly before 7 p.m. ET Tuesday: Wire services report that one American official was killed in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Shortly after 10 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms that a U.S. official was killed in Libya.

Tuesday 10:10 p.m.: Mitt Romney’s campaign emails reporters a statement, embargoed for midnight. “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

10:25 p.m.: Romney campaign lifts embargo on the statement.

11:04 p.m.: The White House distances itself from the Cairo embassy’s original statement, telling ABC News, “no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.”

Wednesday 12:11 a.m.: President Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman emails reporters: “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”

Around 5:30 a.m.: Wire services report that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed Tuesday in a mob attack. In all, four Americans are reported dead in the attack, which is later confirmed by the State Department.

Around 7:22 a.m.: White House emails out statement from the president on the attack in Benghazi. It reads in part: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

10:20 a.m.: In televised remarks, Mr. Romney stands by his criticism of the White House’s handling of the administration, noting that U.S. embassies are part of the administration.

10:44 a.m.: In Rose Garden remarks, Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton at his side, condemns Libya attacks in “strongest terms.”

If you don’t see how convoluted and weak the U.S. response to this was, you are plainly and simply a moral and an intellectual idiot.

I pointed MONTHS AGO that Barack Obama 1) took credit for the ouster of Mubarak – who happened to be the strongest ally of the U.S. and of Israel in the entire Middle East:

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it. The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.” Praise him! Worship him! Our blessed messiah! Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing. At all. Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality? Praise Obama! Praise him! Worship him!

Honk if you think that Chris Matthews is going to point out that what is happening now is the result of Obama the way he was claiming glorious credit for Obama for the same damn terrorist regimes taking over above.  And honk twice if you think that the pathological liberal hypocrite liar somehow won’t bother to mention Obama being responsible.

But Obama didn’t just take credit for Mubarack being gone.  He did much more.

Obama also 2) assured the American people that the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a force for peace and that what was going on in Egypt would turn out swell for America:

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

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

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

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

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to Egypt. You know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great? We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.” And what was that “intellectual imprint”? This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT. So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people. But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well. At all. Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak. Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Like I said, Obama was, is, and will continue to be, a fool.

Here’s another clear proof that Obama supported the terrorists who are now stabbing us.  From the LA Times:

U.S. open to a role for Islamists in new Egypt government
But the Muslim Brotherhood must renounce violence and support democracy, the White House says.
January 31, 2011|By Paul Richter and Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government. […]

Conservatives almost unanimously said this would lead to disaster.  And we were right.  The Muslim Brotherhood president Muhammad Morsi blew his dog whistle and ginned up a riot that overran our walls.  The Muslim Brotherhood terrorist regime government KNEW this was about to happen and did NOTHING:

The Egyptian government knew the time of the demonstration and the participants — it was all publicly announced — yet Egyptian security forces did not protect the embassy. And so the demonstrators scaled the wall, entered the compound, tore up the American flag, and put up the historic revolutionary flag of Islam (the eighth century black one, not the seventh century green one) in its stead. Why didn’t Egyptian security forces stop them? It was a deliberate decision no doubt taken at the highest level.

For over nine hours after the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator, the ONLY statement from the Obama administration was that initial statement from the embassy apologizing for and expressing regret that the United States is a nation that allows free speech.

By the way, prior to the Egyptians hearing the Muslim Brotherhood Government blowing a dog whistle and calling hundreds of Muslims to overrun the United States Embassy and desecrate and burn the American flag, we actually had Christians being beheaded ON NATIONAL EGYPTIAN TELEVISION under this same government.  And the Brotherhood that Obama welcomed is now literally CRUCIFYING its opponents.

Syria has continued to degenerate to an astonishing degree under this Obama turd administration.  Over 31,000 civilians are now DEAD in Syria.  And what has the “Arab Spring” president who took so much credit for the destruction of the Egyptian pro-Western and pro-Israeli government and the end of the Libyan regime done about it?  Where is Samantha Powers and her “liberal, even radical, values” now???

