Posts Tagged ‘Iraq War’

Undeniable PROOF That Barack Obama Entirely To Blame For The Collapse of Iraq And The Rise Of Islamic State.

April 18, 2016

Let me just get straight to the facts.  It is an amazing thing the way Bush got blamed for the wars but Obama cut and ran AFTER BUSH WON HIS WAR and now the terrorists as a direct result of Obama’s stupidity are far stronger than they EVER were when Bush was president.  While the dishonest leftist propaganda mill otherwise known as the mainstream media has never done it and never will do it, this is an easy thesis to document:

  1. Obama HIMSELF announced we were victorious in Iraq: “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Hussein Obama, February 27, 2009.  That wouldn’t have happened if Iraq was still in chaos.  Because Bush won his war.  As point 2. further documents:
  2. Vice President Biden went further and called Iraq “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  You explain to me how he could say that in 2010 and Bush be to blame now.  Because if Bush had ruined the world in 2008, what is Biden doing calling it a “great achievement” in 2010???  No, rather, Bush handed Obama a peaceful, stable Iraq that Obama proceeded to flush down the toilet with his idiotic stupidity as he failed to listen to his own generals and foreign policy experts and ruined the world.  Here’s Biden’s quote: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  — Vice President Joe Biden, 2010
  3. Our enemy in Iraq announced themselves that they were defeated (until Obama gave them life with his treason): “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.” — General Jack Keane
  4. Obama ignored all of his generals and advisors in pulling out of Iraq:US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
    By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.
  5. In fact Obama has ALWAYS ignored all military advice.  Allow me to quote that Washington Times headline: “Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time.”  Obama is the worst kind of fool, and such fools cannot learn wisdom.  Obama in fact has never ONCE listened to a single decent expert who knew what the hell he was doing.  Obama’s own leaders as well as the military advised him what he needed to do; Obama ignored their wisdom over and over and over again.  And the very hell those generals and leaders predicted came to pass just as they predicted it.  It is a stupid, pathetic, trivial and demonic mind that blames Bush for that.
  6. Furthermore, Bush was RIGHT and Obama was demonically WRONG:  George W. Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we listened to Great Satan Obama:Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.  “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.  He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early: “It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.”  [Bush could not conceive that Obama would give birth to an even MORE vicious monster Islamic State that made al Qaeda look, well, “JayVee” in comparison]. “It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.”  [Yep, that sure happened thanks to Obama].  “It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan [Yep, check again: for the first time in the history of the world we have a true terrorist army that has created its own giant CALIPHATE.  We never saw anything close to that when George W. Bush was president.  That is simply a fact].  “It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”  [Check yet again.  And since Obama stupidly gave Russia hegemony over the region, it would mean risking World War III.  All because Barack Hussein Obama is the worst fool who ever lived].  I DEFY anyone to explain to me how Bush wasn’t COMPLETELY CORRECT in his warning and Obama wasn’t an abject FOOL not to heed it.  Because absolutely EVERYTHING Bush said would happen turned out to be completely true and everything Obama said would happen under his policies turned out to be completely false.
  7. Now add to that unmitigated disaster, that totally unforced error, Obama’s “red line fiasco” in SyriaJohn Kerry admitted that Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.  Every single one of those people is an Obama appointee and even THEY admit that Obama’s foreign policy was beyond foolish.
  8. Both military leaders, civilian leaders of the military and national security and foreign policy, and numerous conservatives such as MYSELF stated that Obama’s idiotic plan to pull out of Iraq would lead to disaster.  In any valid scientific laboratory, we were verified to be 100 percent scientifically proven RIGHT and Obama and every fool who believes in Obama was proven to be a demoniac jackass who hates the United States of America and is plotting its destruction.  In August 2008, I predicted, and I quote: “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for forfeiting Iraq, and then having to come back in a few years to do it all over again – this time against a determined Iranian insurgency.”  You tell me I was wrong, you demon-possessed Nazicrat Party liars, because all you have is a demonic delusion in your fool minds and I have all the actual facts.
  9. And as a result, I have with all those facts and evidence and history itself behind me written articles like this one: ‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East and Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat.
  10. And therefore Iraq has been in meltdown, Syria is a shambles, Libya is a shambles, Yemen is a shambles (and CONSIDER the debacle in Yemen given what Obama stupidly said), Egypt is a shambles, etc. etc.  Obama guaranteed Iran would have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to us and so terrorize us from acting in the region.  Russia and Iran are now without any question have hegemony over the Middle East.  And Israel is isolated and abandoned.  Which is why Israelis say Obama is the WORST American president in history.  And as I document three paragraphs below, Obama has cursed the world with more refugees than it has ever seen in all of human history.

I defy anyone to argue with ANY of those points.  And those ten truths directly lead to an abundantly obvious conclusion: that Barack Obama failed America and failed the world and that the Democratic Party has become the party of treason and literally the extermination of not only Western Civilization but our very existence.

You are a Democrat for one reason and one reason only: because you are a citizen of hell; because something deep within you knows that you should be screaming in hell and you therefore have an innate psychological need for self-destruction.  And you are voting that into reality culminating in your vote for and worship in the coming big government beast of the Book of Revelation.  It becomes the only rational explanation for obvious deranged insanity.

You prove what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

And that is why you are blind to reality when you should see and deaf to reality when you should hear.  Which is why the words of Isaiah 28:15 so completely apply to you:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

Which is EXACTLY your strategy in the war on Islamic terror that you so wickedly and foolishly deny a) is a war or b) is Islamic or even c) is terror (’cause it’s just workplace violence!!!).

This is an incredibly important thing to report the FACTS on.  Because if you listen to Democrats, George Bush is somehow responsible for all the evils of the world both BEFORE he became president (when Bill Clinton allowed in EVERY SINGLE 9/11 terrorist AND allowed them to get funded AND allowed them to get trained before Bush took office so they could attack us eight months into Bush’s presidency) and AFTER he left office.  Under Obama – who looked the American people in the eye and promised them that his way was so much better and told us that he would END the war on terror – terrorism has skyrocketed under any metric you want to name; be it the number of terrorist organizations, the number of attacks those terrorists have launched, or the lethality of those attacks in sheer death toll.  Terrorism under Obama DWARFS anything that existed under Bush.  And we now have the worst, the most violent, the most extreme, terrorist group in the history of the world under Obama.  Which basically did not even EXIST when Bush was president.  When Bush left office, ISIS was a hundred bitter guys who had split off from al Qaeda in Iraq THAT BUSH HAD BROKEN when HE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now we have THE largest AND worst refugee crisis in the entire documented history of planet earth.  UNDER OBAMA.

Somehow Obama took a profoundly and fundamentally different path than George Bush took and the world has exploded as a result: but it’s “Bush’s fault.”

Bush And This Is MY Fault

Bush's fault

But whose fault is it, seriously?  Well, the liberal narrative that a mainstream media that is so dishonest that only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe is actually credible “report” is that Bush “destabilized” the world when he invaded Iraq as SIXTY PERCENT of Democrat Senators (including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer) supported.  Because, you see, the world was “stable” throughout the Clinton years as Islamic terrorism began to ascend and Clinton did NOTHING: such as: the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.  But particular focus ought to be on Clinton’s incredible failure in Somalia, which he first escalated and then retreated from.  It was as a result of that failure in 1993 that a hitherto unknown figure named Osama bin Laden boasted:

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

Osama bin Laden and the terrorist movement he gave birth to were EMBOLDENED and INCITED by American weakness.

Just as Islamic State was given birth to by Obama, al Qaeda was given birth to by Bill Clinton.  The very first al Qaeda attack occurred after the election of Bill Clinton. And their second and third attacks were directly against the United States.  And Bill Clinton did NOTHING.

They smelled blood.  Just as they smell blood now.

But while all that was happening, America was “stable,” according to Democrats.  That is such a demonic lie to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, given the fact that there was a crystal clear trajectory of increasingly bold and big attacks.  Until 9/11/2001.

It’s interesting how we had the same scenario unfold when Obama took office, but in reverse.  I vividly recall reading 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed give a statement after his capture that the US response to 9/11 was so massive and so devastating that he personally doubted that terrorists would ever dare launch such an attack again.  Even the reliably leftist New York Times put it this way:

Yet for all his professed wisdom about the United States, Mr. Mohammed later admitted that he had completely misjudged what the American response to the Sept. 11 attacks would be. He did not expect the American military campaign in Afghanistan, and he did not anticipate the relentless hunt for Al Qaeda leaders throughout South Asia and the Middle East.

He even misjudged his own fate. When he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, he thought he would soon be traveling to New York, where he would stand trial under his indictment for the Bojinka plot.

Instead, he was hooded and spirited out of Pakistan by C.I.A. operatives, who took him first to Afghanistan and eventually to a former Soviet military base in northern Poland.

Mr. Mohammed’s initial defiance toward his captors set off an interrogation plan that would turn him into the central figure in the roiling debate over the C.I.A’s interrogation methods. He was subjected 183 times to the near-drowning technique called waterboarding, treatment that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called torture. But advocates of the C.I.A’s methods, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have said that the interrogation methods produced a trove of information that helped dismantle Al Qaeda and disrupt potential terrorism attacks.

Mind you, they totally misreported the entire thing about waterboarding.  For example, they got the number of times that K.S.M. was waterboarded completely wrong: he was waterboarded FIVE times, and that process was so tightly controlled that in those five waterboarding sessions they counted 183 times that a little water was poured over him.  They knew what they were doing; but waterboarding a terrorist five times was quite reasonable; so they had to manufacture and fabricate a bogeyman to make the reasonable seem unreasonable.  Hence the liberal [and therefore dishonest] narrative that we were waterboarding these guys 200 times and that it obviously didn’t work.

When it DID work.  And according to people who were NOT liberal bogeymen who could be summarily dismissed the way the left could do with Dick Cheney.

For the record, KSM’s waterboarding directly led to the U.S. finally learning where Osama bin Laden was hiding.  Obama’s own CIA Director acknowledged that a waterboarded terrorist gave up the name and location of Osama bin Laden’s courier (Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti).  And tracking that courier directly led the U.S. to bin Laden’s location in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“The first indication that he (al-Kuwaiti) was close to bin Laden and was a serious player came from (Sept. 11 architect) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), right after he was waterboarded. Before that, KSM basically gave up nothing. After he was waterboarded, KSM gave an answer on the courier. This put the courier on the map. That was the first time they saw that he was close to bin Laden…”

If Democrats had been running the show, we NEVER would have found Osama bin Laden.  Period.  And Obama getting bin Laden was no different than Obama ending the war in Iraq; because his BETTER did it FOR him so HE could falsely take credit – only to utterly ruin every positive effect with his own despicable and pathetic incompetence if not treason.  Because WATERBOARDING got bin Laden.  And Obama vilified and even attempted to criminally prosecute what GOT bin Laden.

Interestingly enough, for the first couple of years after Bush left office, terrorism was minimal.  Because Bush had substantially defeated it.  Al Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were defeated.  In Iraq, state terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein was dead.  In Libya the state terrorist dictator – AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE OVERTHROW OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN IRAQ – cooperated with the United States for the first time in decades.

But just as with Clinton, under Obama the terrorists realized they had a weak, pandering coward who would not stand up to their attacks.  And so the attacks began again, and grew worse, and worse, and worse.  We’ve been attacked by Islamic terrorists over and over again since Obama took office.  But amazingly, Obama not only denies the “Islamic” part but even the “terrorist” part, claiming all the “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim terrorists are actually merely perpetrators of “workplace violence.”

It’s hard to directly track how massively terrorism has skyrocketed because of the profoundly dishonest way the media reports it.  For example, I can tell you that terrorist attacks increased by 35% and fatalities due to terrorism increased 81% between 2013 and 2014.  And we keep getting these reports comparing last year to this year.  So I can tell you what this headline sums up comparing Obama’s 2015 to Obama’s 2014: “2015 Global Terrorism Index: Deaths From Terrorism Increased 80% Last Year to the Highest Level Ever; Global Economic Cost of Terrorism Reached All-Time High at US $52.9 Billion.”   So I can tell you that, under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased 81% year-to-date in 2014 and under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased another 80% year-to-date in 2015.  But good luck finding anything that tells us what has happened from the moment Obama took office compared to when Bush was president.  The media won’t give you that because we’d be screaming for Hussein’s impeachment if they did.

