Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy’

The Pathological Dishonesty And Deceit Of Hillary Clinton And Democrats Revealed In NBC’s Commander-In-Chief Forum On Iran

September 8, 2016

It’s hard to watch a Democrat speak while drinking or eating.  At some point, stuff will shoot out your nose when you hear something that is so outrageously false it is frankly beyond your body’s capacity to function in a proper manner.

Last night, while watching Hilary Clinton answer questions in NBC’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum,” I heard this amazing answer from Hillary Clinton:

LAUER: I’m going to jump in. Thank you very much for your question. Let me ask you about the Iran nuclear deal. It was signed under Secretary Kerry; it was begun under you. You started those talks.
CLINTON: Right, I did.
LAUER: You have said you expect the Iranians to cheat, you think they’ll buy time, and perhaps stay along their course to building a nuclear weapon. If they cheat, Secretary Clinton, will you have any course of action other than a military course of action? Would you enter into negotiations with again (ph)? Would you go back to economic sanctions knowing they cheated and are then closer to a nuclear weapon?
CLINTON: Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward.
What was our decision? Our decision was to try to put together an international coalition that included Russia and China to exert the kind of pressure through sanctions that the United States alone could not do.

So it was Bush’s fault that Iran was moving toward nuclear weapons, Hillary tells us.

There are only a five things wrong with her characterization: history; reality; facts; truth; even the remotest shred of human decency that Hillary Clinton proved she is pathologically incapable of manifesting.

Let me show you where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in 2007 when they were doing everything they possibly could to handcuff George W. Bush from doing a single damn thing to do anything about a problem that they denied even existed when Bush said otherwise and now blame on the Bush who tried in vain to deal with the party of demonic possession otherwise known as the Democratic Party:

December 4, 2007 5:31 PM
Democratic candidates slam Bush over Iran in staid debate 
Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Matt Stearns – McClatchy Newspapers
DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
“He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using carrots and sticks,” New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a two-hour debate in Des Moines.
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden warned that Bush’s position is “like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier.”
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said “it is absolutely clear that . . . President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.”
All pledged aggressive, broad-based diplomacy with Iran and a break with what several of them termed the Bush administration’s “rush to war.”
Bush had argued earlier Tuesday at a White House news conference that the new intelligence report showed that Iran had formerly had a nuclear-weapons program, that pressure from the outside world had helped persuade Iran to abandon it and the lesson he drew was that Iran remains dangerous and pressure against it should continue.
At the Democrats’ debate, the other candidates continued their weeks-long criticism of Clinton for supporting a Bush-backed resolution in September that labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said “there’s only one candidate who voted for this legislation, and it’s exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted.”
Clinton responded that the resolution had caused “changes in their behavior,” because Iran is no longer as active as it was in shipping arms and advisers to factions in Iraq.
The debate on National Public Radio focused on three areas: Iran, China and immigration. It tended to emphasize the candidates’ agreements with one another on broad policy issues, and their unanimity in opposing Bush administration policies. […]
Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — participating in his first debate after being excluded from recent ones — provided the most spice of the afternoon, declaring that “Iran is not a problem, never has been, never will be” and that there was nothing wrong with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard supporting the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah because “these people are fighting for their rights. There’s something wrong with that?”

That was a summary of a debate that happened in 2007.  Let’s look at the question and see what Democrats said back then:

ROBERT SIEGEL [Moderator]: But the Democrats are here, and they are, from left to right on your radio dial, Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Mike Gravel, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Joseph Biden, former Senator John Edwards and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Governor Bill Richardson could not join us. He’s attending the funeral of a Korean War soldier whose remains the governor recently helped repatriate from North Korea.
So we’re going to get started with the debate, and let’s stipulate in advance what I know many feel obliged to say. We’re grateful that all of you are here, and we expect that you’re grateful to the Iowa State Historical Museum, the people of Iowa, public radio in Iowa and NPR News. And we appreciate that and hope we can move on to the topic of Iran.
The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.
For all of you — and let’s go left to right across the radio dial — do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat? And do you agree that the NIE’s news shows that isolation and sanctions work?
Senator Clinton.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.
I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using both carrots and sticks. I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson. But we’re not going to reach the kind of resolution that we should seek unless we put that into the context of a diplomatic process.
SIEGEL: Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator — former Senator Mike Gravel.
MR. MIKE GRAVEL: Iran’s not a problem, never has been, never will be.
What you’re seeing right here is something very unique, very courageous. What the intelligence community has done is drop-kicked the president of the United States. These are people of courage that have watched what the president is doing, onrush to war with Iran.
And so by releasing this information, which is diametrically opposed to the estimate that was given in ’05 by showing that there is no information to warrant what the White House has been doing, they have now boxed in the president in his ability to go to war. So, my hat is off to these courageous people within the bureaucrats — bureaucracy of the intelligence community.

Now let me replay two statements from last night and from 2007 and you tell me who nailed it and who was demon-possessed STUPID:

  • Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward. — Hillary Clinton, last freaking night on national television
  • 2007 debate question: “The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world…. do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat?”
    Hillary Clinton’s answer: SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.”