Now, let me address Mitt Romney getting demonized by the Obama administration and by the Obama propaganda mainstream media machine.  First of all, OBAMA HIMSELF ultimately drove the bus over the very same statements that Romney had attacked.  So the media getting all sanctimonious about Romney being the FIRST guy who wants to be president in 2013 SHOWING LEADERSHIP is a sick joke.  Four Americans, including a US ambassador, are murdered as two US embassies are attacked.  Our flag is torn down and desecrated.  We apologize and that apology is the only thing that the United States officially says for half a day.  And Romney isn’t supposed to decry that???  To make that sick joke even sicker, though, find just ONE area that Barack Obama didn’t demonize about the Bush presidency policies when it was OBAMA who was running for president.

Again, to be a liberal is to be a pathological hypocrite.  Which is made particularly clear given that the “objective” media was literally caught on tape coordinating their questions with one another in order to frame a narrative in a clear attack on Mitt Romney.

Why is it that Christians get mocked all the time – with the most offensive cartoons imaginable being directed against their Lord – and somehow they have the dignity to not start murdering innocent people???

Meanwhile, while all of this disgrace and abject failure to lead – when he isn’t leading America into DISASTER – on the part of Obama is going on, WE ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO AN ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN AND OBAMA REFUSES TO MEET WITH ISRAELI P.M. NETANYAHU!!!

Remember How Democrats Cheered What They Called ‘The Arab Spring’ And Cheered Obama For Creating It? Well, Obama’s ‘Arab Spring’ = ‘Mass Rapes’ Now

June 12, 2012

The Democrat Party has exported its war on women (and see here and here) to Egypt:

In ‘new Egypt’, mobs sexually assault women with impunity
Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise
By SARAH EL DEEB
updated 6/7/2012 4:28:02 AM ET

CAIRO — Her screams were not drowned out by the clamor of the crazed mob of nearly 200 men around her. An endless number of hands reached toward the woman in the red shirt in an assault scene that lasted less than 15 minutes but felt more like an hour.

She was pushed by the sea of men for about a block into a side street from Tahrir Square. Many of the men were trying to break up the frenzy, but it was impossible to tell who was helping and who was assaulting. Pushed against the wall, the unknown woman’s head finally disappeared. Her screams grew fainter, then stopped. Her slender tall frame had clearly given way. She apparently had passed out.

The helping hands finally splashed the attackers with bottles of water to chase them away.

The assault late Tuesday was witnessed by an Associated Press reporter who was almost overwhelmed by the crowd herself and had to be pulled to safety by men who ferried her out of the melee in an open Jeep.

Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise with a new round of mass protests to denounce a mixed verdict against the ousted leader and his sons in a trial last week.

The late Tuesday assault was the last straw for many. Protesters and activists met Wednesday to organize a campaign to prevent sexual harassment in the square. They recognize it is part of a bigger social problem that has largely gone unpunished in Egypt. But the phenomenon is trampling on their dream of creating in Tahrir a micro-model of a state that respects civil liberties and civic responsibility, which they had hoped would emerge after Mubarak’s ouster.

‘It shouldn’t be happening’
“Enough is enough,” said Abdel-Fatah Mahmoud, a 22-year-old engineering student, who met Wednesday with friends to organize patrols of the square in an effort to deter attacks against women. “It has gone overboard. No matter what is behind this, it is unacceptable. It shouldn’t be happening on our streets let alone Tahrir.”

No official numbers exist for attacks on women in the square because police do not go near the area, and women rarely report such incidents. But activists and protesters have reported a number of particularly violent assaults on women in the past week. Many suspect such assaults are organized by opponents of the protests to weaken the spirit of the protesters and drive people away.

Mahmoud said two of his female friends were cornered Monday and pushed into a small passageway by a group of men in the same area where the woman in the red shirt was assaulted. One was groped while the other was seriously assaulted, Mahmoud said, refusing to divulge specifics other than to insist she wasn’t raped.