And you tell me what you think will happen when we compare 2016 to 2015 when that report comes out in about seven months (most likely right after the election).

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has our warriors walking around in women’s high heels. I kid you not.  Because he is not merely morally insane; he is truly evil.

Seriously, what do you think Islamic State thinks of this image:

soldiers high heels

Do you seriously NOT think this is part of their recruiting, that America is such a wicked – and WEAK – place, that even our WARRIORS are weak, pathetic, effeminate females?  They’ve been wiping our faces with FECAL matter, and we’re strutting around in women’s shoes???

For Obama, our military has nothing to DO with our defense; this man literally WANTS us defenseless as a people (hence the hatred of the 2nd Amendment) and as a nation (hence his contempt for the military).  For Obama, the military is nothing short of a cultural laboratory, where the left can impose their hateful values on a people who have signed away their liberties over to the commander-in-chief to serve their country.  Obama has cynically exploited their patriotism and forced them to do things they would NEVER have otherwise done.

So Obama has been hell-bent on imposing homosexuality and transgenderism on our military.  What has he done for our defense?  It’s best explained by Leon Panetta, lifelong Democrat and Obama appointee to head the CIA:

“Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history.”

Here are the facts which even the leftist Politifact acknowledges are true:

This is the lowest number of soldiers since 1940. Before the draft went into effect later that year, there were about 264,000 troops in the Army.

Turning to the Navy, there are currently 289 deployable battle force ships. According to the quadrennial review, there will be an estimated fleet of 234 ships in Fiscal Year 2019.

That is the lowest number of ships since 1915 — two years before the United States got involved in World War I.  That year, the Navy had 231 deployable ships. In 2016, it jumped up to 245 ships.

But these leftist fools precede to tell us with actual straight faces that technology never existed before Obama.  As if when Bush was president we were living in caves afraid of fire, but Obama has led our military into the glorious light such that one ship under Obama is more powerful than all the ships in the fleet under Bush.  It is ASANINE and only the worst kind of fools believe it.

Let me ask a common-damn-sense question: if the leftist thesis is true – and just one ship under Obama and one soldier under Obama and one plane under Obama is so  much more powerful than anything that Bush fielded such that we can gut our numbers, WHY IS IT THAT WE CAN NO LONGER FIGHT TWO WARS AT THE SAME TIME which we have been able to do since Reagan rebuilt the military after the LAST roach liberal gutted it???

We’ve got the worst threats facing us in all of history, and Obama’s response was to GUT a military that was the most powerful in the history of the world when he took office.

With that in mind, now let me talk about some other stuff that isn’t in my title, but it’s just such an all-encompassing trend of WEAKNESS in the face of our ENEMIES.

I haven’t even discussed all the other myriad ways that Obama has failed the world and failed America, such as his now REPEATEDLY forcing the American military to abjectly cower while Russia intimidates our once-all-powerful Navy by sending frequent Russian bombers to simulate attack runs right over them.  As I write this, Russia just flew dangerously close in an obviously aggressive and provocative manner FOR THE THIRD TIME THIS WEEK.  America is looking weak and foolish and impotent all at once.  Putin KNOWS Obama will do nothing just as the terrorists who are murdering us both here and overseas know Obama will do nothing.  And just as our dismayed former allies know Obama will do nothing.  That’s why Putin seized Georgia in 2008, when a Democrat-demonized George Bush was leaving office and Obama was on the verge of becoming president.  Obama responded with Hillary Clinton’s infamous and laughable “reset” of relations.  In other words, he didn’t respond at all other than to say, “Why not seize more territory because it’s not like I’m going to do a damn thing about it.”  And so in 2012 Obama sent signals to Putin that he would be “have more flexibility” in assuming various postures in bending over America’s foreign policy to be sodomized.  And so Putin seized Crimea.  And again, no response whatsoever.  And so now Putin is preparing to seize all of Ukraine.  Because the same kind of abject moral coward who gave us Hitler’s seizures until World War II was necessary is in office in America.

Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, China is making “acts of war” a daily event, first building an artificial island in the strategic center of the most economically powerful sea lane on earth; then placing warplanes on that island which shouldn’t exist in a sea lane that isn’t theirs to begin with, and now placing missiles on that island which places China in control of that sea lane because Obama yielded control to them.  China’s State-controlled media is officially threatening America with further acts of war, declaring that China ought to ram US ships and fire missiles in further act of war.  And they do all this because they KNOW Obama will do NOTHING.  They know Obama is an abject moral coward who doesn’t fear killing US soldiers but rather only cravenly fears his wicked, vile, treasonous liberal base turning on him.

And now China is doing the same thing all over again in a different place it has seized:

The question now is whether China is planning to build a military base in the Scarborough Shoals similar to its bases in the Spratly  Islands. Admiral Harris, head of the US Pacific command has said that China’s “complex of missile sites, fighter jets and surveillance stations based on newly constructed artificial islands will give China de facto control of the South China Sea in any scenario of war.”

According to Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “A base at Scarborough would have enormous significance for China, especially in combination with the other facilities they have built on Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross. The Chinese will be able to extend control over larger swaths of air space and water.” Glasser believes that the Chinese “intend to dredge at the Shoal and build another base.”

THIS is what Obama just HANDED China with little more than a whimper:

The South China Sea functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian oceans — the mass of connective economic tissue where global sea routes coalesce.

Here is the heart of Eurasia’s navigable rimland, punctuated by the Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, and Makassar straits.

More than half of the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through these choke points, and a third of all maritime traffic worldwide.

We will ultimately HAVE to fight World War III because Barack Hussein Obama failed America and failed the world.  And we will fight with a diminished military from a strategically far weaker position having given up strategically-critical geography to our enemies that Obama refuses to understand are our ENEMIES.  Obama has given Russia a naval stronghold and direct access to the Black Sea and therefore the Atlantic in rebuilding its Soviet powerbase; and Obama has given China an economic stranglehold over the most prosperous sea lane on earth.

Do you remember what Obama stupidly said when he mocked Mitt Romney?:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years….When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

You wretched, wicked FOOL.

And it will ultimately cost us millions of lives to take BACK what Obama wickedly and foolishly just gave away.  Both of these countries have now proven time and time again that they aint stopping.  And by the time we finally have a leader with the resolve to fight them we will have no other choice BUT to fight them.  Because just like Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, after our pathetic display of weakness they won’t believe we have regained our resolve to be strong.  And so we will now have to repeat the lesson of World War II all over again in terms of what happens when you give vicious dictators the perception that we won’t stop them.

Meanwhile, Obama gave terrorist state Iran $150 billion to get them to agree to a deal that was quite simply suicidal for us.  And Iran is using Obama’s money to massively increase its military arsenal including ballistic missiles from our good friends in Russia.

Thanks to Obama, we will NEVER be able to restore a United Nations embargo against Iran (Russia and China will simply veto it).  The cat is out of the bag, and it turns out the kitty is a vicious tiger bent on devouring American and Israeli flesh.

And thus Obama either intentionally if he has a scintilla of intelligence or incredibly foolishly just massively intensified an arms race in the craziest part of the world.  Again, absolutely guaranteeing that World War III WILL be fought.

Too late, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world seems to realize the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done:

With Russia blocking sanctions at the United Nations, the Obama administration is looking at other international avenues to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The White House insists it has all the unilateral authorities it needs to slap new sanctions on Iran for defying the spirit — if perhaps not the letter — of the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear deal. That resolution “called upon” Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Russia insists that language is not a legal prohibition, in effect ruling out more missile-related UN sanctions. But the Obama administration, eager to calm jittery lawmakers, insists it has a number of other multilateral tools outside of UN action that it can use to counter threats from Iran’s missile program.

Obama is a weakling and a coward and he can do nothing but TALK meaningless gibberish that no one is listening to.

Thomas Sowell said this back in 2010 (and I quoted him in a September 30, 2010 article titled, “On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come“:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.

Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep.

Iran has threatened to withdraw from Obama’s stupid, evil, demonic deal: they got everything they wanted and all they had to give up in return was a promise that everyone who wasn’t insane knew they would break the moment it suited them.

So they tested their new missiles and they’re threatening to walk away from Obama’s deal that Obama and his Stooge of State John Kerry blathered about with so much pompous grandeur.

It’s hilarious in its own way: right after they signed this stupid agreement, Iran accounced that it had just “discovered” a massive new supply of uranium.  Surprise.

Now they feel strong because Obama MADE them strong.  And they are joining the Russian and Chinese parade to directly threaten and intimidate us with their new arsenal that Obama funded for them:

There used to be a time when the Islamic Republic showed some discretion with regards to its regional hegemonic and ideological ambitions, or skirting and breaching international laws. At least the ruling clerics of Iran preferred soft power and were more covert about these issues.

But not anymore.

Iran’s partial discretion was limited to the period before the nuclear deal was reached between P5+1 and the Islamic Republic, and before President Obama began pursuing appeasement policies with the ruling clerics in order to secure the agreement.

Currently, Iran’s blatant aggression and provocative attitude has reached an unprecedented level, ranging from launching ballistic missiles in the middle of the day, to publicly supporting Bashar Al Assad, militarily and financially, and galvanizing the Shiite proxies to engage in war.

But Iran wants more. More recently, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the Fars News Agency as warning the United States to stay away from Iran’s redlines- one of which is Iran’s ballistic missiles. Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was also quoted by the ISNA agency as stating, “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.” Iran has increased its short and medium-range ballistic missiles, and currently has the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East.

Just as Bush RIGHTLY warned us what would happen if a fool like Obama were allowed to destabilize – because HE is the fool who actually destabilized the world – Iraq, Bush warned the world about the nuclear threat posed by Iran.  And Democrats running for president in 2008 mocked and attacked him for it:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

I’ve been warning about the fact that Iran’s yoking of its nuclear bomb program with its ballistic missile program since 2008 when I concluded in an article:

I kid you not.  Even as the Russians are basically tearing new orifices into Georgia on an hourly basis, and setting up the toppling of a previously democratic government in favor of a puppet, Iran is busily working on developing their nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  Given their ability to stop traffic in the oil-critical Strait of Hormuz at will, and given their penchant for terrorism and insanity, a nuclear-armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable.

If they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and the corresponding delivery systems, Iran will be able to launch destabilizing terrorist attacks or drive up oil prices to stratospheric levels with impunity.

In January 2010 I put it this way in the conclusion of an article:

When Iran gets its nukes and the ballistic missiles to deliver them (and they are very close to both goals), the world will become a different place.  They don’t have to launch atomic Armageddon to use their nuclear weapons; all they have to do is block the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices tenfold, or send out a wave of international terror attacks.  Will we go to war with them, knowing that if we do they will destroy several of our cities and kill millions of our people?

In other words, we haven’t even BEGUN to see the fruit of Obama’s failures in his “man-caused disasters.”

So Obama makes this suicidal deal with Iran THAT DIDN’T EVEN MENTION IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES.  If that isn’t insane, there is no such thing as insanity.

A point which Iran has driven home: Iran mocks Obama deal with another ballistic missile test

And as I’ve already documented, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world finally realized the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done.  Just too damn late to matter.

Iran ALREADY HAD the uranium to manufacture when Obama came to officeCNN reported that Iran reached “nuclear weapons breakout capability” in February 2009. And by 2012, they already had enough to build at least five nuclear bombs.  What do you know, that awful George W. Bush was RIGHT and every single Democrat should scream in hell forever for how WRONG they were.  It was actually ALREADY too late when Obama “negotiated” his stupid deal that has now obviously already completely collapsed in every way it is meaningful for such an agreement to collapse.  Iran ALREADY had what it needed in terms of nuclear research.  All Iran needed at the time of this stupid deal was the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver their nukes they could have already built at any time.  There was never any point for Iran to go all the way UNTIL they had the delivery system.  And once they get that ICBM, they will be IMMUNE from ANYTHING.  Unless an American president wants to kiss away a few – or maybe a few dozen – major American cities.

And Obama gave them $150 billion to either fund their ICBM research or just buy the damn missiles from Russia.  And what the hell is Obama going to do about it?  You know, SINCE IT’S HAPPENING RIGHT THE HELL NOW.

That’s IF the terrorists don’t detonate a nuclear bomb here first.

It truly is an amazing world we live in, isn’t it?  How there can be such massive failure and such massive treachery in reporting such failure.