To be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed slandering liar and a demon-possessed coward; it means blaming your opponent for causing a problem that YOU created.

Hillary Clinton openly acknowledged in the Commander-in-Chief Forum last night that “the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon” and “that had happened the prior eight years” before she and Obama started screwing up planet earth far more than it already was.

We have it in FACT and in HISTORY and in TRUTH and in REALITY that George W. Bush was RIGHT and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were filled with demons that spouted lies through the anal orifices under their noses.

And now this craven, cowardly, lying, dishonest, deceitful witch wants to blame George Bush for not doing anything about a problem he TRIED to deal with but that every single Democrat did everything in their rabid, treasonous little cockroach brains to prevent him from dealing with.

And now it’s suddenly “Bush’s fault” again.

Bush said, “Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons” and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and every single Democrat said “I vehemently disagree.”

And now this abject moral and intellectual disgrace wants to take her incompetent stupid to the White House which she has proven she will sell out to the highest foreign bidder.

This is a trend that happens over and over again.  In 2012, and exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama demonstrated to anyone with current knowledge that to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot radically incapable of comprehending the real world:

Let’s revisit the final 2012 presidential debate, the moment Romney explained himself and the president went for the lulz. Here’s Obama.

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

And here’s Romney:

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

Romney was right.

Barack Obama is and always has been an arrogant fool who has the ability to persuade other utter fools to his morally idiotic views.  And to be a “journalist” today means to be a criminal co-conspirator with Democrats to murder truth the same way they have murdered sixty million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.

The smug self-assuredness that often suffices for expertise on cable news was perhaps never more smug than when former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public that Russia was rapidly positioning itself as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Among the worst offenders were the hosts and guests who provide MSNBC with content on a daily basis.

In early 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in his dealings with Russia. Romney reacted strongly to that comment. Appearing on CNN, the GOP nominee said that the United States should regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and should work to limit Russia’s flexibility rather than to secure it. His observation was soundly criticized by the president’s defenders who, at the time, were still attempting to rehabilitate Obama’s floundering “Reset” with Russia.

There were few who defended Romney’s comments. Even snake-bit Republicans, chastened by the swift backlash in the media, hedged when asked to back up Romney’s assessment of the challenges posed by Moscow. But MSNBC’s wagons circled particularly quickly in defense of the president. Volley after volley of snark was lobbed in the GOP nominee’s direction.

“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

“This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” University of Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined on-the-air. “It made Romney look dumb. He’s not a dumb man, but he said something that was clearly dumb.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney, should he become president, would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement.

Do you realize how completely WRONG you have to be about EVERYTHING to be a Democrat???

Donald Trump is taking heat – ostensibly for being against our heroic generals – for claiming that UNDER Obama and under Hillary Clinton, “our generals have become a pile of rubble.”  It doesn’t matter that Obama has proven that true over and over and over again by rejecting the generals’ advice EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY OFFERED IT.  You go back to January 2009 when Obama took office and utterly rejected the generals’ unanimous plea to remain in Iraq.  Obama gave up EVERYTHING we fought to win there and we now have an Iraq bloodbath with Iran dominating most of it and Islamic State being able to rise in the rest of it as a direct result.  Obama gave his infamous and stupid “red line” warning to Syria – an Obama threat that Syria has walked over dozens of times and just walked over two days ago and walked across at least twice in August – which MASSIVELY undermined U.S. credibility and directly led to the rise of Islamic State in the ensuing power vacuum Obama created.  It is an unwavering trend: every general gives Obama military advice and Obama listens to Lucifer instead.

General Jack Keane described what Obama has done to our “heroic” generals last night on Megyn Kelly’s program in answering the question about Trump’s “pile of rubble” remark:

KEANE: …We may have some politicized generals if that’s what he’s implying, but the reality is that every major force level decision, Megyn, that our generals have made, this president has rejected. In the early 2009, a campaign plan developed by Petraeus and General McChrystal to defeat the Taliban, they required a minimum force of 40,000.
President Obama rejected that recommendation and provided 25 percent less. He also decided he would pull the force out in 12 to 15 months. Those two decisions doomed Afghanistan to the current state we find it now, a protracted stalemated war and robbed us of the opportunity for victory. In 2011, General Alston, four-star commander in Iraq, recommended to the President, a force level of over 20,000. The President rejected it and pulled out all the forces with what is now known as a disastrous consequence in Syria.
In 2012, General Dempsey, General Petraeus directed the CIA, Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton recommended to the president robustly arm and train the Syrian moderates. He says no. In 2013, conduct a military strike, same national security team, against the Assad regime because he violated the chemical red line. He says no. In Afghanistan —
KELLY: I get your point. You could go on.  But your point is Trump is not wrong that, if you think about it, the generals have been reduced to rubble. In other words, they’ve been reduced to almost useless because whatever they tell this commander-in-chief, he disregards.