Mona Seif, a well-known activist who has been trying to promote awareness about the problem, said Wednesday she was told about three different incidents in the past five days, including two that were violent. In one incident, the attackers ripped the woman’s clothes off and trampled on her companions, she said.

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it.  The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.”  Praise him!  Worship him!  Our blessed messiah!  Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing.  At all.  Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality?  Praise Obama!  Praise him!  Worship him!

 Is “serendipitous” a good adjective to describe rape?  I’m sorry, I don’t have my liberal-to-English dictionary with me.

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

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

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

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

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to EgyptYou know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great?  We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.”  And what was that “intellectual imprint”?  This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT.  So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people.  But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well.  At all.  Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak.  Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Both Democrats and radical Muslims have the same cherished goal: to keep women ignorant and in line with their agenda no matter how obviously anti-woman it is.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Shows Us What Liberals REALLY Think Of Constitution (They Wouldn’t Use It Or Recommend It)

February 7, 2012

Liberals can all agree on one thing: sharia law is much, much better than the American Constitution:

Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model
Published February 06, 2012 | FoxNews

As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”

As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court’s break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the “exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state.”

In a long interview with a reporter who asked her to explain the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and how it would be applied in today’s Egypt, Ginsburg suggested with pride that “we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words, ‘We, the people.'”

Ginsburg also extolled several aspects of the document, particularly the separation of powers, the concept of checks and balances and an independent judiciary that can’t have its salaries diminished if it rules a law enacted by Congress as unconstitutional.

But asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians “should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”

She then pointed not only to South Africa’s constitution, but to Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.

“Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others,” Ginsburg added.

Indeed, Ginsburg’s comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion.

“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005.

Ginsburg told the Egyptian interviewer that she can’t dispense advice for Egyptian society about how to set up its constitution, nor can she comment on a document that isn’t written or in force yet.

But she said looking at the Federalist Papers — essays written by the drafters to expound upon the articles before they were ratified by the states — it’s clear that a discussion must be held by all members of the country. She also suggested that a constitution is only as good as the people who live by it.

“If the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference,” she warned.

For the record, when Ginsburg says she has relied on foreign law in her decisions instead of the Constitution, how exactly does that not disqualify someone who took an oath TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION???

In our case, “the best Constitution in the world” doesn’t make any difference because we have liberals like Ginsburg who despise it.

And note that Ginsburg uses very absolute language in making her statement: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”  The only constitution she took an oath to uphold wouldn’t even be on her list of constitututions to look at.  Ours is one that is outdated and basically irrelevant as far as this Democrat Supreme Court Justice is concerned.

But thankfully she can look to all the other constitutions except ours to base her illegal “legal” decisions upon.

I am appalled at the fascism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  She likes the Canadian constitution that criminalizes free speech, does she???

South Africa?  Do you have any idea what an appalling joke that country is and how completely it has failed its people???

I want you to understand something: liberals are un-American.  It’s not by any accident; it’s very much by design.  Liberals are people who embrace Marxism – a system which both Republicans and Democrats (before the Democrat Party became un-American) have rightly denounced as fundamentally opposed to American values.

Barack Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the current paradigms of liberalism gone morally and rationally insane.

Obama spoke to a racist Hispanic “rights” group called “La Raza” (“the race”) while they were asking him to unilaterally stop deportation proceedings against illegals.  Obama said:

The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And then he did precisely what he himself had just called un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional.

His chief signature policy – ObamaCare – has been ruled unconstitutional.

Then he did something that was every bit as much in violation to the Constitution and its separation of powers in fascistically making recess appointments when the Senate was not even in recess.  Not only did Obama ignore his own legal advisors in performing this action, but we find that he didn’t even wait to hear his own DOJ’s opinion.

Is it any surprise that a fascist who has done so many blatantly unconstitutional things would have the same view of the Constitution that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has?