 

Advertisements

No One On EARTH More Responsible For Rise In Islamic Terrorism Than Our Own Terrorist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama

January 16, 2015

It is a fascinating thing to watch the left as America and the world are viciously attacked by Islamic terrorism and in their war against the West, against Christendom, against Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, against freedom, against democracy and against our entire way of life.  Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, the leftist pseudo-intellectuals and the mainstream media have fabricated this narrative of “us against them,” whereby Christians and conservatives are illegitimately attacking this peaceful religion called Islam.  The reality is so different it is beyond belief; it is NOT “us against them” but rather it is “THEM against us” while we stand by and get slaughtered because it is politically incorrect for us to stand up for our values or fight for our own lives and the lives of our children.

At least – because I have no doubt this percentage has GROWN given the recent attacks we’re seeing –  27% of young French Muslims support the vicious terrorist army called the Islamic State.  And TWICE as many British Muslims are fighting for Islamic State as are fighting for the UK armed forces.  Don’t you DARE try to argue with me that “Islam” and “terrorism” aren’t mutually interwoven and linked.

Obama campaigned for president in 2007 and 2008 demonizing George Bush, conservatives and Republicans for their war on terror and over and over again blamed them – and yes, blamed America – for the entire problem of terrorism.  It wasn’t that these vicious Muslims hate us and want to kill us and destroy everything we stand for and force us to do what “Islam” really means and SUBMIT to Allah and to sharia law; it was that we built a prison facility at Guantanamo Bay that was inciting otherwise peaceful, happy wonderful people to saw off the heads of people who never hurt anyone.

Obama promised us that when he was president, he would “fundamentally transform” the world and solve all of our problems and end the war on Islamic terror by first of all denying it was either Islamic or terror and secondly denying there was a war.

It is my contention that as a direct result of his presidency and his policies, terrorism has exploded into a force that is rapidly growing into a terrifying new reality.

I point out for simple history’s sake that terrorists inspired by Islam massively attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.  It was most definitely NOT as a result of any Bush policies; the man had been in office for less than eight months and the attack on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon and on Congress had been planned for years.  Every single terrorist was already in America and trained and funded prior to George W. Bush taking office.  And in fact there had been an incredibly disturbing pattern of terrorist attacks against United States territory during the eight preceding years that one William Jefferson Clinton was in office.

So we were attacked and George Bush led America’s massive response.  And liberal Democrats such as Barack Obama ridiculously blamed that response as the cause of the terror that the response was actually a response TO.

But as ridiculous as Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s insane claims were on their face, we had a question to resolve: would their policies do a better job???  Or would our terrorist enemies, inspired and incited by the Islam that our liberal leaders refuse to acknowledge, sense our indecision, our naivety and our weakness and build themselves stronger for more and more frequent attacks?

And the facts demonstrate for all human history to witness that the latter is precisely what happened as the world is now melting down into terror even as Obama says, “please don’t use force to deal with these monsters.”  His own words were, “It’s important for Europe not to simply respond with a hammer and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems.”  By all means, let’s not; because terrorists’ hearts melt when we lay down our arms and surrender to them.

History has given us the results of the Obama experiment.  And Obama has wildly failed.

Let’s consider what is happening under our leader of the free world and his insanely immoral and foolish policies:

Increase in Jihadist Threat Calls for New U.S. Strategy to Combat Terrorism
FOR RELEASE
Wednesday
June 4, 2014

There is a growing terrorist threat to the United States from a rising number of Salafi-jihadist groups overseas, according to a RAND Corporation study.

Since 2010, there has been a 58 percent increase in the number of jihadist groups, a doubling of jihadist fighters and a tripling of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates. The most significant threat to the United States, the report concludes, comes from terrorist groups operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Based on these threats, the United States cannot afford to withdraw or remain disengaged from key parts of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia,” said Seth Jones, author of the study and associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But this research indicates that the struggle is far from over.”

For the RAND study, Jones examined thousands of unclassified and declassified primary source documents, including public statements and internal memorandums of al Qaeda and other Salafi-jihadist leaders. The study also includes a database of information such as the number of Salafi-jihadist groups, their approximate size and their activity — attacks, fatalities and other casualties. […]

Now, one of the interesting things is that this article highlights YEMEN as a major source of Islamic terrorism.  Any sane, rational, leader would focus the war effort on such a country.  But let’s say that instead of being a sane, rational leader, our leader is indwelt by so many demons that it would dwarfs the number of demons in the demoniac named “Legion, for we are many” whom Jesus confronted in the Gospels?

Such a pathologically demon-indwelt leader would do this:

“This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort … using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground,” said Obama. “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Yes, our demoniac-in-chief actually cited YEMEN as his success model!!!  You simply cannot get more insane or more wicked than that.  This goes even beyond Neville Chamberlain praising Hitler for “peace in our time.”  You don’t GET this stupid or this wicked unless there are so many demons screaming inside your brain that you wouldn’t be able to know truth if it smacked you right in the mouth.

We just had a massive Islamic terrorist attack in France which directly targeted democracy and freedom of speech.  Set aside the fact that Barack Obama refuses to say we’re in any kind of “war,” or that our enemies are in any way motivated by the Islam which clearly motivates them.  Just consider the sub-headline which screams in your face at the top of page A4 in the print version of the Los Angeles Times:

Al Qaeda Thrives in Yemen chaos.  Those are the words in giant bold face printed on January 15.  Contrast those words with the demon-possessed moral idiocy of our Fool-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

So what did Obama do after the massive terrorist attack in France was discovered to have been planned and funded by al Qaeda in Yemen?

He released five more deadly terrorists from Guantanamo Bay who had come from, yes, YEMEN.  Obama literally rewarded al Qaeda in Yemen for it’s brilliant and daring attack against freedom in France.

So what did Obama do?  In spite of all rationality and all decency, Obama falsely claimed that he had “decimated” al Qaeda even AFTER they murdered our ambassador in an outrageous attack in Benghazi, Libya.  In that attack, Obama sent out his administration stooges such as Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton but also himself claimed that it was NOT a terrorist attack but rather free speech (and PLEASE see here) that was our problem (the Youtube lie that everyone now knows beyond any shred of a doubt was nothing but a pure political cover-up that ought to have got Obama impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors).

And even AFTER the Benghazi attack, Obama went on to claim the demise of al Qaeda at least THIRTY-TWO times while doing NOTHING to stop the spread of the terrorist groups he falsely and dishonestly claimed he had defeated.

I have painstakingly documented how Obama is ENTIRELY responsible for the rise of the gigantic Islamic Caliphate across Iraq and Syria that Osama bin Laden dreamed of and Obama made a reality.

Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat

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

Obama’s Disinformation, Deception, Deceit Led To Disarray And Defeat In Iraq. And It Will Happen In Afghanistan As History Repeats.

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

Obama’s ‘300’ In Iraq: It Won’t Be Like Thermopylae Because We Aint Sparta And Obama Definitely Aint Leonidas

The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East

Obama Presidency ‘Bogus And Wrong’ As He Dishonestly Claims It’s Not His Fault He Abandoned Iraq After Bush Secured Victory There

I document the following: that the Obama administration declared victory in the Iraq War (as won by George W. Bush).  That Barack Obama planned from the very beginning unilaterally withdraw US forces from Iraq and abandon Iraq to its fate while promising a new dawn in “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self reliant.”  After his Vice President had boasted of the Iraq victory (that Bush won), “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  Yes, Obama planned to abandon Iraq from the VERY BEGINNING of his presidency and even when he was a CANDIDATE for president, the facts prove.  Obama’s cut-and-run from Iraq had NOTHING to do with any “status of forces” nonsense; it had to do with the nonsense in his demon-possessed ideology.  Yes, the generals predicted DISASTER for Obama’s demonic and foolish Iraq withdrawal that led to the terrorists retaking IN SPADES everything our troops had fought and died to win.

When Obama declared his “red line” policy with Syria – only to have Obama cower and back down from his threat while Syria REPEATEDLY used chemical weapons to kill their own people – Obama assured the forces of evil that he was a spineless punk who wouldn’t have the courage or the balls to stand up to them and fight unless he could do so remotely with a drone; they were assured that Obama would NEVER seriously commit Americans to fight evil as that evil metastasized into a fatal cancer given his own party’s rabid refusal to do so.

And look what’s happened as a result.

Let’s look at the explosion in terrorism in 2012 from 2011 under our leader of the free world, Barack Hussein Obama:

Terrorist attacks and deaths hit record high, report shows
By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog co-editor
October 28th, 2013
03:56 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.

More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers.

Six of the seven most deadly groups are affiliated with al Qaeda, according to START, and most of the violence was committed in Muslim-majority countries.

The previous record for attacks was set in 2011 with more than 5,000 incidents; for fatalities the previous high was 2007 with more than 12,800 deaths. […]

Note: the PREVIOUS record had been set under Barack Hussein Obama in 2011.  We’re exploding from the explosion.

Now let’s consider the explosion in 2014 from 2013.

Also, in this article I want to highlight two salient facts: 1) the shocking rise of actual terrorist attacks and 2) the direct correlation between the Nazism that the left has always insanely blamed on Christianity and the political right – when “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” glorified giant, totalitarian government and never had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with either Christianity Or the right – and the Islamic jihadists that the left ardently protects by refusing to allow the West to do what is needed and FIGHT these cockroaches (to wit, who is protecting the Nazis of today?  Leftist/socialist governments, Barack Obama and the American Democrat Party, that’s who):

Anti-Semitic Attacks Skyrocket in Europe
September 12, 2014 Rachel Molschky

Pro-Palestinian "protesters" in Paris hover around a swastika. (Photo credit: Etienne Laurent/European Pressphoto Agency)

Anti-Semitic attacks have increased by 400% in the UK and have doubled in France. Attacks in Europe overall have increased by 436%, and 383% in the world. People are becoming more brazen since the leftwing atmosphere and liberal groups, together with the growing Muslim community in the West, have joined forces to promote anti-Israel propaganda, a politically correct version of anti-Semitism.

People have reverted back to using Jews as a scapegoat, blaming their own problems on Jews, something which has always existed but that once again has the stamp of approval via certain political groups which focus on the victimization of the aggressors and on increasing their voting pool with virtually uncontrolled immigration. This has led to a jump in the Muslim population in the West, and Muslims have brought over the anti-Semitism that is preached in their mosques, on their TVs and in their schools.

It is important to note that a recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey found that 70% of anti-Semites have never met a Jew.

Arutz Sheva reports:

A total of 529 anti-Semitic actions or threats were registered up to the end of July, against 276 for the same period last year, the Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) said, citing figures gleaned from the French Interior Ministry.

The acts included violence against individuals, arson and vandalism, and “exacerbate the growing unease that oppresses Jews in France each day and overshadows their future”, CRIF said in a statement.

Yet more worrying, the group added, is the appearance of new forms of violence against Jews – including attacks by organized gangs and the targeting of synagogues, as well as acts of vandalism against Jewish businesses and planned terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Community Security Trust (CST) anti-Semitism watchdog group reports 302 anti-Semitic incidents in July alone, making a whopping 400% increase over the same month last year.

Read on

A third thing would be the insane hatred of Jews that Satan has ALWAYS had for Jews and which the Bible prophesied would happen in the last days in both the Old and New Testament of God’s Word.  And again, the direct correlation between the hatred of God’s people and Satan and the left which shelters and protects the terrorists and the religion that inspires and motivates these terrorists in every way imaginable.

Here’s another demonstration of shocking, massive increases of terrorism under and because of Barack Hussein Obama’s massively failed “leadership” over the free world:

Terrorist-related deaths up 60%: vast majority related to Islamic terrorists
The amount of people killed by terrorists is up according to a new report:
November 18, 2014
COGwriter

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks jumped more than 60 percent from 2012 to 2013, due largely to unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria, a new report found.

Report on Rise in Terrorism - 2012 - 2013.
Report on Rise in Terrorism – 2012 – 2013.

Deaths due to terrorism rose from 11,133 in 2012 to 17,958 in 2013, according to the Global Terrorism Index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a think tank based in Australia.  […]

Here’s another thing: it is BEYOND SCANDALOUS how Barak Hussein Obama has lied about the explosion of Islamic terrorism under HIS presidency, just as it is equally scandalous how dishonestly the mainstream media has refused to cover that explosion or identify the shocking increases that have happened as a direct result of Obama’s incredibly foolish and weak and frankly wicked policies to a) refuse to even acknowledge that we are in a “war,” b) to refuse to identify our enemy so we can actually fight that enemy – as Islamist, and c) to gut our military, gut our intelligence and gut our ability to either defend ourselves or project force and influence around the globe in this out-of-control WAR THAT WE ARE RAPIDLY LOSING.