General Keane could go on, and he did:

KEANE: Yes, and then in 2014, what happened is as opposed to asking him what are we going to do about ISIS? He says, I want to destroy ISIS after they beheaded our Americans and invaded Iraq. He tells them what they’re not going to do. No boots on the ground. The minimum 300 advisors. Of course he’s changed that nine times. An air campaign with no civilian casualties and we’re not going to be able to provide an air/ground team to help make that campaign more effective. We have never, ever have those kinds of restrictions placed on us in my understanding of military history in this nation. That’s the truth of it. Those kinds of restrictions are unprecedented.

In other words, it’s the TRUTH that Obama has reduced our generals to a pile of useless rubble by rejecting their military expertise every single time they offered it, but it’s evil to tell the truth.  Because probably the quintessential essence of being a Democrat today is finding the truth to be evil.  It is absolutely immoral for Democrats who spent the last eight years rejecting every piece of military advice the generals gave to say that Donald Trump just insulted the generals who HAVE BEEN reduced to a pile of rubble by a pathetic fool commander-in-chief.

This nation is in great danger of pursuing the very same kind of abject moral idiocy that has led us down such a steep hill under Obama that will race with even greater speed to total disaster under Hillary Clinton.  By the time Barack Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed by one-thousand nine-hundred percent.  We will go from 3,000 terrorist murders a year globally to 60,000 terrorist murders a year under Obama’s failed watch, just as we watched Islamic State become a powerful terrorist caliphate because of Obama’s failed watch.  Just as we today have more refugees than we have ever had in he entire history of planet earth because of Obama’s failed policies.  Do you understand how horrifying that is???

Meanwhile, the Democrats – with all of their “professing themselves to be wise but becoming fools” (Romans 1:22) and their “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) arrogance – continue to claim that their way of folly is the only way and that we should disarm America’s military so we will be helpless against our foreign enemies (see also here) even as they work to take away our 2nd Amendment rights to protect ourselves and render us helpless domestically.  Abroad, we are only marginally capable of projecting military force and the dominant Russians Obama mocked are bullying him because they know he is a weak coward who will do NOTHING and humiliating our military at every imaginable turnThe Chinese just humiliated Obama and treated him like the worthless chump that he has proven himself to be.  And what’s the coward little turd going to DO about it???  This fool will burn America to the ground to fight the slightest Republican manuever, but will sell this nation out to our very worst enemies and rub this nation’s nose in our own feces every chance he gets.

Democrats tell us that the Trump slogan “Make America great again” is somehow hateful and anti-American.  Because in their warped, wicked view, America is “great” when it is weak and disgraced and punked by every rogue dictator and totalitarian nation on earth.

Seriously, you want to see what a quivering piece of rabid hypocrite slime looks like?  It looks like Bill Clinton, who says “Make America Great Again” is clearly a racist slogan.  You know, in spite of the fact that he used the EXACT SAME SLOGAN REPEATEDLY when he was running for office himself.  Bill Clinton – who offended Ted Kennedy by telling him that the black Barack Obama “would be getting us coffee” ten years ago.  Because he’s a black man, and we all know the negro is at his best when he is serving his white massah.  Bill Clinton isn’t merely a racist by his very own standard; he is vile hypocrite.  But that’s exactly what you have to be to proudly say “I’m With Her!”

Meanwhile, at home, the Democrats have warred against our police departments and labeled them as racist death squads while amazingly simultaneously trying to disarm the people so the very police they demonize are our only protection.

Because Democrats are trying to set up a national internal police force apparatus – an NKVD or a Gestapo – that they will be able to “fundamentally transform” into a political weapon against conservatives much the way they have already weaponized our court system against conservatives.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of fool.

America will never be safe until every single Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive, I tell you.

 

 

Advertisements

John Kerry’s ‘U.S. Is More Engaged In More Places In The World Than At Any Time’ Versus Actual REALITY

July 24, 2014

John Kerry recently offered this laugher:

“The fact is that the United States of America … is more engaged in more places in the world, and, frankly, I think, to greater effect, than at any time in recent memory.”

Allow me to explain what our Secretary of State actually meant:

“The fact is that the United States of America – due to our utterly failed president’s utterly failed foreign policy – has been viewed as so weak and as so pathetic that more places in the world than ever before are erupting into violence all at the same time.  And the Obama administration’s response has been to offer more meaningless, blathering gibberish to more places, to less effect, than at any time in all of history.”

This reminds one of the astonishingly morally idiotic and psychotically-disconnected-from-reality statement by our Fool-in-Chief:

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

I mean, tell that to the 200,000-PLUS civilians who have been murdered by the brutal dictator thug Assad while Obama uttered empty threats and gibberish red-line warnings.  Tell that to the more than one million Christians who used to live in Iraq until Obama abandoned everything our soldiers fought and bled to win who suddenly found themselves living in a terrorist caliphate and were told they could either abandon their homes and flee for their lives, convert to Islam, or die.  Tell that to the Christian girls who keep becoming slaves to Boko Haram.  Tell that to the damn Ukrainians who years ago made the fatal mistake of trusting Democrat President Bill Clinton and gave up their nuclear weapons only to be utterly abandoned by another Democrat President now.