Barack Obama:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Let me tell you something: the people who elected this man to be our president were un-American.

And the American people themselves implicitly recognize that fact:

Shock Study: U.S. Flag Only Boosts GOP
By Paul Bedard
Posted: July 20, 2011

Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don’t believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What’s more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

“A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months,” the study found. “These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.”

Theirs is the first study to look at the political impact on Americans who have seen an American flag, and it seems to back up another recent Harvard University professor’s study that found that kids who attended a July 4th parade ended up leaning Republican when they grew up.

It’s also sure to prompt GOP presidential candidates to add more U.S. flags at their events and speeches.

For this study, the scholars asked mostly Democratic-leaning voters to join in the survey conducted just before the 2008 election of President Obama over Sen. John McCain. All were given a survey to fill out. Half of those surveys included a small picture of an American flag in the top left corner.

Some 90 percent said that they believed their voting behavior wouldn’t be influenced by the presence of a flag.

But after asking how the participants voted, the study concluded:

“In contrast to the beliefs of the participants in the pilot study, the results from the experiments reported here show that exposure to the American flag introduces a bias toward the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In one experiment, we tested whether subtle exposure to the American flag shifted people’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward the Republican end of the political continuum. We found that a single exposure to a small American flag during deliberation about voting intentions prior to a general election led to significant and robust changes in participants’ voting intentions, voting behavior, and political attitudes, all in the politically conservative direction.”

And apparently politics didn’t have anything to do with how those shown the flag changed their voting.

“It is important to note that political ideology and party affiliation did not moderate these effects. That is, both liberal and conservative participants were influenced by the flag prime, and in the same (conservative) direction,” said the study.

Eight months after the election eve survey, the group was then asked about Obama’s performance and remarkably those in the group shown the American flag on the initial survey “felt less positively about Obama’s job performance.”

To prove the shocking results, the scholars in the spring of 2010 conducted another test, this time to see if exposure to an American flag produces a bias toward Republicanism, rather than the party that controls the White House. For this, they showed some pictures of buildings that included a flag, and others photos with the flag digitally erased.

That result: “Subtle exposure to the American flag significantly shifted both Democratic and Republican participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior toward Republicanism.”

Liberals and Democrats have naked contempt for the Constitution, to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which both stand.

And that is simply a fact.

There’s The Media Propaganda Of Obama As Leader; Then There’s The Actual Facts

March 21, 2011

It’s 3 AM.  The White House phone is ringing with news of a developing crisis.  But Obama is sound asleep after a busy day filled with first a round of golf and then laboring over his NCAA bracket picks (which turned out to be as gutless as he is).  And, of course, if you try to call back later, Obama will be long-gone on his Brazil vacation that even Brazilians clearly don’t want him to take.

Mind you, Hillary Clinton is a liberal, and therefore quite a a fool herself.  And she clearly hasn’t made every right step herself in dealing with the building disaster in the Middle East.  But she was clearly correct in her campaign assessment that Obama would be a weak and ineffective leader; and she’s clearly correct that Obama is an utter disgrace as a president now.

OH, HILL NO
Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edgeh
By Joshua Hersh Thursday, March 17, 2011
Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after
2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Philippe Reines, an adviser and spokesman for Clinton, downplayed the significance of the interview, saying, “He asked, she answered.  Really that simple. [It] wasn’t a declaration.”

But her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary, according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates came out against a no-fly zone almost two weeks ago, while Clinton grew closer to the Libyan opposition.

Last week, excommunicated members of Libya’s embassy to the United States set up shop in an office inside the State Department.

Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering  that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

And to some, the firing last week of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley over disparaging remarks he made about the Pentagon detention policies had the appearance of a power move by the Defense Department more than anything else.

While the stakes in Libya could not be higher, the insider said that something far more domestic was on Clinton’s mind after she leaves the State Department: “She wants to be a grandmother more than anything.”

— With Anthony DeCeglie

I can’t believe I’m saying this: but I’m with Hillary Clinton.  And it is truly despicable that Obama would actually make light of a powder-keg about to explode in the heart of the Arab world.  Only a true fool would do that.  Even as that same fool further undermines and trivializes his own Secretary of State.

Mind you, this isn’t some “rightwinger” assessment, is it?  It’s Hillary Freaking Clinton, the Obama administration’s own Secretary of State.  The Republicans and Democrats, right and left both agree that the Obama presidency is an abject disaster who seems almost allergic to making essential decisions in a timely manner:

Senate Democrats were less pointed in their comments, but expressed similar concerns about the Obama administrations handling of the crisis. At one point, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. lamented all that the international community said but didnt do about the Qaddafi regimes military assault, and wondered aloud whether the presidents national security team was ever serious about trying to shape the outcome of the Libyan conflict.

I read the statements [from administration officials] and I almost get a sense it’s like a Texas two-step, Menendez said. I’m still not sure what we are supporting. It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them. And so, you know, I am concerned as I listen to your answers, including what happens if Qaddafi prevailsI think we’re going to miss an opportunity to promote democracy with a small ‘d’ throughout the region, and to be seen on the side of those who have aspirations of that.

And it wasn’t just Hillary Clinton who warned us that Obama would be a failure.  His own Vice President also warned us that Obama simply wasn’t up to the job:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’” Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Sen. Biden: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.” (“Biden Lashes Out At Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

Democrats are between a rock and a hard place in the sense that they can’t point out overly-loudly what a disaster Obama is, because the obvious result of their abandonment of Obama would be a conservative (and probably very conservative) president in 2012 to go with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate.  Which means that while Obama goes from one “dangerous proposition” to another, they have to be bobbing-head dolls.

And Hillary – probably with Bill’s advice – is getting the hell out of Dodge before this total disaster and disgrace of a White House drags her down to hell with it.  Because this community agitator is very clearly is not up to this job, and we are one genuine crisis away from a total disaster.

Then there’s Obama’s schedule compared and contrasted to his poor underlings’.

For what it’s worth, it isn’t as though Libya is the first time Obama has failed in foreign policy.  Just off the top of my head, I can add articles I’ve written detailing Obama’s total failure in Egypt, in Iraq, in Afghanistan (not to mention all three combined), In Iran (and see here), in Russia and in North Korea.

I remember several years ago watching a fascination PBS program on presidential leadership.  The documentary’s poster-boy for pathetic presidential leadership was Jimmy Carter.  Obviously the man was intelligent, but the experts on leadership said “intelligence” does not a leader make.  Jimmy Carter was particularly faulted for not empowering his subordinates with enough power to do their jobs; he micromanaged and undermined through a tiny cadre of close advisors.  And as a result the nation drifted like a ship without a rudder.  That is clearly what is being described by Hillary Clinton now.

Obama clearly has an “inner circle” problem.  Even DEMOCRATS acknowledge it.

The PBS program did not make mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter was (and clearly still is) a fool with a totally bogus worldview.  A false worldview makes it impossible to act intelligently because, no matter how intelligent one is, one cannot possibly comprehend reality.  And I would submit that Both Carter and Obama have tragically and truly flawed views of the world.  Both of these men view the world through a set of theories that are simply totally false.  And from their poor foundations, all of their intelligence goes into the fruitless process of endlessly rationalizing and justifying their erroneous worldview.

One thing stands out in my mind as a symbol of disconnectedness: Obama flying off in the opposite direction of the planet for a routine (vacation) trip as he starts a war.  Via Sadhillnews:

Is it anything but a stupid thing to do to initiate a war and then do a photo shoot playing soccor?

If Obama doesn’t think this business is serious enough to bother to stick around, I don’t know why anybody else should.

Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy

March 19, 2011

A quick refresher course for the last couple of months.

First of all there is the fact that Obama – basically in his own words – has been doing nothing more than following Bush’s pro-democracy policy in the Middle East.  He’s just been doing so in an incredibly incompetent and contradictory manner.

We actually heard the same sort of mind-boggling chutzpah from the Obama administration that led them to conclude that George Bush’s victory in Iraq – which Obama did everything possible to undermine every step of the way as both Senator and presidential candidate – was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Because these moral idiots in the White House actually took credit for the massive unrest in the Middle East, claiming that the yearning for freedom all somehow came from Obama’s Cairo speech.

Now, interestingly, it is actually TRUE that Obama is responsible for the massive unrest in the Middle East.  But hardly in a way that Obama would want to have attributed to him:

FEBRUARY 23, 2011
The Federal Reserve Is Causing Turmoil Abroad
Few protesters in the Middle East connect rising food prices to U.S. monetary policy. But central bankers do.
By GEORGE MELLOAN

In accounts of the political unrest sweeping through the Middle East, one factor, inflation, deserves more attention. Nothing can be more demoralizing to people at the low end of the income scale—where great masses in that region reside—than increases in the cost of basic necessities like food and fuel. It brings them out into the streets to protest government policies, especially in places where mass protests are the only means available to shake the existing power structure.

[…]

Probably few of the protesters in the streets connect their economic travail to Washington. But central bankers do. They complain, most recently at last week’s G-20 meeting in Paris, that the U.S. is exporting inflation.

China and India blame the U.S. Federal Reserve for their difficulties in maintaining stable prices. The International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, always responsive to the complaints of developing nations, are suggesting alternatives to the dollar as the pre-eminent international currency.

And, mind you, the destabilization created by Obama is hitting us right here in “God Damn America,” too.  Just as I told you so.

Obama’s reckless and immoral spending policies DID create the conditions for unrest, as hungry people whose economies have been destabilized by Obama begin to riot and protest all over the place.  Obama-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has been doing nothing more than trying to finance Obama’s never-seen-in-the-history-of-the-human-race-spending by printing money and undermining the US dollar.  And our once mighty dollar is now like a cancer for all the countries whose currencies depend on it.

Obama’s Cairo speech was a laugher of empty liberal rhetoric.  And another little factoid to contemplate is how Obama and vile, despicable liberals blamed the hostility of the Islamic world on Bush, when the world had never SEEN the Middle East go up in flames until Weakling-in-Chief Obama had been in office for two miserable years.  And, given that Iran will have its nukes thanks very much to Democrat weakness and demagoguery, you aint seen nothing yet.  Do you remember your liberal friends assuring you that Bush had made the world violent, and that Obama would magically make the problems go away, because empty talk was what was really important, rather than the strength and courage to actually stand for something?

But let’s say just for the sake of argument that Obama’s Cairo speech awakened the desire for freedom in every breast.  Let me then cite the words of a DEMOCRAT:

“It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them.”

Which is exactly – and I mean EXACTLY – what this weak, appeasing, cowardly empty-suit has done.

You want proof?  Just click here and see how the leaders of the Egyptian revolution told Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to go to hell because Obama hadn’t done a damn thing to help them.

Or click here to see how that same Hillary Clinton so disgusted with Obama as “a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up.”  And then you tell me how Obama is anything other than a pathetic, weak, appeasing little weasel.  Hillary Clinton is sick and tired of trying to explain away a failed president to foreign leaders who say things like, “Frankly we are just completely puzzled.  We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”  And just what the hell is the woman supposed to say to them, given that her boss is an incompetent fool on his best days?

So Obama finally decides – basically two weeks after it was probably too late – to erect a no-fly zone over Libya.  Fine.  But the fool has to show us what a fool he is by stating categorically that he will absolutely not put any American troops on the ground.  That guarantees that Gaddafi will remain in power; and worse yet, it guarantees that Gaddafi knows that Obama is too weak to do anything serious.

“As I said yesterday, we will not – I repeat – we will not deploy any US troops on the ground,” Obama said.

We bombed Iraq far more than we will ever end up bombing Libya under Obama.  But remember that in Iraq we still had to go in and dig that cockroach Saddam Hussein out of his hole in the ground with TROOPS.  Gaddafi aint going anywhere now other than his temporary rat hole, thanks to Obama’s stupid announcement.  Thanks to Obama, Gaddafi knows he can play possum and pretend to follow the rules until we’re gone, and then it’s right back to the murdering.

Obama is like an imbecile who can’t help but show everyone at the table his hand every time he plays poker.  And then can’t understand why he keeps losing.  I can understand why Obama wouldn’t want to put troops on the ground (the man is a weakling; of course he wouldn’t want to do something strong!); but I can’t understand why he had to let everybody know that all Gaddafi has to do is hunker down and he can stay in power without getting scared into making some kind of deal to save his snake skin.

Another way to put it is this: Remember when Obama was running for president by demonizing and demagoguing Bush?  Obama said:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

But I guess it was just Afghani civilians that Obama was queasy about air-rading and killing; he’s FINE doing nothing more than air-raiding villages and killing civilians when they’re LIBYAN.  That by his own despicable and frankly treasonous rhetoric.  If Bush was wrong not to have troops, Obama is wrong not to have troops.  Liberals are going to say, “That was totally different!” because they ALWAYS say that when they do the same damn thing that they had just got through demonizing.  It’s their nature as the quintessential hypocrites they truly are.

Bush was rightly resistant to putting too many troops into Afghanistan because he knew enough about history to understand that Afghanistan is a hell-hole.  Bush understood that while Iraq – with its flat, mostly open terrain – was perfect for American equipment and tactics, and that mountainous and cave-ridden Afghanistan was most certainly NOT well-suited for American equipment and tactics.  Bush knew that the fairly well-educated Iraqi people were capable of some semblance of democracy; and Bush knew that the ignorant, basically stone-age Afghani people were NOT capable of anything resembling self-governance.

Because Bush – however stupid the left wants to say he is – wasn’t 1/20th as massively moronic as Barack Obama is.

But I’m still not done dumping on our Moron-in-Chief.  Because we’ve got to consider something else: Obama insists that what he’s doing in Libya is right because it’s purpose is “the protection of Libyan civilians.”

Let me ask you a question: is Obama truly so personally ignorant that he didn’t know about the hundreds of thousands of civilians that Saddam Hussein murdered in Iraq while he was opposing our doing anything to help them?

From USAID:

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.”We’ve already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein’s regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

THAT was back in 2004.  The ugly fact of the matter is that they have continued to dig up more and more mass graves since.  We’ve got no idea how many bodies are buried in the endless sands of the Iraqi desert.

How was it right to ignore the murdered Iraqi people, but to champion a tiny fraction as many murdered Libyan people?

Then there is the hypocrisy of how Obama entered the war given the left’s incessant demonization of George Bush:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a 9 month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Obama is quite right to care about the atrocities being committed by Muammar Gaddafi now.  But it also just goes to prove what a vile little weasel he has been his entire life prior to lying his way to the presidency.

Let us also remember that Barack Obama went to an evil, demonic church for 23 years and personally chose as his pastor and spiritual mentor wicked a man named Jeremiah Wright who sung the praises of a vile, murdering dictator named Muammar Gaddafi:

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award.  In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

It should have.  It should have destroyed the Obama candidacy and spared us from the most despicable president in our nation’s history.  But amazingly, and thanks primarily to the worst media propaganda campaign since Goebbels, it didn’t.

We were both foolish and wicked to vote for this evil man.  Barack Obama was a cheerful congregant in Jeremiah Wright’s wicked and racist church when Wright pronounced that the United States was “God damn America.”  And now – under Obama – it truly IS God damn America.

Barack Obama is now our Chicken-in-Chief.  And, yes, in Jeremiah Wright’s words, our chickens truly have now come home to roost.