Terrorism has metastasized under Obama.  It is exploding out of control.  The number of terrorist organizations is exploding; the number of individual terrorists joining those organizations is exploding; the funding and well-organizational structure of those organizations is exploding; the ability of these organizations to recruit and train replacements is exploding; and the lone wolf attacks are exploding in murderous fury.  These are all simple facts.

And we are like stupid, helpless sheep, or worse yet, like ostriches who bury their heads in the sand because of leftist propaganda and because of the lies coming out of our wicked White House.

I think today of Liam Neesam – who insanely and hypocritically is making appearances to market his new incredibly violent propaganda piece that directly glorified gun violence – coming out and demonizing the gun culture that his movies further massively inspire!!!  That is the level and degree of abject personal hypocrisy and dishonesty coming out of the political and cultural and media left today.

Liberals are such astonishingly massive hypocrites there is simply no question that they are clearly and truly demon-possessed and incapable of seeing reality.  I see liberals flying around in private jets lecturing us on our carbon footprints while themselves leaving such giant jackboot prints themselves it’s a freaking joke.  I see liberals condemning conservatives for wanting to build a wall on the southern border to protect what’s left of their country while these same liberals build giant walls around every-damn-thing they own.  I see liberals praising public schools who would NEVER put their spoiled little punk children in the very schools that they insist “little people” should be forced to put their kids in.  And so yeah, I see liberals surrounded by armed professional security demonizing those same little people for thinking that their lives matter enough to buy a gun to protect themselves, their families and their property.

These are professional liars who take pretending to be other people to ridiculous extremes as they pump out propaganda film after propaganda film and then claim they have zero responsibility for their own work or their own behavior.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels envied Hollywood for their incredible ability to produce first-rate propaganda movies during World War II:

Hitler was obsessive about films; he aimed to watch one a night.

He and Goebbels were also quick to recognise the persuasive power of film, and would regularly cast envious eyes over the propaganda output of their enemies

And see also here.  The United States has ALWAYS had the world’s greatest potential to deceive its own people.  And liberal culture has put their propaganda machine into high overdrive in movies and in newspapers and in every other venue there is.  And more Americans believe more lies today than we have ever seen in our nation’s history.

You know, there isn’t an American who was old enough at the time to know anything who can’t remember the footage of George H.W. Bush saying, “Read my lips, no new taxes” and knowing the backstory that he raised taxes after saying that.  Because the mainstream media endlessly ran and re-ran that footage to discredit him.  There isn’t anyone who doesn’t remember the footage of George W. Bush on that aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished.”  Because the mainstream media endlessly ran and re-ran that footage to discredit him.  Just like they ran and re-ran Bush saying, “Heck of a job, Brownie” during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to discredit him.  I’m simply stating as a categorical fact that had the mainstream media done to Obama anything like they did to either Bush, Obama would have been forcibly removed from office because even his own party would not have been able to not support his impeachment.

But today this nation is swamped under a deep, raging ocean of lies and propaganda and demon-possessed distortion of the truth.

So we have Obama on TV today with the British Prime Minister blathering on like the snake he is as if his policies are in any way, shape or form working when they are clearly NOT working.

And what is the cause of all this disaster according to our FOOL-in-Chief?  Gitmo is still open and that is inspiring the terrorists to fight us and somehow if we just closed it down and apologized for our values and made it a crime to insult the Prophet they wouldn’t realize our weakness and attack us; no, they would stop fighting and shake our hands.

Obama said something that ought to terrify you.  Realize that there are more than a billion Muslims, and that experts estimate that 10-15% of them are radicalized and believe in violent jihad.  Realize that we are dealing with – in terms of sheer demographic numbers – something on the order of 300 million potential terrorists.  Realize that means that we have a potential of MILLION terrorists even as we have not only well-organized, well-funded, well-trained terrorist groups attacking us but thousands and thousands and potentially millions and millions of lone wolves murdering as many innocents as they can in the name of Allah and his “Prophet.”  And realize that Obama has been claiming regarding the war against Islamic terrorism that Obama won’t call a war and won’t call Islamic terrorism that, “I do not consider this an existential threat… this is one that we will solve.”

OH MY GOD!  YES THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT.   We faced an existential threat during the Cold War where we realized that the communists dwarfed us in numbers and military might.  And we built our arsenal to first catch up to them and ultimately to have the capacity to defeat them while Democrats screamed about it and demanded we do the exact opposite and try to appease our merciless foes.  Thank God for Ronald Reagan!  Thank GOD that Reagan pursued the strategy that John F. Kennedy tried to pursue and create a healthy economy through low taxes such that we could literally turn what would have become a shooting war into a spending war and we were able to outspend our communist threat and cause it to economically implode.  Kennedy and Reagan were Cold Warriors and their policies prevailed.

Now we have a fool who is pursuing the exact OPPOSITE of a strategy to win a war on terror.  First of all, he won’t even acknowledge it IS a war.  Second of all, he won’t recognize the nature of our enemy or the threat that they present to our culture and our way of life.  Third he won’t allow us to build our arsenal and our military to defend against that threat.  And so now what we have in the not-very-longer-free world is a tragic situation in which we are losing a war due to a “growing gap between the increasingly challenging threat and the decreasing availability of capabilities to address it.”  Because we have truly gutted our military capability under Obama as he has falsely claimed that we defeated terrorism and contained any threat even as that threat was obviously exploding all around us.

During the Cold War, we did NOT have Russians or Chinese or North Korean communists coming here and murdering our citizens in group and lone wolf attacks.  Which makes this war different and more deadly.  During the Cold War, we did NOT face a menace that believed that total war would please their god.  We actually have such a menace now.  And the population of our enemy is exploding while our leftist leaders and our leftist culture has encouraged us to murder more than sixty million of our own children.  We are losing the war on the front of demographics even as we lose the war in terms of our secular=humanist inspired unwillingness to fight to defend ourselves verses their religious motivation to fight to destroy us.

Arguably, the only existential threat facing America that is more deadly to this nation than the threat of Islamic terrorism is our president and commander-in-chief who has prevented us from fighting and who has actually aided and abetted our terrorist enemy in undermining and ultimately defeating us.

Why Does Obama Blame Bush For HIS Economy (After FOUR YEARS Of Failure) When Obama Takes Credit For Every Good Bush Achievement?

August 31, 2012

OSAMA BIN LADEN RAID

Obama takes the credit for getting bin Laden.  Was it Obama who rebuilt  the national security apparatus following 9/11 to reshape it from the Cold War emphasis that had characterized it for the previous sixty years?  Was it Obama who first announced the mission to get bin Laden dead or alive?  Was it Obama who used water boarding to secure the key intelligence breakthroughs that bin Laden was relying on couriers for his communication (rather than phones, computers, etc.) and that he was living in the city of Abbottabad which allowed intelligence to zero in on him?

The key intelligence breakthrough occurred when US intelligence discovered two key facts: 1) that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan; and 2) that bin Laden was relying on a courier who could then be identified and tracked to bin Laden’s specific location in that city.  Both of these key facts were discovered under the Bush presidency by means of waterboarding:

Liberals outrageously lie when they talk about how waterboarding was used.  CIA professionals did NOT ask a terrorist a question and then waterboard him until he gave them whatever answer they wanted.  Rather, they used this incredibly painful – but completely medically safe under supervision – procedure of simulated drowning to “alter the perception” of the terrorist.  The terrorist was confronted with his new reality in a cold, painful way: “We own your ass; we can do whatever the hell we want to you; and we will ultimately break you down.  Get used to the idea that you WILL tell us what we want to know.”  The point of waterboarding was to break their will to resist, not to torture immediate answers out of them but rather to inexorably bring them to the point where they would ultimately crack.  The fact of the matter was that the CIA experts didn’t even bother to ASK terrorists any questions while they waterboarded the three terrorists who ended up singing like canaries.  But it is a simple FACT that waterboarding was the essential background component that led to the breaking of these hard, hateful men: because the terrorists we waterboarded were the very same terrorists who told us about Abbottabad and the courier.

Democrats talk about “torture.”  I say if we catch a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we waterboard him until he grows gills and then we take the water away so he’ll flop around like a dying fish.  And repeat it over and over again until the same man who tried to destroy us becomes the very man who tells us how to destroy his hateful organization.

I recently watched a 2 hour documentary about the 2006 terrorist attempt to use passenger jets as bombs titled “Stopping the Second 9/11” on the National Geographic Channel.  The thing that most struck me was the fact that British intelligence recorded the terrorists talking to each other on phones.  The terrorists planned to bring their own wives and their own BABIES on the flights that they planned to destroy in order to reduce the likelihood that they would tip off law enforcement by boarding the planes as “family men.”  That ought to scream about the determination of these men to kill and destroy.  You simply are not going to get men like this to open up with courtesy and niceness.  Islamic terrorists by their culture, their religion, and their brutal nature as mass murdering killers respect only superior force, not peaceful overtures, which they see as a sign of weakness. Anyone who thinks you can “nice” a terrorist into betraying his worldview, his ideology, literally his religion, and his movement is simply a naive fool.

The question then becomes this: Why would anybody but a radical leftist ideologue give Obama credit for the intelligence breakthroughs that led to killing bin Laden when Obama was the very guy who most viciously demonized the very procedures that led to those breakthroughs?

There is a fascinating analogy that comes out of the talk about the moon landing that happened as a result of the discussion about the passing of Neil Armstrong (who by the way went on the record criticizing Obama before his death).  The anology begins with this: We give John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon:

Nixon gets ZERO credit even though he was the president sitting in the White House when the Apollo 11 mission landed on the moon.  You will not read an article written by a liberal giving Nixon any credit for landing a man on the moon and bringing that man safely back to earth.  Why?  Kennedy had been DEAD for six years prior to that moon landing.  Why isn’t Nixon “the president who put a man on the moon”?  Because it was JFKs vision and the fulfillment of that vision just as getting bin Laden was the fulfillment of George W. Bush’s vision:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

But again, that meme about the first man on the moon merely reinforces the pathology of the left to take full credit for every good thing and avoid any blame whatsoever for any bad thing.  The media gives John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon because JFK was a Democrat; the media gives George W. Bush ZERO credit for getting Osama bin Laden because GWB was a Republican.  It’s really that simple.

Was Obama’s decision to send the SEALs into Pakistan to kill bin Laden really that amazing?  Let me ask you this: what would have happened to Obama’s political fortunes if he had refused to kill bin Laden and a bunch of pissed off CIA and military professionals leaked Obama’s abject refusal to kill the world’s worst terrorist monster?  How many people think Obama could have been reelected as “the man who refused to kill bin Laden”???

Bottom damn line: if Obama had tried to kill bin Laden and failed, he would have been criticized for that failure.  And to insulate himself from that possibility, he set up Admiral McRaven as the fall guy by giving McRaven responsibility.  It was ultimately McRaven who made the “courageous call,” not Obama.  That said, if Obama had refused to even try to kill bin Laden, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE POLITICALLY.  Does anybody seriously think for one second that the men who had devoted YEARS to getting bin Laden would have just rolled over if Obama had refused to issue the order to get him?  In fact, I will bet you that Republicans would have brought up and article of impeachment due to Obama’s refusal to protect the citizens of the United States, and Democrats would have voted for it.  Because otherwise, this election would have been the worst disaster in the history of politics for the Democrat Party as the weakling coward treasonous bin Laden Party.

So spare me about Obama’s “incredibly courageous decision” to kill bin Laden as George W. Bush had promised the world that the United States would do.  Spare me the idiotic rhetoric that if George W. Bush had still been president he never would have had the guts to kill bin Laden.  Just spare me all your blathering idiocy, liberal.

IRAQ WAR

Let’s talk about the Iraq War.  Let’s talk about the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.  Do you know which president won that war?  Do you know which president negotiated that withdrawal of American troops?  I do.  In answer to both questions, the name is George W. Bush.

But who claims credit for the success of Iraq?  Listen to Vice President Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration:

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

Two words come to mind: they are “evil” and “hypocrite.”  Obama demonized the Iraq War again and again while Bush was trying to fight and win there.  Obama demonized the incredibly successful surge strategy that allowed us to break the back of the insurgency.  But now that same Obama claims credit for what he opposed.

AFGHANISTAN WAR

That same Obama dragged America FAR deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan than anybody could ever dream blame on Bush.  Because Obama and the Democrat Party didn’t want to appear weak on national security.  So they created a contrast between Iraq (which Bush won) as the “bad war” and Afghanistan (which Obama massively expanded) as the “good war.”

You wait and see: when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’s going to frame it as his courageously getting us out of the last of “Bush’s wars.” When Obama massively expanded America’s involvement in Afghanistan and very obviously used Afghanistan as a political device to give Obama a cover from charges that he was a cut and run coward:

As I pointed out before, Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq. In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.” It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

There’s more about how the Democrats – including Democrat voters – did a “cut and run” on their “good war” here.

The thing is that Obama’s “good war” aint going so good.  The thing is that if you examine the casualties of Obama’s “good war” since Obama took it over, Obama is responsible for more than 70 percent of the casualties for the entire war (i.e., compare Obama’s 1,477 casualties in less than four years to Bush’s 630 casualties over eight years of fighting.

Bush limited the Afghanistan War.  Obama radically expanded it.  And now the man who radically expanded the Afghanistan War is trying to A) walk away from the mess that HE created and 2) blame the mess that HE created on Bush just as he’s blamed ALL his failures on Bush.

We are NOT winning in Afghanistan.  We are not GOING to win in Afghanistan – particularly after Obama declared a “timetable for withdrawal” that told the enemy all they have to do is hang on until we crawl out with our tails between our legs and the country will be theirs.  There IS no winning in that hellhole.  As I have pointed out in the past echoing other conservatives, Afghanistan was a terrible place for the U.S. military to fight and be able to exploit our overwhelming air and ground power whereas the flat plains of Iraq was a GREAT place for America to fight and win.

I’ve said that before (just to show you I’m not boasting with 20/20 hindsight):

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.

Afghanistan is also the place where Obama ignored and overruled his generals.  He was the one who declared that we needed to have a huge surge there (after demonizing Bush’s successful surge in Iraq, fwiw); and then he was the one who refused to listen to his own generals’ recommendations when they said we’d need at least 40,000 troops to do it right – and then after endless indecision finally decided to basically give them too many not to lose but not nearly enough to ever win.

Afghanistan is as much Obama’s war as Iraq was “Bush’s war.”  The difference was that Bush owned his war and accepted responsibility for how it went and how it was fought and Obama will NEVER own ANY of his massive failures.  So as I said above, when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’ll deceitfully depict it as getting America out of the last of “Bush’s wars.”  Because that’s the kind of slandering liar that weasel is.

I was wrong about one thing in my past predictions: I thought that Obama would crawl out of Afghanistan before the election in November and make the immediately above claim.  But I submit at this point that Obama can’t do that: because Afghanistan is frankly going so badly with new cases of Afghan soldiers fragging their American partners practically every day that to cut and run NOW would only serve to draw attention to just how catastrophically Obama has truly failed over there.

IRAN

Obama is the president who was mocked by Hillary Clinton for his naive stupidity in assuming he could talk Iran out of its rogue regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons status.  He is the same naive fool today that he was when Hillarly Clinton mocked him.

And Iran has doubled its centrifuges and made it all but impossible for observers to monitor Iran’s nuclear program while Obama has dithered.

Just as Iran has successfully propped up the Syrian dictatorship while Obama has done nothing.

And I have documented that when craziest nation in world history Iran gets its nukes – which it will – you can COMPLETELY lay the blame for the Armageddon that will surely ensue on Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Not that Obama will accept responsibility for his failure of leadership.

OIL

Barack Obama has also been constantly taking complete credit for being the president who has produced more oil than any other president.  Is that true?  No.  The reason that we are producing virtually ANY domestic oil at all right now is because of the Bush administration’s granting the leases that have produced so much American oil

“According to EIA’s short-term 2011 outlook, released last week, oil production was significantly higher in 2009 than in the years prior. Obama may have been in office for most of that year, but the oil production numbers are due to action taken before he became president. In 2010, most if not all of the production increase recorded is likely due to action that predates Obama, since Obama didn’t take any major action expanding offshore drilling his first year in office.”

But the Obama administration has taken action since then, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out on Wednesday. “Over the past two years, the Obama administration has delayed, revoked, suspended, or canceled an enormous range of development opportunities. One month after the President took office, his administration cancelled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah — once the review was complete the administration refused to reinstate a single one. . . . Last January, it announced new restrictions for onshore oil and gas exploration in the Mountain West. Last February, it denied a permit to build a bridge needed to access an oil producing field in Alaska, after the Environmental Protection Agency designated a nearby river an aquatic resource of national importance. Last April, the Administration suspended 61 oil and gas leases in Montana that were issued in 2008 — then announced that all oil and gas leases in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota would be delayed indefinitely. Last May, the President announced a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling — a moratorium that’s been repeatedly struck down in the courts.”

Bush was the president who signed the leases that Obama is taking credit for.  Obama is the president who has shut down oil production.  And yet Obama is the president who is taking credit for Bush’s success even as he refuses to stand behind his failure.  Something to consider as we face the highest gasoline prices in the history of the republic on this Memorial Day.

HEALTH CARE

ObamaCare was an unpopular fiasco the entire time Obama and Democrats were forcing it down the throats of the American people.  Obama demagogued health care costs – which were actually going DOWN before his ObamaCare boondoggle placed another one-sixth of the economy under government bureaucratic control – to pass his socialist takeover of the health care system.

Health care will be more expensive thanks to Obama and his socialism.  We’re talking $1.76 trillion more than Obama promised.  In fact, it’s already three times as expensive as Obama said it would be and we aint seen nothin’ yet.  That is a fact.

College students are seeing their health care costs skyrocket or be completely removed altogether as insurance companies decide they don’t want to pay for all the “free stuff” that ObamaCare forces them to pay for.

ObamaCare disingenuously imposes all the burden on the doctors and insurers while claiming to give all kinds of benefits.  Which is why 74% of doctors say they will quit, retire early, or see fewer patients if ObamaCare standsObamaCare shennanigans, higher costs and fewer doctors mean that you will have LESS chance of actually seeing a doctor under this incredibly failed program.

Obama also swore up one side and down the other that he would NEVER raise taxes on the middle class.  And yet ObamaCare is a massive tax hike on ordinary people.  Because 75% of the 21 new tax hikes will fall on the middle class.

And where’s Obama to accept responsibility for his failed program???

ECONOMY

Question: Which president left his successor with a bubble collapse that vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portolio?  Answer: William Jefferson Clinton.  But we don’t tend to remember the terrible Dotcom bubble recession that Bill Clinton left for George Bush to inherit because of three reasons: 1) the sheer unmitigated bias of the mainstream media; 2) the disasterous 9/11 attack (that can likewise be laid almost entirely at Clinton’s feet as he gutted the military and intelligence community and left America both weak and blind such that Osama bin Laden declared America to be a “paper tiger” and began to plot his devastating attack); and 3) because unlike Barack Obama, George Bush wasn’t a pitiful whiner and accepted responsibility for the economy.

The fact of the matter is that George Bush began his presidency with a huge double whammy.  Not that the media will ever assign responsibility for it to Clinton the way they were determined to assign responsibility to Bush.  Because there is a longstanding propaganda meme according to which the mainstream media will NEVER blame a Democrat for a failure and will ALWAYS find a way to blame a Republican.

Barack Obama has demonized Bush for the “Great Recession,” literally refuses to cite statistics that consider the first year of his presidency to create the rhetorical statistical illusion that his presidency has been better than it actally was, demonized Republicans for “obstructionism“, and taken credit for his “recovery”.  The truth is that none of these things is true.

Let’s take the “Great Recession” first.  Obama has demonized Republicans over and over again for “lack of regulation” and “failed policies” causing that recession.  Bullcrap.  The single entity that resulted in this collapse was Government Sponsored Enterprise Fannie Mae and its twin Freddie Mac.  I’ve documented that fact over and over again on this blog:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/08/03/who-really-exploded-your-economy-liberals-or-conservatives/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/democrats-set-up-america-for-2008-collapse-and-barack-obama-became-their-king/

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/12/31/with-eyes-finally-wide-open-reconsider-why-the-economy-collapsed-in-the-first-place/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/democrat-lies-about-their-key-role-in-2008-economic-collapse-reaches-laughable-proportions/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/07/08/biden-we-misread-the-economy-and-its-all-the-republicans-fault/

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/video-proof-democrat-party-warned-responsible-for-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-economic-crisis-repost/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

And since Democrats took over and issued regulations up the yin yang and then up the whazoo of aforementioned yin yang, we’ve continued to have clear examples of the very things Democrats demonized Republicans over.  And Obama is setting up America and the world for an ultimate $600 trillion collapse that will make the one in 2008 look like a warm, sunny day compared to Armageddon.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed FIRST before ANY private sector entity to initiate the collapse – just as conservative economists had predicted a full decade before the collapse occurred:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

And in fact the private sector entities such as Lehman Brothers that collapsed did so because they suddenly found themselves holding BILLIONS of dollars in sub-prime mortgage backed securities that had been issued by the GSEs that the Democrats created and ran into the ground and protected – and refused to allow Republicans to regulate (Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to its collapse and was stopped by Democrats every single time).  In fact Bush was trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie all the way back to 2003 when we still had time to prevent the coming collapse.  Democrats used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force the market to sell homes to people who couldn’t afford those homes; and when the bubble burst and Lehman Bros. and others found themselves holding “toxic assets” that they had purchased from Fannie and Freddie, they couldn’t cover their Democrat-caused losses and collapsed.

Nixon was president during the moon landing, but Democrats and liberals have never and will never give him credit because they wanted to give one of their own credit for the success.  Bush was president during the 2008 collapse, and that was all liberals needed to say to blame him for the entire fiasco regardless of how many Democrat shennanigans had gone into that collapse.

And here we are, nearly four years later, and all of Obama’s promises based on his anti-Bush demagoguery to: 1) not increase the debt ceiling; to 2) cut the deficit in half during his first term; to 3) cut the debt after demonizing Bush for his debt.  Obama imposed the most massive one-time spending binge in the history of planet earth and promised that unemployment would be 5.5% by now.  Instead not only has unemployment been over 8% longer than ANY time in history since the Great Depression, but in fact unemployment has actually been worse than had Obama’s own experts said it would be had we NOT wasted and pissed away $862 billion that we can never get back.

Obamanomics has been one catastrophic failure after another.  Here we are, with median household income under Obama nearly TWICE as bad than they were during the Great Recession – whether you want to blame Bush for that recession or not.  Here we are, with more poor people devastated by Obama’s economy than at any time in history.  And that didn’t happen under Bush’s watch, you liberal liars.  Somehow, it wasn’t Bush who put more people into poverty than ever before; it wasn’t Bush who devastated median household incomes as people move in with parents and relatives because the economy has failed them; it has been Obama.  It was OBAMA who made one out of every six Americans poor.

And Obama’s stimulus cost Americans an incredible and frankly insane $278,000 per job.  We can’t afford any more damn Obama jobs!!!

Obama is a liar and his “success” is based on lies – as you will see for yourself if you just try to match his rhetoric to painful American reality under his presidency:

But it’s Bush’s fault that Obama did it.  Because no president in history has ever abrogated his responsibilities or refused to claim responsibility for his failure to live up to his responsibilities than has Obama.

Obama has been the president for the last four years, people, not Bush.

I began talking about the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong.  The only “man on the moon” now – thanks to Obama’s policies – is none other than Barack Obama: because this disgraced leader will surely assume no responsibility for anything that happens on the earth that lies so far below his lofty but meaningless rhetoric.

It’s past time to hold him responsible and fire his ass.

Remember How Liberals Said Every Aggressive Move Against Terrorists Was ‘A Provocation’? Why Is It A Good Thing Now?

May 3, 2011

I remember how Obama and the rest of the left decried every agressive move President George W. Bush made as being a provocation that would only result in more violence and make the new wave of terrorism being waged against America even worse.

The war on terror was a provocation.  The Iraq War was a provocation.  The terrorist prison facility at Guantanamo Bay was a provocation.  The surge strategy was a provocation.  And “provoking” the terrorists was the worst possible way to react, we were constantly told.

On the surge strategy that won the Iraq War, Obama had said:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Sending more troops to win the fight will increase the violence.  And that is a bad, bad thing. 

On the Iraq War as provocation (and therefore a bad thing), a critique of Obama’s apology in his Cairo Speech says it all:

On “violent extremism” Obama clung to the meme of “Afghanistan War good/Iraq War bad.” Obama said, “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

This does not make sense. Iraq was not a “war of choice.” Saddam Hussein, for a variety of reasons (not just on WMDs, which everyone believed Hussein had and which he was certainly pursuing) had made himself intolerable. And Saddam was certainly not responding to diplomacy; that was the main reason the coalition forces marched.

Obama also made his first cringing apology. “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.” Well, no we did not. That is a flat out lie and a pander not only to liberal opponents of the war on terror but to the Muslim extremists Obama says he abhors.

It doesn’t matter that because of the very surge strategy that Obama personally demonized that Obama’s vice president was able to actually say the following about the Iraq War that Obama also demonized:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”

I would point out that George Bush won his “war of choice” that “provoked strong differences.”  And Obama – even after eventually abandoning his own demqgoguery on the “surge” to implement a surge of his own in Afghanistan, and even after using Bush’s own general which the left demonized to implement that surge – is floundering badly in “the good war” of Afghanistan.  Which is why Afghanistan sure won’t be “one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”

George Bush “stupidly’ chose to fight a war against a tyrant in a terrain that the United States could actually win.  The vastly more brilliant Obama chose to put all his marbles in an Afghanistan that has been the graveyard of empires for a thousand years.  Afghanistan also happens to feature a terrain that almost entirely nullifies our vast tactical and strategic advantages.  But that’s what you do when you think you’re too damn smart for your own good, I guess.

On Guantanamo Bay as a provocation, Obama said:

Guantanamo is probably the No. 1 recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations,” Obama said. “And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they’re delivering.”

It didn’t matter that Guantanamo Bay was absolutely necessary, no matter how much it provoked people who were determined to be provoked.  That is just a fact, and facts don’t matter to demagogues.  It’s just an “inconvenient truth” that Gitmo is still open, and WILL REMAIN OPEN as long as Obama is president.

Then there was that nasty rhetorical phrase “war on terror” that was clearly too provocative, so Obama rebranded it as an “overseas contingency operation.”

The one thing that couldn’t be more clear: don’t you dare provoke these people.  It’s bad to provoke.  The mainstream media would crawl all over you if you dared to provoke.

So I’m left sitting here wondering how provocation suddenly went from a bad thing to a good thing just because the guy doing all the provoking was a Democrat.

Obama’s Middle East policies have resulted in dramatically escalated increases in violence throughout the Arab world.  Which would have been terrible if Bush had had anything to do with it, but which is okay because a liberal did it.  So the mainstream media has refused to harangue Obama on that unintended consequence of his budding Utopia.

In Libya, you’ve got a lot more of this “untended consequence” regarding Obama’s nearlty forgotten little third war he started in Libya:

TRIPOLI, Libya – Libyans shouting for revenge buried Moammar Gadhafi’s second youngest son to the thundering sound of anti-aircraft fire Monday, as South Africa warned that the NATO bombing that killed him would only bring more violence.

Libya’s leader did not attend the tumultuous funeral of 29-year-old Seif al-Arab, but older brothers Seif al-Islam and Mohammed paid their respects, thronged by a crowd of several thousand. Jostling to get closer to the coffin, draped with a green Libyan flag, mourners flashed victory signs and chanted “Revenge, revenge for you, Libya.”

Three of Gadhafi’s grandchildren, an infant and two toddlers, also died in Saturday’s attack, which NATO says targeted one of the regime’s command and control centers. Gadhafi and his wife were in the compound at the time, but escaped unharmed, Libyan officials said, accusing the alliance of trying to assassinate the Libyan leader.

NATO officials have denied they are hunting Gadhafi to break the battlefield stalemate between Gadhafi’s troops and rebels trying for the past 10 weeks to depose him. Rebels largely control eastern Libya, while Gadhafi has clung to much of the west, including the capital, Tripoli.

But of course NATO is denying that we’re hunting Gadafi in violation of United Nations policies against targeting political leaders.  After all, we’ve even denied we’re at war at all, preferring the nicer-sounding euphamism of “kinetic military action.”  “War” sounds so mean, and hardly something a brilliant liberal would do, after all.  The far more erudite liberals launch wave after wave of “kinetic military actions” instead.  And no matter how many of Gaddafi’s compounds somehow accidentally get targeted and blown up, that’s clearly all it is.

Now we’ve got Obama (almost as though Obama were himself one of the machine-gun toting SEALs) killing Osama bin Laden.  That clearly won’t provoke anybody.

America’s relationship with Pakistan was already at an all-time low due to Obama incessantly flying Predators over their country and launching rocket attacks on them.  But so what?  Provocation is a good thing now, because Obama is doing it instead of George Bush.  And if you’re brilliant, you don’t have to kowtow to such trivialities as consistency.

And so what if Obama ordered American troops to launch a military attack on Pakistani soil without bothering to even inform the Pakistanis?  No harm, no foul.  So what if we violated their sovereignty?  Obama is the leader of the world, and the sooner the world recognized that he is an imperial president, the better.  If you don’t like Obama pursuing “cowboy” tactics, or engaging in “you’re either with us or you’re against us” policies, well, you’re just not very enlightened.  Because it’s not fascist unless Republicans do it.

And al Qaeda, whom the left was so worried about provoking when George Bush was the guy doing the provoking?  They’ll get over it.  So we can ignore the little threat they just made less than a week ago about unleashing a “nuclear hellstorm” upon America if we killed or captured Osama bin Laden.

You think of Gitmo, the surge strategy, rendition, domestic eavesdropping, the Patriot Act, indefinite detentions, military tribunals and a host of other things Obama demonized George Bush and Dick Cheney over, and not only are they doing the same things, but they’re doing even worse.  But the same mainstream media that tore into George Bush like pitbulls going after raw bloody meat don’t seem to have time to dwell on Obama’s blatant hypocrisies.

Nor does Bush get any credit for having been right when Obama and the Democrats were so completely wrong by their own massive reversals to the Bush policies now.

We are watching a level of propaganda and fundamental hypocrisy overtake the United States of America by both the media and the White House that ought to simply stun you.

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

April 25, 2011

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Got Oil? Pictures, Images and Photos

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word “Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist WorkersBecause that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].

[…]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[…]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[…]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[…]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and “collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year – more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And – disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home – the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

August 23, 2010

Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office?  Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?

Me too, and me neither, respectively.

I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:

In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.

America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.

Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?

I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.

Here was my response:

First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth.  I can see why you lefties love it so much.

What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.

Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.

Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

And at least Bush had the decency to actually WIN his war. Barack Obama demonized the Iraq War and demonized the surge strategy that enabled us to win it. And Obama made Afghanistan “his war” in order to maintain the facade that he really wasn’t a weakling on foreign policy.  Bush did so well in Iraq that the Obama administration actually tried to take credit for the victory. And now we’re “floundering in Afghanistan” under Obama’s failed leadership.

That Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country thing? False, you demagogue. It was a made-up “fact” that was reported as truth. And the ONLY documented “source” behind it has been revealed to be a hoax.

Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.

Youtube:

Quote:

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid.  Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.

For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country.  How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?

Youtube:

Quote:

“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”

Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.

And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.

Here’s Obama without his teleprompter for one minute:

Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.

So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?

You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.

You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.

I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”

Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.

The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Bush left office. But Obama is not responsible for the fact that it’s near 10% now and by most expert accounts will rise higher after he pissed away $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) in his boondoggle “stimulus”???

Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?

And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down?  Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?

Jobless claims rise to highest level in 9 months
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.

It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.

Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.

Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???

We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.

Here’s one example from August 21, 2010 in the LA Times:

With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]

Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.

So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.

Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane.  The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth.   In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.

Here’s another one from the August 21 2010 Associated Press report:

In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.

What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.

Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.

How about trade deficit figures? From November 19 2009 Reuters:

WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.

Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.

How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:

US foreclosures up 4%; top 300000 for 17th month on the trot
by Jaspreet Virk – August 12, 2010

Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.

As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.

Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.

Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.

Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:

NEW YORK (Reuters)Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].

Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.

We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.

Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.

Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:

WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

There’s “hope and change” for you.  A failed president with failed policies.

As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:

Instant View: Existing home sales plunge to 15-year low
Tue Aug 24, 10:28 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.

Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July.  And, again, omigosh.  We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president.  We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.

How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!

From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP.  Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.

Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:

More Americans are on food stamps now under Barack Obama’s failed presidency than at any time in history. And that certainly includes George Bush’s presidency.

But now Obama and the Democrats are going to raid the Food Stamp program to pay for their pet liberal projects. Because “Let them eat cake.”

How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:

Banks are failing at double the rate of last year.  During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40.  It is already 83 for this year.

For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008.  That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009.  And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.

But you can’t hold Barack Obama responsible for the fact that things are far, far, FAR worse under his presidency than they ever were under Bush’s. The ONLY reason you’ve got to “blame Bush” is that the 2008 economic meltdown happened under Bush’s presidency. You don’t even offer an actual reason or state an actual policy reason for the failure; you just blame Bush because he was there.  You don’t consider the fact that things were great until Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 and royally screwed up the country (the unemployment rate before Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was 4.6%).  Nope. Bush was president in 2008, so it was all his fault. Even though he warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands, and even though Democrats were in lockstep refusal to deal with the landmine that caused us to implode in the first place.  But you are way too much of a twisted unhinged ideologue to apply the same argument to Obama now. What happened while Bush was president was Bush’s fault; and what happened while Zero was president is still Bush’s fault.

Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.

Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”

When Republicans were last in control prior to 2007, we had full unemployment with an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

So, yeah.  I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control.  And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?

As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:

A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.

We weren’t the ones who said “This is the moment when when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” either.

We weren’t the ones who said, “You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”  So don’t blame us for Obama not living up to the ridiculous expectations he and his liberal minions fed to the culture.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is such a miserable, total failure that I see that even you can’t admit you voted for him.

White House Implosion Approaching

March 8, 2010

We’re seeing growing sings that all is most certainly not well in the Camelot Part Deux that liberals wanted to recreate in the Obama White House.  Obama himself is cracking under the stress, smoking too much and drinking too much.  I think we’d all like it if the man who had the responsibility of imposing his will on an Iran determined to develop nuclear ICBMs had at least enough willpower to impose his will on the next pack of cigarettes.  Meanwhile, Obama’s Chicago-thug “fearsome foursome” who form his paranoid inner circle are taking all kinds of heat – and showing signs of meltdown from all the gear-clashing.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel – Mr. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” himself – has been under fire from liberals who want to blame him for the near-total failure Obama’s first year has been.  But Emanuel has some allies in the press as well, who have come out to make a strong defense (mayhap with Rahm’s help?) at the direct expense of Obama.  I mean, the mainstream media is blaming the failure of the Obama administration on Emanuel’s lack of discipline and management skills, while other parts of the mainstream media argue that Rahm Emanuel is the only thing preventing Obama from ending up worse than Jimmy Carter.  I mean, you know there are a lot of hurt feelings and dead bodies in closets at the White House with this stuff going on.

And now we see the glue is coming off the veneer of David Axelrod, too.

March 6, 2010
Obama Message Maven Finds Fingers Pointing at Him
By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON — David Axelrod was sitting at his desk on a recent afternoon — tie crooked, eyes droopy and looking more burdened than usual. He had just been watching some genius on MSNBC insist that he and President Obama’s other top aides were failing miserably and should be replaced.

Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,” he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.

Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House. Recent news reports have cast the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the administration’s chief pragmatist, and Mr. Axelrod, by implication, as something of a swooning loyalist. A “Moonie,” dismissed Mr. Axelrod’s close friend, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. Or as the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, joked, “the guy who walks in front of the president with rose petals.”

Still, it is a charge that infuriates Mr. Axelrod, the president’s closest aide, longest-serving adviser and political alter ego. “I guess I have been castigated for believing too deeply in the president,” he said, lapsing into the sarcasm he tends to deploy when playing defense.

No one has taken the perceived failings of the administration more personally or shown the strain as plainly as Mr. Axelrod, who as White House senior adviser oversees every aspect of how Mr. Obama is presented. As such, Mr. Axelrod, the president’s mustachioed message maven, has felt the brunt of criticism over what many view as the administration’s failure to clearly define and disseminate Mr. Obama’s agenda and accomplishments for the country.

“The Obama White House has lost the narrative in the way that the Obama campaign never did,” said James Morone, a political scientist at Brown University. “They essentially took the president’s great strength as a messenger and failed to use it smartly.”

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?”

That question has dogged Mr. Axelrod in recent months and has preoccupied Mr. Obama’s inner circle, fueling speculation that the vaunted “No Drama Obama” team might be fracturing. Not surprisingly, the White House has no patience with the notion.

“You guys want to fit people into boxes and categories that are just not accurate,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Mr. Axelrod would not discuss what counsel he offered to Mr. Obama, though he denies any “fissure with my buddy Rahm” and any charge that he is too infatuated with the president to recognize the political risks of his ambitious agenda.

“Believe me, if we were charting this administration as a political exercise, the first thing we would have done would not have been a massive recovery act, stabilizing the banks and helping to keep the auto companies from collapsing,” he said. “Those would not even be the first hundred things he would want to do.”

But Mr. Axelrod argued that the president, confronted with “breathtaking challenges,” did not have the luxury of moving more slowly or methodically.

In a lengthy interview in his office on Wednesday, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” He denounced the “rampant lack of responsibility” of people in Washington who refuse to solve problems, and cited the difficulty of trying to communicate through what he calls “the dirty filter” of a city suffused with the “every day is Election Day sort of mentality.”

When asked how he would assess his performance, Mr. Axelrod shrugged. “I’m not going to judge myself on that score,” he said. But then he shot back: “Have I succeeded in reversing a 30-year trend of skepticism and cynicism about government? I confess that I have not. Maybe next year.”

The criticism of the administration’s communication strategy — leveled by impatient Democrats, gleeful Republicans, bloggers and cable chatterers — clearly stings Mr. Axelrod, as well as the circle of family, friends and fans he has acquired over three decades in politics as a consultant and, before that, a reporter for The Chicago Tribune.

“Every time I hear that the White House is getting the message wrong, it breaks my heart,” said Mr. Axelrod’s sister, Joan, an educational therapist in Boston. “I know he agonizes.”

Ms. Axelrod says that while her brother is devoted to Mr. Obama, he is not a sycophant. She paused when asked whether he admired the president too much. “He is very, very loyal, sometimes to a fault,” she said.

Added Mr. Gibbs: “The list of people who have to deliver bad news to the president is very small, and David is first on that list. I’m probably second.”

Mr. Axelrod’s friends worry about the toll of his job — citing his diet (cold-cut-enriched), his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign), sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night), separation from family (most back home in Chicago) and the fact that at 55, he is considerably older than many of the wunderkind workaholics of the West Wing. He wakes at 6 in his rented condominium just blocks from the White House and typically returns around 11.

Unlike other presidential alter egos, Mr. Axelrod is not viewed as a surrogate “brain” (like Karl Rove), a suspicious outsider (like Dick Morris in the Clinton White House) or a co-president (James Baker in the first Bush White House). Sometimes portrayed as a bare-knuckled Chicago operative, he is also a bantering walrus of a man in mustard-stained sleeves who describes himself as a “kibbitzer,” not a “policy guy.”

Sitting at his desk next door to the Oval Office last week, he was tearing into a five-inch corned beef sandwich on rye with a Flintstone-size turkey drumstick waiting on deck. “I am the poster child for the president’s obesity program,” he said.

A few minutes later, Mr. Obama walked in unannounced, scattering two aides like startled pigeons. “Hey,” Mr. Axelrod said by way of greeting (no “sir” or “Mr. President.”) Mr. Obama surveyed the spread on Mr. Axelrod’s desk with a slight smirk.

“What is this, King Arthur’s court?” he asked, then pulled Mr. Axelrod aside to talk about a health care speech he was about to deliver.

Mr. Axelrod is often at the president’s side; he sits in on policy and national security meetings and is routinely the last person he talks to before making a decision. He directs every aspect of the administration’s external presentation, overseeing polls, focus groups and speeches and appearing on the Sunday shows. Mr. Emanuel describes Mr. Axelrod as “an integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.”

White House officials describe Mr. Axelrod’s focus as big themes rather than day-to-day sound bites. There has been no shortage of Democrats willing to second-guess his messaging approach.

“They made a big mistake right out of the box with the Inaugural Address,” said former Senator Bob Kerrey, adding that a president pledging bipartisanship should not have disparaged the previous administration in his speech, as many listeners believed Mr. Obama did.

Read the rest at the New York Times.

Of course, they are continuing to make the same mistake of blaming Bush over and over and over again on a daily basis over a year later.

And that does go to the core of the Obama failure: the inability to match his rhetoric with reality, or even his rhetoric with his own rhetoric.

The man who pledged bipartisanship and a transcendent ability to reach across the divide and bring the country together has blamed and demonized the Bush administration and the Republican Party every single time he “reached.”

The man who promised transparency, who promised repeatedly to open up the entire “bipartisan” health care negotiations on C-SPAN, has not never even bothered to try to do so (and dang I wish I could have seen the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, and various other acts of illegal political patronage being negotiated), but has routinely had closed door meetings which were not open to the press, the public, or certainly the Republicans.  Meanwhile, the Democrats have been so byzantine, so secretive, so wheeling-dealing, that even senior Democrats have had to acknowledge they were completely in the dark as to what in the sam hill was going on.

And of course now we have the same Obama who basically said that reconciliation was a totalitarian act of “simply majoritarian absolute power” that was both unconstitutional and as partisan and evil as Karl Rove is, now saying that it’s okay as long as he’s doing it “to maintain his strong presidency.”

That’s just health care.  You can take almost any other issue and find the same thing with Obama.  Foreign policy?  Take Renditions.  Take Eavesdropping programs.  Take the Patriot Act.  Take  Gitmo.  Take the surge strategy.  Take the Iraq War.  Take the  Iranian nuclear threat.  And now, take military tribunals.  In every single one of these cases Obama personally demonized the Bush position, and then did the same thing himself without ever once having the integrity to say that George Bush had been right and he had been wrong.  Energy policy?  Obama so completely abandoned his own stated energy policy promises that a senior Democrat was forced to say that Obama “is beginning not to be believable to me.”

I have to say I feel sorry for the messengers who are being hounded for not being able to get the White House message out: it’s full of lies and deceit; how do you make all the Obama lies look good without telling a whole bunch of other lies?

Then you’ve got the fact that a whole bunch of Democrats across the spectrum are just furious with the Obama administration for massively expensive policies that didn’t work and for sheer flagrant incompetence.

How do you make a turd look good?

The one word that most accurately frames this piece is, “Wah.”  The people who most successfully demagogued mainstream media narratives when it came to George Bush and Republicans are the biggest bunch of thin-skinned whining crybabies I’ve ever seen.  Someone else is ALWAYS to blame with these people.

And when they demonize Republicans for their criticisms when the Obama team has done nothing BUT demonize Bush and Republicans, it is beyond disgusting and even beyond despicable.

What couldn’t be more obvious about Obama’s inner circle – political rather than policy experts all – is that all they can do well is campaign.  So they constantly campaign in campaign mode, and then cry the moment anybody suggests they’re doing anything because of “politics.”  I mean, think about it: the same man who lambasts the press for their “every day is Election Day sort of mentality,” is the guy who is closer than anyone to Obama – and  who spends all his time as the “integrator of the three P’s” — press, policy and politics — “and how they make a whole.

I mean, how DARE you people accurately describe us as what we are, and consider policies from the same uber-political perspective that WE consider them.  HOW DARE YOU!

The Obama inner circle lives in a bunker and embraces a “bunker-view mentality” to the world.  In contradiction to their statements to the contrary, they are hyper-hyper sensitive to any skepticism at all.  And their growing problem is that the nastiest skepticism of all isn’t coming from “the right” or from Fox News, but from their very own left and from media that should be in their pockets.

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before it happens, but this president and this inner White House circle are heading for a meltdown of epic proportions.

Military Tribunals: Bush Was Evil! Bush Was Unconstitutional! Uh, Bush Was Right

March 5, 2010

When I was a kid, we had a tough little dachshund.  Then we got a poodle who was as arrogant as you’d expect a poodle to be.  The poodle constantly attacked the dachshund, even though time after time the dachshund would have the poodle on her back with her teeth around the poodle’s throat in about 2 seconds every time they got into it.

That’s sort of like Obama and Bush.  With Obama being the poodle, and Bush (despite the fact that he doesn’t bother to defend his policies in the media) being the dachshund.

Renditions? Obama got his butt kicked.  Eavesdropping programs? Obama got his butt kicked.  Patriot Act? Obama got his butt kicked.  Gitmo? Obama got his butt kicked.  Surge strategy? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iraq War? Obama got his butt kicked.  Iranian nuclear threat? Obama got his butt kicked.  That sort of thing.

You stupid, arrogant poodle, Obama.  You’d be completely ashamed of yourself if you weren’t such an arrogant narcissist.

Again and again, on issue after issue, Obama demagogued and demonized Bush policies on the campaign trail.  But when it came time to put up or shut up, and actually DO something, Obama’s “poodle policies” ended up on their back with Bush policy fangs around their throat.

And now we see it yet again.  Military Tribunals?  Another Obama butt kicking:

Obama advisers set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters

By Anne E. Kornblut and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2010

President Obama‘s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

The president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

You just thought you were so above it all, weren’t you, Poodle-in-Chief?  Bush’s policies were terrible in every way except in virtue of the fact that they actually worked, while all yours are now revealed to be so totally full of crap you dropped them.

In other developments, the guy we are forced to rely upon to impose his will on an Iran determined to create a nuclear ICBM stockpile doesn’t even have the nerves to impose his will on a pack of cigarettes.

This is why we shouldn’t have wanted a poodle for our president.

Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

October 12, 2008

There is a direct relationship between American liberals and Islamic fascism.  At first glance, someone might say, “This can’t possibly be.  Islamic extremists commit all these acts of violence in the name of Islam, and liberals profess peace and secularism.  How can the one have any relationship with the other?”  Read on.

It’s one thing to realize who has most most aggressively opposed the war on terror, where even the term “terrorist” – along with “war on terror” itself – gets purged in a politically correct manner to be replaced by the more neutral term “insurgents.”  In the words of one New York Times writer:

The war over words and definitions is not a new one. The current administration has fought to maintain custody of the Iraqi conflict by defining insurgents as “terrorists” and prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” During Vietnam, the administration defined civilian casualties as “collateral damage.”

What Democrats and liberals have done to oppose the “war on terror” is largely a matter of history.  They opposed the Patriot Act; they opposed the monitoring of calls to the United States from identified terrorists; they opposed the ability of the United States to detain combatants fighting against United States troops; they tried to force time tables that would have resulted in the United States withdrawing in defeat; they literally proclaimed – in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – that the United States had lost. They voted for the war before they voted against it.  In large part, they have claimed that it has been American imperialism, rather than growing Islamic fascism, which caused the upsurge of violence.  In short, the view is that they are attacking us because we are killing them.  We’re the bad guys.  We’re the force for evil in the world.

The following audio quote comes from Democrat Parker Griffith via Redstate.com:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its imperialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

It’s hard to fight and win any kind of conflict when half the country questions whether the war should even be fought in the first place and believes that we are the bad guys.

Hence we have Michael Moore – a hugely popular liberal filmmaker (though I prefer the more accurate label of “propagandist”) saying:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

The people Bush and his “neocons” (whatever that means) calls “terrorist murderers” who are killing American soldiers with land mines liberals like Michael Moore and many others compare to our Minutemen who won American freedom in the Revolutionary War.

For this reason alone, there is a direct relationship between the Islamic fascists and American liberals: they both agree that we shouldn’t be fighting them, and that the United States is the greater evil.

But the relationship is actually much deeper than that.  The liberal’s opposition  to the war on terror, and their de facto support for the “insurgents,” is a result of a common belief system directly linking American liberals to Islamic fascists.

One writer put it this way:

Through a Marxist lens, the world is divided into rich and poor, owner and worker, exploiter and exploited. Therefore, if a person or a nation is poor, it is always due to the oppression of the richer person or the richer nation. This simplistic view of the world is the main reason for leftist support of Palestinian terrorism… Israel is perceived to be Western and rich, while the Arabs are perceived to be poor and downtrodden; therefore the Arabs are right. Never mind that the Palestinian Arab Muslims treat women like property, use intimidation and violence against religious minorities, openly call for the rule of Sharia religious law, severely persecute gays, and generally conduct themselves in a way that liberals would find abhorrent if it were being done in their backyard. The Palestinians are poor, therefore they are justified in anything they do, including murder of “Zionist” children.

Those nasty elements that routinely characterize Islam in so much of the world are conveniently ignored in the name of “multiculturalism,” “pluralism,” and “global harmony.”  And since traditional Christianity is the real boogeyman of secular humanist liberalism, anything that is hostile to the Christian world view is regarded positively.  Bush is the real terrorist; al Qaeda and the Taliban are “insurgents,” “freedom fighters,” or even “Minutemen”-type heroes.  The forces of global jihadism are depicted as forces that we can negotiate with if only Bush were out of the picture.

Liberals, who routinely demonize the rich as evil in a clearly Marxist-inspired version of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, use almost the exact same language and the same arguments to attack their “neocon” opposition as the Islamic fascists use to justify their violence.  It makes it hard to disagree with their arguments and justifications when you are essentially using the identical arguments yourself.

The only real difference, then, is the use of violence as a political tool.  And it is a fact that liberal groups – such as the Weathermen, and such as one William Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and killed policemen –  have employed precisely the same sort of violence as the “insurgents” – a.k.a. the Islamic fascists – have used.  Liberals who employed violence as a political weapon went too far; but liberals who refuse to make the distinction between force and violence and embrace the weakness and non-action catastrophically championed by Neville Chamberlain go too far as well.

As Robert Heinlein once put it, the sad fact of reality is that:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

It is vital that we realize that the refusal to fight evil is itself evil.

Democrats initially supported the war on terror and the Iraq War.  But they turned against the war the moment that it was in their cynical political interests to do so.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared American defeat; Barack Obama still refuses to support the surge strategy even when it is clear that the surge was the only path to victory.

Many liberals and Democrats claim that the war on terror has only strengthened the terrorists.  That claim is tantamount to the argument that Hitler would have preferred a Winston Churchill to a Neville Chamberlain.  It is both contemptible and irrational.  But that is where we are.

And the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the violent terrorist actions of such a man as to refuse to serve on a board with him – a board that carried out Ayer’s radical educational vision (which is frankly nearly as radical as was his violent political vision) – ought to be more than troubling itself.  Similarly he likewise isn’t so troubled with the vile actions of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea that he isn’t willing to boos their international profile by directly negotiating with them as President.

There is also a direct relationship between Barack Obama and pro-Muslim sources.  Barack Obama doesn’t actively embrace their support because of the political liabilities, but Muslims clearly believe that a Barack Obama presidency will be a pro-Muslim presidency.  Further, millions of dollars have poured into the Obama campaign from overseas – and been laundered by breaking it into less-than-$200 increments to avoid detection – and there is no question that a great deal of that money is coming from Islamic sources.  This, also, ought to be extremely troubling.

But most troubling of all should be the nuclear weapon-bound Iran.  Iran is clearly determined to puruse a full-fledge nuclear capability, and in spite of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine how he could possibly be willing to take his pledge of preventing the regime from developing such weapons to the point of forceful confrontation (which is clearly the only way that Iran will blink).  Obama couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a bill that labeled Iran as a terrorist organization, and in fact publicly opposed it as “excessively provocative.”  Given his grounds for opposing the Iraq War, how can he possibly support an Iran War?  We won’t be ever be certain that Iran has developed the bomb until we see the first mushroom cloud.

The only way we will be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to state categorically that we will go to war with them if they continue in their present course.  Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 only because we had invaded Iraq and they thought they would be next.  They began it again when they saw the U.S. effort bog down both militarily and politically.  They began it again when they saw Democrats treacherously turn against a war they had once supported the moment it was in their political advantage to do so.

If Barack Obama believes he will be able to inspire Europe to unite with America in a war against Iran, he is naive to the point of criminality.  Most of Europe depends on Russian and Iranian oil, and Russia and Iran are key allies.  And the fact of the matter is that Russia is using its UN veto to block any United Nations measure condemning Iran.  If the United States acts, it will basically be on its own – again.

The financial crisis and the massive bailout package will also force the next President to make very tough spending decisions.  John McCain promised to build the military and freeze other spending programs; Barack Obama could not identify one of his huge social spending initiatives he would actually cut.  We will not be able to confront Iran without building our military to make it even stronger than it is today.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that they are likewise working on, they will be immune from any direct attack.  A regime that has called the United States “the Great Satan” and Israel “a rotting corpse” will literally be able to mount 9/11 style terrorist attacks (or should I say “insurgent” like the mainstream media?) with impunity.  It will be able to launch direct or indirect attacks against Israel with impunity unless we are willing to risk a nuclear war that could easily become global.  A nuclear-armed Iran is a looming reality too terrifying to fully contemplate – but contemplate it we must.

Another reason that terrorists regimes would want to see a Barack Obama Presidency is because he has stated that he would reduce the size, sophistication, and power of our military at the very time that we need it the most.

Mark my words: if Barack Obama is elected President, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons during his administration.  Obama supports the philosophy that links American liberalism with the justifications of Islamic fascists.  He has spoken of American soldiers as “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  His opposition to the war in Iraq – which was based on the identical rationale that any war against Iran would have to be based upon – virtually precludes direct military confrontation.  And his belief that he will be able to persuade Western nations to join a “Gulf War”-style coalition (which his running mate Joe Biden still refused to support) is simply naive beyond belief.

A vote for Obama will become a de facto vote for a nuclear Iran.  Muslim extremists may want that, but Americans certainly shouldn’t.

Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Stay In Race To Be Good Democrat

May 10, 2008

Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination?

Should she put her own self-interests aside, put her party first, and yield to Barack Obama?

Well, let me ask a parallel question: should Democrats have put aside their own partisan interests aside, put their country first, and stopped undermining the war in Iraq and making false charges about the economy?

The phrase, “chickens coming home to roost” seems to be a popular one these days, so let me allude to it here: the Democratic Party has been selfishly seeking power against the best interests of their country for the past four years, and it is frankly their just desserts that a Democratic candidate should not come to personify total political self-centeredness.

There is no question that Barack Obama must be given the Democratic nomination. It has nothing to do with his wins or with his votes; but everything to do with the fact that his most ardent supporters are the worst kind of people, who would come unglued and destroy the Democratic Party if they don’t get their way. Hillary Clinton’s supporters – the working class, Catholics, and senior citizens – are more likely to roll up their sleeves and support the other candidate.

It is frankly amazing to me that “the candidate of hope and change” is presiding over such a bitter partisan contest without anyone pointing out the massive contradiction, and that his voters are the type of people who have literally threatened riots in Denver if they don’t get their way. It goes to show what a cynical – and completely phony – campaign platform the whole “hope and change” thing is.

But let me get back to the Democrat’s selfish undermining of the best interests of the country they claim to love above all else. I challenge Democrats to tell me when Republicans so bitterly denounced a Democratic President at war, with their troops on the ground. Vietnam? No. Korea? No. World War II? No. World War I? Again, no. You’ve got to go back to the Civil War when the pro-slavery Democratic Party was so upset over a President going to war. We have presented a divided front to the encouragement and emboldening of our enemies. I can’t even begin to imagine what would have happen if the Republican Party had tried to undermine the war effort while FDR was fighting Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.

The United States had a vote on the Iraq War resolution. And it passed by a substantial majority in both branches of Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). In the Senate, 29 Democrats supported the resolution, with only 21 voting against it. The Iraq War resolution actually passed by a wider margin in both branches than the Gulf War resolution in 1990.  There is a long record of Democrats acknowledging and affirming the key elements of the Bush White House’ position on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  Yet, incredibly, Democrats began to turn against the war and use it as a “wedge issue” the moment they began to sense that it was beginning to become unpopular.

It didn’t matter that CIA director George Tenet (whom Democratic President Bill Clinton had appointed) – speaking for the overall military and civilian intelligence community – said that the consensus view was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t matter than every major intelligence service in the world held the same view. It didn’t matter that the United Nations was inherently incompetent, or that countries such as France and Russia – opposing every meaningful resolution to enforce insepctions in the UN – had been bought by Saddam Hussein with funds and powers granted by the corrupt oil for food program. None of that mattered. Democrats began to literally undermine their president and routinely call him a liar and a war criminal.

Keep in mind that the first priority of enemy psychological warfare program is to undermine the credibility and character of the enemy’s leader. We attempted to do that with Saddam Hussein before we invaded in Gulf War I. We attempted to do that with Slobodon Milosivitch before we attacked Bosnia under President Clinton. The Democrats tried to do that with President George Bush after we attacked Iraq. Whose side were Democrats on? They were on their side. It is a matter of fact that they were NOT on the American’s side.

When Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said, “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything,” on 20 April 2007, the story was picked up by al Jazeera and eagerly devoured by our emboldened enemies. In spite of Harry Reid and his Party, history has proven that the surge has been a very successful strategy for the United States. It is a despicable shame that he attempted to undermine it without even giving it a chance to work.

Representative James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip (and the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives) summed it up pretty well when he said that success in Iraq would be bad for Democrats. That’s an incredible statement, which communicated to the whole world that the Democratic Party was so invested in defeat in Iraq as a political strategy to undermine Republicans that good news in Iraq amounted to bad news for Democrats.

The same is true of the liberal media, of course, as is demonstrated in a Harvard study and reported under the headline, “Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks .” Not that these people care. They would rather see the country in ruins than under the governance of a Republicans.

But we have liberal media reporters like CNN’s Bob Franken saying, “But many experts say that designating this a civil war will undermine U.S. support even more, which might explain why so many Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon.” I can’t help but get stuck on that “undermine U.S.” part.

I will always wonder what would have happened had the United States presented a united face. Would our historic allies begun to come around to our side? Would our enemies have been as emboldened and confident that the United States could be defeated? Would the critics of America have felt as justified in demonizing America had so-called “Americans” not said all the same things that they were saying?

Do Democrats want a good economy? Not right now, they don’t. They want a BAD economy so they can use it as an issue in the upcoming elections.

Apart from the fact that they economy didn’t actually start struggling until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Congress – which controls the purse strings – we have extremely negative and downright deceitful comments coming from Democrats to insure the economy remains in the doldrums. The fact of the matter is the economy has not been in recession, and recent economic indicators are pointing that the economy may very well be improving.

Fox News offered a little dose of reality in its story when it revealed the unrelenting bias in the media. “Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.” According to the report:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession…

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”

The report was based on the findings of University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, Jr.

It is perfectly appropriate for the party not in power to claim that they have a better solution for the economy. Frankly, such a debate is good for the country. But what is profoundly wrong is to demonize an economy in order to artificially bring down consumer confidence and create a perception of pessimism rather than a perception of confidence. Nothing is more important for the success of a national economy than perception!

The same Democrats who made it illegal for Americans to drill for domestic oil or build refineries now demonize Republicans for the energy crisis. The same politicians who wouldn’t let us drill in the Atlantic, wouldn’t let us drill in the Gulf of Mexico, wouldn’t let us drill in the Pacific, wouldn’t let us drill in Alaska now claim the energy crisis is Bush’s fault! Democrats told us 10 years ago that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it wouldn’t do us any good for 10 years. Now, 10 years later, they’re STILL saying that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it won’t do us any good for 10 years.

Had we fully developed our own massive domestic energy resources, we could have long-since freed ourselves from having to involve ourselves in what Democrats love to call “war for oil.” Were Democrats to walk or ride their bikes everywhere they went, this position would be slightly less hypocritical. As it is, their refusal to allow for any sensible American energy policy guarantees that we will be fighting in the Middle East for years to come.

Hillary Clinton is the quitessential Democrat – she only cares about her own power, and she is perfectly willing to pander, demagogue, or lie to advance her agenda. Let everything else be damned.

The completely anti-democratic tendency of the Democratic Party – brought to life in the super delegate rule – means that neither candidate can win the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination on their own. One way or another, the nomination will be decided in some “smoke filled room.”

So you go, girl. Keep on running. Show us what Democrats are really like.