I could keep going on and on with that “tell that to…” dialogue.  Because Obama has walked away from his foreign policy failures all over the damn world.  You can’t go anywhere on the planet and turn over a damn rock where the worst fool who ever lived hasn’t failed America and failed the world.

Liberals do not live in the real freaking world.  They are demon-possessed; they see nothing beyond what their god Satan wants them to see.

I’ll stand by my own assessment of Obama’s foreign policy while I try to stop barfing after Kerry’s pompous declaration.  Because I rely on, you know, things called FACTS.

Such a surprise that these disasters would fall upon the first president in history of the republic to send pink slips to officers fighting on the front lines of battlefields.

Obama To Release One-Third Of Gitmo Detainees AFTER Learning That Terrorist Who Led Attack That Murdered US Ambassador Had Been A Gitmo Detainee

September 24, 2012

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned very much (read: not at all anywhere but on Fox News), but the terrorist attack on American soil in Libya that Obama repeatedly denied for more than a week did not merely occur timed with the anniversary of 9/11; it also occurred along with Obama announcing that he was reversing the surge that he began and that all 33,000 American troops in that surge were now out of the country.

Not only did the Obama administration and many of its top officials – including US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) explicitly deny that the terrorist attack which they now admit was “self-evidently” a terrorist attack had been a terrorist attack for well over a week, but now we find that in fact the United States Ambassador to Libya had been left without any armed security prior to his murder:

American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a “low profile,” the administration didn’t even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the “no bullets” Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. 
 
In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.
 
As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

You want to talk about an administration being COMPLETELY and CRIMINALLY UNPREPARED for a threat that any FOOL should have seen coming (unless “9/11” is merely a date on a calendar)???

But now you find it’s far worse than that; Obama clearly doesn’t even CARE about American foreign policy.  After all, he’s the guy who got bin Laden (gag me); he’s invulnerable to criticism of his foreign policy.  It doesn’t matter if Iran is just about to get a nuclear bomb under his watch (and if Obama is reelected, there is ABSOLUTELY no question Iran WILL get nuclear weapons because of Obama’s weakness); it doesn’t matter if Vladimer Putin – very contrary to Obama’s ill-fated “reset” – is telling America to go to hell as Russia restores itself to its former Stalinist glory; it doesn’t matter if China is more aggressive under Obama’s weak foreign policy than it had been at any time since the Chosin Reservoir surprise attack of US forces during the Korean War; and it doesn’t matter if fully 33 Muslim nations – more than EVER in history – have burned America’s flag in their streets and attacked sovereign American territory.

Name just ONE Muslim country that the US has better relations with than the day Bush left office.  There ISN’T one.  You could have at least said “Libya” a few weeks ago (and that would have been the ONLY possibility); but then again a few weeks ago Libya had NEVER MURDERED AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR PRIOR TO THAT, HAD IT?

Maybe you could say Egpt – but only because Obama is far more sypatico with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood than he ever could have been with the Egypt that had been a staunch American ally until Obama helped topple that regime:

And now what do we have under this demon-possessed turd who has worked mightily to bring the world ever closer to that day the Bible described as “Armageddon”???

Obama to Release One Third of Gitmo Inmates
by AWR Hawkins22 Sep 2012

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
 
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
 
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
 
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
 
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
 
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”

[CBS News video about former Gitmo detainee leading Libyan attack at site]

That and cutting the funding of the security for American embassies have got to be the two stupidest things that one can possibly imagine in light of the murder of a US Ambassador – the first since the failed Jimmy Carter days of 1979.

We’re showing the Muslim world all the weakness that Obama and Democrats falsely and stupidly promised the American people would make the Muslim world love us: we’re pulling out of Afghanistan; we’re refusing to protect our ambassadors lest we create some sort of “profile” that will somehow anger Muslims; we’re apologizing for our 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as some sort of tragic mistake that Obama will surely remedy if he is reelected; and we’re releasing all the terrorist monsters who we’ve been holding at Gitmo.

What Obama has demonstrated is that he is the most nakedly cynical political weasel who has ever so much as VISITED the White House let alone lived in it.  He will exploit ANYTHING no matter how vital to America and no matter who has to die for him to get reelected.

As Israel faces a very urgent decision as to whether to attack Iran as its only hope of national survival, Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then lied about refusing to meet with him.  Of course, he’s got plenty of time to meet with Pimp with a Limp and the cast of the view in lieu of doing any interviews where he might get asked questions about why his presidency has been such an abject failure.

You get the essence of this coward in two snapshots: snapshot one is where Obama goes before the United Nations to denounce the man who made that stupid practically homemade Youtube video attacking Muhammad; snapshot two is when “Piss Christ” comes back to New York with Obama’s complete silence.  And of course it was liberals just like Obama who forced Christians to not only accept a Crucifix of Jesus being placed in a jar of urine and calling it “art” but to subsidize it with their tax dollars in the name of free speech, just as it is liberals who are now desperate to denounce that same free speech to protect a hateful and murderous fascist political system masquerading as a “religion.”

The beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  Democrats will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And someday very soon hell will swallow and devour them all.

Yet Another American Ambassador Attacked And Threatened In Obama’s God Damn America

September 20, 2012

Why not attack our ambassadors?  We are a nation led by a weak, gutless, pathetic, failed little turd masquerading behind lies and arrogance.

Obama’s not going to do anything about it. That would take courage and resolve.  Obama would have to take personal responsibility for something for the first time in his life.

I’m past sick of Obama claiming credit for killing Osama bin Laden.  If you listen to the left, Obama’s giving the order was the most courageous act since Thermopylae.  Obama’s idiot Joe Biden said it was the most audacious plan in 500 years.  The men who waded ashore as their buddies were torn apart by machine guns at Omaha Beach didn’t have the courage that Obama has in his pinky finger.

It’s such pure distilled bullcrap that I’m amazed every single time going on the 16th trillion time that I’ve heard it.  The Democrats demonized Bush as a warmonger from hell up one side and down the other, but now Bush is suddenly the president who wouldn’t have DARED to send a SEAL Team into Pakistan to take out the psychopath who murdered 3,000 Americans.

If Obama had refused to give the order to take out bin Laden after our intelligence and special operations community had dedicated their lives to kill the sonofabitch, you don’t think some seriously pissed off intelligence professional would have leaked that disgrace the way pretty much every OTHER secret has been leaked during the Obama regime???  And just what to you think would have happened to Obama’s reelection chances by running as “the president who refused to get bin Laden”???  I don’t just think he would have kissed his reelection chances bye-bye if he hadn’t made that “audacious call,” I think he would have been impeached and Democrats would have voted his skinny little weasel ass out of office.

Other than giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, just what the hell else has Obama done that hasn’t been an abject disaster???

If the Chinese militaristic regime did not want this protest that threatened an American ambassador WITHIN EIGHT DAYS of one of our ambassadors being humiliated and murdered to happen, it wouldn’t have happened.  They wanted to send a message, and they sent it.

Crowd Attacks The US Ambassador In Beijing
Malcolm Moore, The Telegraph|Sep. 19, 2012, 6:19 AM

A crowd of around 50 Chinese protesters surrounded the official car of the United States ambassador in Beijing, who escaped unharmed, a State department spokesman said.

The melee occurred outside the gates of the US embassy on Tuesday and security guards had to intervene to protect Gary Locke, 62. The protesters caused minor damage to the vehicle, a statement from the embassy said.

“Embassy officials have registered their concern regarding today’s incident with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and urged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to protect American facilities and personnel,” the statement said.

The incident happened on Tuesday, while large crowds of protesters were massed outside the Japanese embassy nearby, to demand that Japan relinquish control of an island chain claimed by China in the waters between the two countries.

The statement gave no details about the demonstrators who blocked Mr Locke’s car, or what angered them.

However the Chinese artist and dissident Ai Weiwei tweeted a photograph of the protest on Tuesday afternoon, and said the crowd had chanted: “Down with US imperialism” and “Pay us back our money!” referring to the trillion dollars or so of US government debt that China holds.

Some Chinese observers have blamed the US for standing behind the Japanese on their claim, and suggested that the US is attempting to foment unrest in the region as a pretext for “pivoting” its naval forces back to the Pacific.

The incident came as the US Defence secretary, Leon Panetta, was meeting with senior Chinese leaders to reassure them that the US does not intend to “contain” China by building up a military presence in Asia.

On Wednesday, Mr Panetta met with Xi Jinping, the 59-year-old Chinese president-in-waiting who recently disappeared for two weeks without explanation, cancelling a scheduled engagement with Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, the protests against Japan have now evaporated. The road outside the Japanese embassy in Beijing has reopened and there was no sign of any discord.

“It seems the protests in front of our embassy have subsided,” the Japanese embassy said in an email to Japanese citizens.

Beijing police sent out a mass text message telling the public not to stage any more protests, according to the Japanese embassy.

Mass protests across China over the weekend, and running into Tuesday, forced many Japanese businesses to shut their doors or close down factories. However, most, if not all of these businesses are now returning to normal.

Did some American film a homemade Youtube movie about Chairman Mao?

I don’t know about you, but I am waxing in my enormous power (according to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, etc. etc.) that I can send the entire planet into a frothing, violent rage merely by gluing a fake beard on my face and making a video that insults Muhammad.

According to the Obama regime, if I or any of the other 315 million Americans in this country used his or her cell phone camera to make an anti-Islam Youtube video, the entire Muslim world would erupt in violence.  It’s a heady feeling, having this kind of power.  I can create a Youtube account and have the command of one billion Muslims at my instant disposal!!!

Obama says the other villain is free speech.  Because that damned stupid 1st Amendment means that Americans aren’t forced to live under Sharia law and we foolishly have the right to express our views.  Not to worry, though; because if you vote for Obama he’ll make sure that mistake is corrected.

Do you think the White House has received an extortion letter threatening to make a Youtube video unless somebody gets paid off?

So, you can see why it would be nice for me to have this same power Obama says I have because of that cursed 1st Amendement over one billion Chinese that I enjoy over one billion Muslims who will all riot any time I want them to.

Have I mocked the stupidity of the idiocy of the Obama White House yet?  Because I could blather on if I had to.

But if you read this article, you will see the ample documentation that the Obama regime says some stupid cheap homemade movie did exactly what I’m laughing my ass off about:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/fact-obama-regime-completely-lied-about-the-riots-burning-the-muslim-world-that-prove-the-obama-foreign-policy-a-catastrophic-failure/

America is such a laughing stock under this failed fool president.

Obama took his oath as Messiah and promised that he would lower the level of the oceans and heal the planet and create worldwide peace and a new beginning for the human species.

And now we know what that “new beginning” looks like: sodomized murdered ambassadors, American flags adding ten degrees to the global temperature due to all the burning of them, and Muslims chanting, “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas!”

Now China is looking at our chump-in-chief and deciding its their turn to humiliate America.

After Setting Middle East On Fire And Allowing Iran To Build The Bomb, Obama Follows Up By Dismantling America’s Nuclear Deterrent

October 27, 2011

A picture is worth a thousand words, so:

Obama has set the Middle East on fire.  He didn’t do it via “hope and change” there any more than he inspired it in the broken wreck he’s made out of America.

He did it by devaluing and destabilizing the U.S. dollar which every Middle Eastern nation that has anything to do with oil has to base their own currency on (oil is bought and sold exclusively in U.S. dollars).  What is just really, really bad food inflation here has been catastrophic in the much weaker Middle Eastern economies.

That people are actually so utterly stupid that they are looking at the shocking damage Obama has made of foreign policy is proof that we are in the very last days just before the world chooses to worship the satanic beast of the Book of Revelation.

So Obama has set the Middle East on a fire that is continuing to burn out of control.  He has allowed Iran to grow closer and closer to its goal of having nuclear weapons and the nuclear immunity that will accompany it.

And he is simultaneously dismantling the American nuclear arsenal – and the deterrent that that arsenal created for the last sixty damn years:

US’s Biggest Nuclear Bomb Dismantled in Texas
By BETSY BLANEY Associated Press
AMARILLO, Texas October 25, 2011 (AP)

The last of the nation’s biggest nuclear bombs, a Cold War relic 600 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dismantled Tuesday in what one energy official called a milestone in President Barack Obama’s mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

This is God damn America.  And God will surely damn the American people for electing the greatest fool who ever lived as he labors unceasingly to bring about World War III and Armageddon.

We can go back a few years, to when demonic, vile, un-American Democrats – including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – demonized George Bush for trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  And we can zoom ahead and see how the same weakness that epitomized the Democrat Party has taken America to new depths of weakness since.

When I say that the Democrat Party is under the direct control of Satan, I tell no lies.

Now Iran has the bomb, Russia and China are arming themselves and the United States of America under the biggest fool who ever sat in the Oval Office is dismantling the only thing that gives us any power following Obama’s destruction of the US economy.

God damn America does not have long to go.

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

April 7, 2010

Let’s take them in alphabetical order.  First, How’s Obama doing in Afghanistan?

Not so good.  Our foreign policy is so deteriorated there that Obama is refusing to even acknowledge whether or not the leader of the country we are fighting in is an ally:

White House won’t say if Karzai is still an ally
By Jordan Fabian & Sam Youngman – 04/06/10 02:00 PM ET

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not say Tuesday if the Obama administration considers Afghan President Hamid Karzai an ally.

Gibbs criticized the Afghan president after Karzai took a shot at Western leaders and the United Nations for election fraud in his country during last year’s presidential contest.

Administration officials said Tuesday that they will continue to “evaluate” remarks made by  Karzai, and that the evaluation could result in Karzai’s May invitation to the White House being revoked.

President Barack Obama extended an invitation for Karzai to visit the White House on May 12, but that could be in jeopardy if Karzai continues to make “troubling and untruthful” comments.

Asked at the daily press briefing if the U.S. considers Karzai an ally, Gibbs said “Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.”

Pressed on the issue, Gibbs said that “the remarks he’s made I can’t imagine that anyone in this country found them anything other than troubling…when the Afghan leaders take steps to improve governance and root out corruption, then the president will say kind words.”

Gibbs added that the administration will continue to use “stern language” with Karzai if it doesn’t take steps to root out corruption and questioned the rationale behind Karzai’s controversial statements.

“Whether there’s some domestic political benefit that he’s trying to gain, I can’t say,” Gibbs said.

So Karzai defends his country’s elections, and his own political credibility, from foreign attacks and demagoguery, and as a result Obama snubs him in what seems like a rather petty emotional response.

Maybe Karzai should start meddling in Obama’s election-status by pointing out that Obama’s own wife strongly suggested Obama was not born in the United States when she remarked that she and Obama visited “his home country in Kenya.”  Which of course is what the birthers who say Obama was not an American-born U.S. citizen have been saying all along.  Even the Associated Press at one point described Obama as “Kenyan-born” before it became inconvenient to so-describe him.

Given that Obama is becoming unglued over Karzai defending himself over attacks regarding the legitimacy of his election, it would be interesting if we could see how Obama would handle attacks over the legitimacy of his election.

In any event, things aren’t going so well when we have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in a country while our president openly doubts whether the leader of said country is an ally.

That was the first thing that went truly, truly wrong in Vietnam, you know.

How’s Obama doing in Iran?  Really, really bad.  It has become abundantly obvious that Iran WILL have nuclear weapons under Obama’s watch.

How does this Washington Times headline grab you?

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes

And what is Obama’s reaction to this intolerable and incredibly dangerous development?  Try acceptance.

I know, I know.  Iran was supposed to reflect upon the sheer, transcendent wonderfulness of Obama, and agree that Obama’s empty words really were more important than reality, and abandon it’s nuclear weapons program.  But somehow something went wrong in Obama’s calculation that Iran and the ayatollahs would decide to embrace Obama’s narcissism.

Who would have ever thunk it?

Oh, wait.  I would have.  I wrote an article in August, 2008 patiently explaining why a vote for Obama was tantamount to a vote for a nuclear-armed Iran.

In another August 2008 article predicting that “President Obama” equaled “nuclear Iran,” I wrote:

This is the question that will effect – and possibly haunt – American foreign policy for generations to come.

If we elect Barack Obama, we are tacitly choosing to allow Iran to develop the bomb. Any of his tough-sounding rhetoric aside, you need to realize that Barack Obama has already repeatedly philosophically condemned the very same sort of preemptive attack that would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Heck, I can go back to April 2008, when I was already explaining why electing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton over John McCain guaranteed a nuclear-armed Iran.

When Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the world will dramatically change.  We will not be able to control this rogue terrorist nation – a nation with a radically apocalyptic view of the world – which has repeatedly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”  When Iran develops the bomb, they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz and shut off the oil supply, skyrocketing gasoline prices to over $14 a gallon.  When Iran gets nukes, it will be able to launch a global terrorist jihad without fear of being attacked.  When Iran has the bomb, it will result in a nuclear-arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world.

Ultimate Armageddon will be guaranteed when Iran gets the bomb.  And it will get the bomb because of Barack Hussein Obama.

How about Iraq?  Well, things are hardly looking up there under Obama, either.

A few weeks ago, Joe Biden was ridiculously asserting that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  What was asinine about that statement was that it utterly ignored the Bush administration, that deserves all the credit, and instead assign credit to two men who foolishly tried to undercut everything that Bush did which led to the success we attained in Iraq.

But things were clearly going well in Iraq, such that Joe Biden tried to steal credit for it.

Not so much now.

From the New York Times:

Baghdad Bombing Streak Stokes Fear of New Round of Sectarian Violence
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and YASMINE MOUSA
Published: April 6, 2010

BAGHDAD — Deadly blasts shook Baghdad for the second time in three days on Tuesday, deepening fears of a new outbreak of insurgent and sectarian violence.

At least seven bombings of residential areas of the Iraqi capital, both Shiite and Sunni, killed 35 people and wounded more than 140. The violence came against a backdrop of continuing political instability after March 7 parliamentary elections left no single group able to form a government, forcing a scramble to form coalitions.

A similar political void after the 2005 parliamentary vote preceded Iraq’s bloody sectarian warfare of 2006 and 2007, from which the country has only begun to emerge.

There are also new concerns that Iraq’s army and police may drift back into sectarianism.

It’s logically impossible for the Obama administration to one day say Iraq will be one of their “greatest achievements,” and the next day blame Bush for the failure of Iraq.  That said, I guarantee you that that is precisely what Obama will try to do if Iraq turns sour on him.

Ayad Allawi, the likely next prime minister of Iraq, had this to say only yesterday:

ALLAWI: The process of democracy where you would have a stable Iraq is being hijacked.  And because it’s being hijacked, it’s going to throw this country into violence. And once this country is thrown again into violence as before, then this will spill over to the region and vice versa. Problems around the region will be transferred here also.

I bold and red-font the statements that it is “being” hijacked.  It is something that is beginning to happen just now.  And Iraq is being “thrown again into violence as before.”  Obama can’t blame Bush for this increasing violence.  He can only blame himself (not that he ever actually WILL blame himself).

We are beginning to escalate our withdrawal out of Iraq, and lo and behold, the Islamic jihadists are determined to make it appear as though we are withdrawing with our tails between our legs.  They are also making it rather obvious that when we leave, they will be present to fill the newly created vacuum with their poisonous presence.

Allawi is pleading with the United States to discontinue the timetable for withdrawal and remain through this difficult period.  But the report by correspondent Dominic Di-Natale concludes by saying, “Ayad Allawi’s call for a troop withdrawal suspension will fall on deaf ears for the time being even if it is a serious plea for help. ”

One of the fears is that Obama is tunnel-vision focused on getting the hell out of Iraq, and is ignoring the delicate state-of-affairs there.

So how’s Obama doing in Afghanistan, in Iran, and in Iraq?  Pretty darn horrendously.

An article that encapsulates the Obama disaster of a foreign policy is “The Karzai Fiasco” by the Wall Street Journal.

Failure-in-Chief Obama Gets Fs Across Report Card On CBS Vote

February 22, 2010

Obama is a complete failure as president, and the only thing artificially propping him up is the lamestream media.

Just imagine what the polls would look like if they didn’t rush to Obama’s defense after every single thing he says or does.

CBS – hardly a rightwing apparatus – ran a poll to “grade Obama’s first year in office”:

January 19, 2010 2:00 PM
Grade Obama’s First Year in Office
Posted by CBSNews.com

With President Obama completing his first year in office this week, we are giving you the chance to weigh in on how you think he has done on the job.

Below are 10 categories for you to give the president your grade (in A-F format), including an overall grade at the end.

Cast your grades below, and then explain your marks in the comments area below.

And the results are absolutely devastating.

About 90% give Obama an F or a D (with 71% giving him an F).  85% give Obama an F or D on foreign policy.  Nearly 92% give Obama an F on health care, with 82% giving him a grade of F.

It’s just awful.  This guy is really one stinky, awful, disgusting turd as president.  He’s like that nasty bulldog diarrhea turd where the owner of the property your bulldog pooped all over is watching, and now you have to clean up this vile mess that is just all over everything.

As of when I took the poll (for the record, I gave Obama a ‘C’ on Afghanistan and a ‘B’ on Iraq) at about 11 pm, Sunday night, February 20, 2010, here are the results:

The Economy


A:
2.07%
B:
3.33%
C:
5.00%
D:
18.72%
F:
70.87%

Foreign Policy


A:
3.92%
B:
3.33%
C:
7.66%
D:
22.69%
F:
62.40%

Health Care


A:
2.25%
B:
2.45%
C:
3.56%
D:
9.81%
F:
81.94%

Afghanistan


A:
3.43%
B:
13.34%
C:
27.60%
D:
24.39%
F:
31.24%

Iraq


A:
3.67%
B:
9.55%
C:
26.12%
D:
24.68%
F:
35.97%

Threat of Terrorism


A:
3.29%
B:
3.86%
C:
7.63%
D:
19.89%
F:
65.33%

Energy and the Environment


A:
2.96%
B:
4.27%
C:
11.93%
D:
21.06%
F:
59.78%

Social Issues


A:
3.45%
B:
4.32%
C:
12.82%
D:
20.95%
F:
58.47%

Bipartisanship


A:
3.23%
B:
2.61%
C:
4.18%
D:
9.04%
F:
80.94%

Obama’s Overall Job as President


A:
2.69%
B:
3.44%
C:
4.11%
D:
25.75%
F:
64.00%

The conclusion: “Hey, man, you SUCK!!!”

And you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama has not yet begun to fail.

In another gonad shot to the Obama propaganda machine, only 6% of Americans believe that Obama’s stimulus – despite all his lies to the contrary – has actually created any jobs at all.

One day Democrats will look at Bush’s worst poll numbers and desperately wish that their Messiah were so beloved.

And Bush’s approval numbers will ultimately go up: because he was right about so many crucial issues that Obama was just desperately wrong about.

You just keep following Obama’s lead, liberals.  He’s marching you straight to your political graves where you belong.

Sarah Palin Demolishes Obama’s Pretentions State of the Deception Speech

January 28, 2010

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Today at 2:17pm

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

– Sarah Palin

She nailed it.

Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes

October 24, 2009

For the official record, it was not Dick Cheney who first accused Barack Obama of dithering over Afghanistan while our troops languished and died.  It was the Pentagon.  From September 22, 2009:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House.

From September 18, 2009:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy.  Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on.  And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan.  And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment.  But there won’t be.  It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan.  Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

October 24, 2009
Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall

President Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel
.

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. […]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. […]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.

Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions
. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” […]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject.  Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.  This has been the case for years.  We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives.  What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now.  You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

As far back as April of 2008 I pointed out that the election of a Democrat to the White House would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, concluding:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

And it’s actually even worse than I thought.  In Barack Obama, we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated he is toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.  Subsequent to that piece, Obama reneged on a major missile defense deal with key Eastern European allies in order to appease a hostile Russia – who gave us nothing in exchange for our betrayal.  And if that wasn’t bad enough – we sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.  And Iran knows that.  Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb.  And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.

The Comprehensive Case Against Barack Obama from Hotair.com

October 22, 2008

I have found Ed Morissey to be an incredible analyst of American political culture with an amazing access to the most relevant stories and information.  Here, he is joined by journalists Guy Benson and Mary Katherine Ham in a presentation of many of the issues that Americans should know about and soberly consider.  Barack Obama’s radical stand on abortion; his hypocritical positions and contradictory positions on taxes; his long list of radical associations; his demonstrated poor foreign policy judgment; his open disdain for the American heartland; his reliance upon dealing the race card for political benefit; and his lack of any meaningful legislative accomplishment, are all treated.

The article is fairly long, with quite a few videos, so I shall link to it.  But please read!

The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama