Posts Tagged ‘negotiate’

The Sheer Hypocritical, Cynical VILENESS Of The Democrat Party On Display In The Government Shutdown

October 3, 2013

As we speak, the polls show that people blame Republicans more than Democrats for “shutting down the government.”

The people believe a lie: Republicans are shutting down OBAMACARE; it is the DEMOCRATS who are shutting down EVERY OTHER PART OF GOVERNMENT.  As I will document below.

But first let me talk a little about “the people” and “the polls.”

Founding Father John Adams put it thus:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I have long given up on the American people as a good or decent people.  We have crossed the moral Rubicon and we are going down.  That is why we are following the world – and particularly socialist nations/regions such as Europe has been – rather than following our Constitution.  And we are going to pay for our national wickedness.  The Bible doesn’t mention the United States in the last days because America will either have become so diminished it no longer matters, or because it will soon outright collapse as a viable nation.

That’s why the polls are pretty much irrelevant to me these days.  Bad people believe lies and want bad things and vote for bad things and bad people ultimately perish because of all the bad things that they have surrounded themselves with.  That’s why we can point to all the cultures and nations that have risen to glory and perished ignominiously throughout history  as their people “fundamentally transformed” into BAD people.  Today we have a media that is so propagandist and so ideologically biased that it is beyond unreal who outright lie to the American people, and we have an American people who are becoming – if they have not already become – a bad people who prefer lies to the truth.

So if the polls say that people blame Republicans more than Democrats or Obama for the government shutdown, I couldn’t care less.  Because these are the same sort of people who were once screaming, “Give us Barabbas!” (Luke 23:18), and “Crucify Him!” (Luke 23:20) when Jesus was offered to them by a feckless Pontius Pilate and his big government who were desperate to appease the days’ “Occupy” mob.

I couldn’t care less about the opinion of such people.  And while it may shock me as much today that the people have become so toxic just as it would have shocked me in Jesus’ day that the people had become so toxic, I care about TRUTH and the FACTS.

So let’s consider the facts as to how the Democrats are conducting themselves.

First, let’s consider Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who demonized Republicans as killing children with cancer because the NIH was going to have to shutdown services.  But then the TRUTH comes out that Republicans were only too-willing to fund the NIH BUT THAT IT IS HARRY REID WHO IS KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO HE CAN ACCUSE REPUBLICANS OF KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn’t try to help “one child who has cancer” by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: “Why would we want to do that?”

Consider this exchange between Harry Reid and CNN correspondent  Dana Bash:

“If you can help one child, why won’t you do it?” asked CNN reporter Dana Bash.

“Why, why, why would we want to do that?” countered Reid.

“I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home,” because of government employee furloughs, he told Bash and a roomful of other journalists. “They have – they have a few problems of their own.”

“This is – to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you’re as irresponsible and reckless.”

The CNN correspondent had challenged Senate Democrats’ earlier lament that clinical trials for pediatric cancer therapies were among government services cut off Monday at midnight. The two houses of Congress, run by opposite parties, were unable to agree on the terms of a continuing resolution to fund the government in its new fiscal year.

“You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials,” she began. “The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?”

House Republicans have pressed forward with a collection of six legislative proposals to independently fund specific portions of the federal government through the length of the shutdown.

Why are 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base siting at home?  Republicans have offered to fund the Air Force.  The fact of the matter is, those 1100 people are sitting at home because Democrats refuse to ALLOW them to go back to work.  Just so they can demonize the Republicans for keeping them sitting at home.

But of course that’s not anywhere near the worst of Harry Reid’s dishonesty: Democrats are so vile that they accuse Republicans of killing children when DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO THEY CAN SLANDER AND DEMONIZE THE GOP.  And when one correspondent had the guts to challenge the Democrats about their lies, well, they treated her like she was some hybrid between Fox News and the GOP (more on Democrats’ unhinged demonic slandering of their opponents later).

Democrats are terrible, wicked, evil, demon-possessed human beings.  And those are facts.

In the same way, Republicans are perfectly willing to fund things like the World War II monument.  And do you know that such monuments have NEVER BEFORE been targets in ANY of the previous seventeen government shutdowns before?  Take for example the Lincoln Monument; it has NEVER been shut down before because we’ve never had a “president” so cynical and so demonic that he would be so deliberately vindictive.  But that’s what we have now.  That’s because Democrats have never been so willing to sink so low in their effort to hurt as many people as possible just so they could blame Republicans for the damage that DEMOCRATS are causing.

Don’t believe me?  Believe the Washington Times:

The Park Service appears to be closing  streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist  destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’  Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national  memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the  lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park  Service ranger in Washington says  of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we  can. It’s disgusting.”

Yeah.  Democrats are DISGUSTING.  Because it is Obama and Democrats who ordered those park rangers to close down everything they possibly could and make life as difficult as they could for as many Americans as they could.  Just to bring the shutdown home as much as they could so they could demonize Republicans as much as they could.

Obama and Democrats are putting up “Barrycades” to stick it to as many Americans as they possibly can.  And even though Republicans have voted to fund all this stuff it’s supposed to be all their fault because not supporting ObamaCare and taking the mark of Obama on your right hand or forehead is somehow numerically equivalent with wanting ALL of government shut down like the Democrats are doing.

Republicans are saying something that is morally obvious to any decent person: if we can’t reach any compromise (because Democrats refuse to negotiate) on what we can’t agree upon, THEN WHY DON’T WE AT LEAST AGREE ON WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON AND FUND THOSE THINGS???  But Democrats say that Republicans are “terrorists” and “jihadists” because they’re “holding ObamaCare hostage” WHEN DEMOCRAT JIHADIST TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING EVERY POPULAR PIECE OF GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE unless they get their beloved ObamaCare without ANY change or ANY delay (let’s not mention that Obama has himself abrogated the law and the Constitution by delaying a full THIRD of ObamaCare out of cynical political calculations).

WWII veterans – who frankly may die before they have another chance to see their monument – broke down the barricades that Obama put up to stop them.

And so Republicans voted to fund “spending for veterans, the District of Columbia and the Park Service.”

The RNC said it would pay for half of the WWII memorial to remain open out of their own budget if the Democrats National Committee would pay half.  Democrats basically said, “We are the Party of exploiting OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.  We won’t use our OWN money to help the veterans of the greatest generation of Americans.”

Democrats and their media propagandist tools despicably accused Republicans of “grandstanding” and “politicizing” because Republicans tried to do something THAT ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET WOULD AGREE IS A GOOD THING TO DO.

WHO is trying to fund the WWII memorial and the rest of the National Park Service???  Republicans.  WHO is refusing to fund those things???  The same Democrats who are demonizing Republicans for what DEMOCRATS are actually doing.

But it actually gets worse.

Democrats are accusing Republicans of being “economic terrorists.”  But let’s take a look at our “Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF”:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.

Obama said he was “exasperated” by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.

The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money’s ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.

But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.

Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

During the first day of the government shutdown, the market actually went UP.  What was good for America wasn’t good for Obama, who as a fascist needs to fearmonger a crisis, though.  Obama needs financial chaos and calamity for his plan to create suffering so he can blame his enemies for it.

So Obama deliberately roils the markets and of course they are plunging after Obama’s fearmongering.

So now he can blame Republicans for the financial disaster that HE wants to create so he can blame Republicans.

But – and this is frankly incredible – the sheer Democrat VILENESS actually gets even WORSE.

Again, Obama and his DEMOnic bureauCRATS want to foment and fearmonger a crisis so they can blame Republicans for the crisis they created.  So Obama sends out his chief intelligence stooge who fomented a national intelligence crisis:

Did anyone take the nation’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) seriously when he told Congress this week that the government shutdown will put the country in danger, cause “insidious” damage and risk spy missions?

What about the part where he said financial stress—presumably created by not getting paid—could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bought off by foreign spies? It’s almost comical though it sounds really dramatic and quite distressing. Could it be true or was James Clapper putting on a show for lawmakers this week?

“The risk is 75 percent more than it was yesterday,” Clapper told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The danger here… will accumulate over time. The damage will be insidious so each day that goes by, the jeopardy increases.” This is due to all that valuable intelligence that’s being lost because there are fewer workers to track targets, according to a news report of the hearing. Before anyone loses any sleep, the DNI chief assured that he’s keeping enough employees on the payroll to guard against “imminent threats to life or property.”

Then he upped the ante by insinuating that financial stress could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bribed by enemy governments. “This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence service to recruit, particularly as our employees already, many of whom subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, are going to have, I believe, even greater financial challenges,” Clapper said.

Look, if we’ve got a national intelligence crisis, PLEASE ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO FUND OUR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES!!!  But no way.  Democrats and Obama hope there’s a terrorist attack so they can blame Republicans for it EVEN THOUGH THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE ON THE HOUSE BILL TO FUND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OR PRETTY MUCH ANY OF THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

That is about as evil as it gets.  Democrats remind me of the Arab states following the 1948 war in which Israel miraculously successfully fought for its right to exist.  Thousands of Palestinian refugees were created, but the Arab states refused to take them into their own countries or take care of them in any way.  No, because they wanted to be able to point a finger of blame at Israel and say, “Look at what Israel did to these poor people!”  And of course that is still the situation to this very day.  Israel has brought in Jews from all over the world while Arab states won’t even allow Arabs in from next door just so they can blame Israel for the plight of the poor Palestinian refugees.

The Democrat Party is the party of genuine evil in America today.  It is the Party of Romans chapter one and the wrath of God that follows.  It is the party of sodomy worship and baby murder.  And it is the party of lies and deceit.

Obama has been all-too willing to negotiate and compromise with America’s worst enemies and with the terrorists who would joyfully murder us all.  He’s been willing to negotiate and be “more flexible” with the Russians (and see here) who have been America’s chief enemy for the last sixty freaking years.  He’s been willing to negotiate with and compromise with the Syrians after they murdered over a hundred thousand of their own people and repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction.  He’s now willing to be the first president since the failed Jimmy Carter years to negotiate with and compromise with the Iranians who seek to get nuclear missiles and launch Armageddon.

But he won’t BUDGE and WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH OR COMPROMISE WITH anyone who loves America.

So he announces repeatedly that HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE with Republicans even as he accuses them of not being willing to compromise and blames them for everything under the sun.  Democrats of course used to blame George Bush for everything under the sun even though Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate just because a Republican was president.  But now the last man on earth who can be blamed for ANYTHING is the Democrat President who has been nothing short of a coward and a fascist thug since the day he took office.

So Obama calls for a meeting with Republicans at the White House to negotiate while saying HE won’t in any way, shape or form negotiate.  Why?  So he can dishonestly and deceitfully present himself as the one who was willing to do what he himself said he WON’T do:

The White House says President Barack Obama has told congressional leaders he still won’t negotiate over re-opening the government or raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

Obama and top lawmakers met for more than an hour at the White House on Wednesday, the second day of a partial government shut down. The leaders emerged to say no progress had been made.

I mean, what a surprise after the president says he won’t budge a nanometer that the leaders would come out of such a charade meeting to say no progress was made.

Let me close this up by pointing out all the incredibly demonic slandering rhetoric coming from Democrats as they get shriller and shriller and more and more hateful.  Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and jihadists and anarchists with bombs strapped to their chests and accused them of being “legislative arsonists” (Nancy Pelosi) and blackmailers and extortionists (Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney) and – as I cited above at the beginning of this article – literally child murderers (Harry Reid).  Oh, and Obama accused them of holding the nation for ransom, which I believe would be a prosecutable crime.  Hateful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Think about the Democrats’ position: unless the Republicans fund EVERYTHING they will fund NOTHING and shut the whole nation down.  Unless the Republicans fund ObamaCare Democrats will cut off the funding for veteran’s benefits.  And Republicans are supposed to be the “terrorists.”

What is most ironic about that is the second worst domestic terrorist attack in American history was committed by a Muslim terrorist named Major Nidal Hassan.  This terrorist – who carried business cards that announced himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and shouted “Allah Akbar!” as he gunned down fourteen American servicemen and wounded another thirty-two; who had been in email contact with al Qaeda, etc., etc., – COULDN’T BE CALLED A TERRORIST, said the Obama administration.  Nope.  it was just a case of “workplace violence.”

Democrats reserve the title of “terrorist” and “jihadist” for Republicans, rather than actual TERRORISTS.  Democrats refuse to call people who murder American servicemen while screaming “Allah Akbar!” terrorists, but they will call Republicans who are guilty of the crime of using their constitutional powers terrorists with rabid spittle dripping from their poisonous socialist fangs.

These are wicked people.  And if a nation is wicked enough to support them, then let that nation say, “Let it be on our heads and on the heads of our children!” as they shouted once before.

Update, 4 Oct 2013: If you want to know how Obama REALLY thinks about this, consider the following acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal by a SENIOR Obama official:]

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Wait a minute….. WHO’S “winning”???  I want Obama to identify the average Americans who are “winning” right now the way his rabid inner circle says THEY’RE winning.

I’ll be replaying this line again and again if the nation goes off the debt ceiling cliff and America defaults on its debt.  I’m thinking this Obama official is like Charlie Sheen in the sense of “not bi-polar, but bi-WINNING.”

Imagine if the government shut down under George W. Bush, and people weren’t getting the services they needed and couldn’t go to the jobs they and their families depended upon.  Oh, and children were dying of cancer and the nation was no longer safe from terrorist attack and all that stuff because of the shutdown that Bush was presiding over.  And some high-ranking Bush official turkey had been quoted as saying, “It doesn’t matter because it’s all about us and it’s all about our partisan politics and woo-hoo we’re winning.”  Imagine the screams of outrage that would have resounded throughout the mainstream media and the Democrat Party talking points then.  But the mainstream media are as hypocritical and as dishonest as the Democrat Party, and so the absence of any moral outrage is treasonous.

It’s just a game to Obama and his minions.  And they don’t give a flying damn who gets hurt or how many get hurt.  In fact, the more  who are hurt, the better to them.  And like the fascists they are, they are willing to fight to the last dead citizen to get their way.

You want more?  How about this: just LISTEN TO ONE OF OBAMA’S DEMONIC SPEECHES.  He’s giving speech after speech just flat-out DEMONIZING John Boehner and the GOP.  You listen to one and you find JUST ONE WORD of a real leader trying in any way, shape or form to reach out to the other side, to reach some kind of agreementNothing.  Just the rabid ideological partisan rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hate from our “president.”  Why?  Because Obama doesn’t WANT a deal on the government shutdown or the debt ceiling or anything else.  No.  He wants an issue to demonize the Republicans on in the 2014 elections.  He wants the same dictatorial political tyranny that he enjoyed for the first two years of his tyrant presidency.  He WANTS the government to shut down; he WANTS America to default on the debt; he WANTS as much harm and misery and damage to the U.S. economy as he can foment SO HE CAN BLAME THE GOP and run against them in 2014.  Is that the mark of a real leader?  Even the Los Angeles Times says it is the exact OPPOSITE of what a leader who isn’t demon-possessed would do.

Advertisements

Obama Won’t Negotiate With GOP. So WHY Is He Negotiating With Terrorist State Iran (Declared Terrorist Since 1984)???

September 25, 2013

Barack Obama is a slandering liar who has told many lies in dishonoring his way to the White House, but here was the most cynical one of them all (as recorded in the New York Times):

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Which is pretty much these days another way of saying that EVERY SINGLE TIME Barack Obama opens his slandering mouth to demonize Republicans, he proves what a depraved, demon-possessed cynical liar from hell he is all over again.

You don’t make that promise that the New York Times recorded as “the core of Obama’s presidency” and demonize your opposition the way Obama constantly does if you are not a truly evil man.

Barack Obama is without question the most wicked, most dishonest, most divisive American politician who has ever lived.

Now, I am deeply opposed to Obama’s decision to exalt Iran with negotiations that the Islamic regime will use merely to continue to play us for the fools that we are while they race toward nuclear capability and the ballistic missile system they need to deliver that capability.  But with fairness we could say that Obama promised that he would talk to enemies and he’s merely fulfilling his promise.  On his view, you should talk with your enemies and try to reach some kind of agreement with them.  Even when they are psychotic and frankly murderous nutjobs as the Iranians have proven they are for the last thirty-plus years.  All we are saying is give peace a chance.  All that crap.

But here’s the thing that blows that thesis up and sinks the ship right down to the muck at the bottom: HE WON’T NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE IN ANY WAY WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS ‘TERRORISTS’ FOR THIRTY DAMN YEARS.  The man who promised that at the very CORE of his presidency would be a transcending of politics has been instead the worse political demagogue this nation has ever seen, bar none, and he calls up House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he will NOT negotiate with Republicans (see also here).  And then he lies like the demonic liar that he is to justify refusing to negotiate like a grown-up (see also here).

You need to understand: the very same man who has publicly declared that he himself will absolutely NOT negotiate and will fight to the last starving American citizen over issues like the debt ceiling is asserting that the OTHER side must utterly and absolutely cave in to HIS position or THEY are completely responsible for the ensuing chaos and suffering.

I suppose if the Republicans used poison gas to murder thousands of Americans, THEN Obama would compromise and negotiate with them the way he did with Syria?  I mean, he’ll go back on his word on his red line with “a thug and a murder,” but he won’t budge an inch for the party that represents half of all the American people???  Do you understand how truly and completely insane that is???

If you’re a Kool-Aid-drinking liberal who wants to assert that the GOP is worse than the ayatollahs, fine: all you have to do is show me the Republican Party’s plans to build themselves nuclear weapons.  All you have to do is show me all those times the Republicans in the House used nerve gas.  All you have to do is show me that the Republican Party has actively participated in the murder of American servicemen.  The way Iran has been documented to have done (see also here).

Otherwise, just shut the hell up, you toxic, rabid creature.  Because you only serve as one more PROOF that everything Obama said AS I QUOTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES was nothing more than a demonic lie from hell.  You people never wanted to “transcend” anything; your messiah is about nothing more than WINNING his partisan and ideological war campaign of hate, and you would “fundamentally transform” this nation into a likeness of Stalingrad during WW2 in order to WIN that partisan and ideological war.

At this point, Barack Obama is as much as openly saying that he believes that a good half of the American people who agree with the Republican Party are not only terrorists, but are in fact worse terrorists than the mullahs in Iran and the thugs in Syria.  And that is sick beyond evil.

Is your view, Democrat, that the Republicans would be good negotiating partners with whom you could compromise and reach consensus with if the GOP just gassed a few hundred thousand people to death???  Maybe if the Republicans started a nuclear war of Armageddon they’d finally be worthy of your negotiating???  Have you and your party become that morally toxic???  Because it appears that you have.  It appears that you are saying, “Yes!  Negotiate with mass-murdering psychopath Islamic jihadists!  But DON’T YOU DARE negotiate with those Republicans because they don’t like sodomy marriage and baby-murdering abortions!!!”

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without integrity, without honor and without conscience.  He is also the worst hypocrite I have ever seen in my life.  He is leading America to ruin day-by-day, month-by-month and year-by-year.  His core promises were ALL a pack of lies.

If he’s going to be the first president since Jimmy Carter in 1979 to directly negotiate with Iran, the least he could do is bring a little of that love for his terrorist ayatollah pals back home and negotiate with Republicans so we can finally get something done.

Obama And Libya: Liberals Show The Hypocrisy That Defines Them

March 23, 2011

Liberals are hypocrites.  Obama is a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of liberalism.

Don’t like that claim?  Tough.  It’s the truth.

Where’s all the criticism for Obama that Democrats, liberals and the unhinged leftwing media constantly threw at George Bush???

Here’s a good brief collection of ways the left demonized Bush over Iraq that are very conveniently being forgotten by the left and by the press which are the left’s useful idiots:

John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an “imperialist warmonger” in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised “hope” and “change” instead. It’s funny how that worked out, isn’t it? We still have troops in Iraq, we’ve escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we’re bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush’s footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn’t this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a “rush to war.” Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he’s still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn’t have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama’s real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was “No blood for oil!” What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there’s no compelling reason for America to invade….except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting “No blood for oil?”

4) Where are the massive protests? Can’t you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn’t that be fun? I mean personally, I’ve been waiting for years to wear a “No Blood For Oil” sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let’s do this thing!

5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddafi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn’t have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya’s culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn’t it? That we were creating terrorists?

That’s why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a “war of choice” in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it’s because Obama chose to put them in harm’s way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it’s because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?

I had a slightly different project last week in an article I titled, “Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy.”  In that, I added factoids, such as how Obama went from demonizing the war in Iraq to claiming credit for it; how Obama’s people claimed his wonderful Cairo speech was responsible for the desire for freedom, when really it was his terrible economic policies that have undermined economies throughout the world; how Obama attacked Bush for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and subsequently “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” to refusing to have any troops at all while we do nothing BUT air-raiding villages in Libya.  That sort of thing.

But it turns out there is so much hypocrisy oozing out of Obama like toxic contaminents that it is hard to contain them all in any one article.  There’s what Obama said when he claimed Bush didn’t have the right to go to war in Iraq

“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,” Obama responded.

– with what the hypocrite is doing RIGHT NOW.

Obama literally ought to be impeached by his own standard.

Then there’s the fact that Obama is an abject LIAR about what he is saying about Bush:

[T]he President declared: “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

First of all, there’s this:

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

Then there is this fact:

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya.  They even put together a list.

Then add to that insult the fact that Obama never bothered to get any kind of approval from Congress, whereas Bush had Congress’ approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq.  In Iraq, the war liberals always demonize him over, Congress granted Bush the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” in October 2002.

Not only did Obama not have any such authority, but he literally started his unlateral war in Libya while he was on vacation in Brazil!!!

Dennis Kucinich is about the only Democrat who actually has the integrity to demand Obama answer for his impeachable offense which his fellow Democrats deceitfully and falsely tried to claim that Bush had committed.

Where are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in demanding that chicken hawk war criminal Obama be impeached for abandoning the Constitution?

Iraq was – and damn, IT CONTINUES TO BE – depicted by the left as some kind of massive failure (except when it benefits them to falsely take credit for it).  But Saddam Hussein’s head is hanging on Bush’s wall.  And what about Muammar Gaddafi’s head?

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has admitted that a stalemate could allow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to remain in power despite facing intenational military action gainst his forces.He said that the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that the US did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power, The Telegraph reports.

If Gaddafi stays in Libya, it will be a massive failure.  And Gaddafi is going to stay in power.

Even the New York Times acknowledges that this will be a massive failure:

If Colonel Qaddafi manages to remain in power, that will leave the United States and the United Nations-backed mission looking like a failure, foreign policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum said. “Barack Obama told Qaddafi to go; if Qaddafi doesn’t go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world,” said Steven Clemons, senior fellow at the New American Foundation.

Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and an architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at a forum in San Francisco on Saturday that he feared the limited approach “could set us up for failure.”

“I don’t quite see what is behind the strategy in Libya,” Mr. Hadley said, speaking while a small clutch of protesters — mostly yelling chants about Iraq — were on the streets below. “We are now in a situation where we have a mismatch of what the president said we want to do as a nation, what the U.N. Security Council authorizes, and what we are actually ready to commit in resources.”

As an example of still more failure, Obama’s coalition is falling apart in front of the world while Obama continues to party in South America.

The fact of the matter is that I pointed out two weeks ago that Libyans were missing George Bush.  Why?  Because Obama is a failure, and Bush was a guy who got things done, that’s why.

I also pointed out nearly a week ago what the people who knew what they were talking about were saying DAYS before Obama finally bothered to do too little and too late to change the situation:

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

Liberals and Democrats are hypocrites.  They have been hypocrites for my entire lifetime.

But this display of sheer, galling incompetence and stupidity is new, even for them.

More Reasons Obama’s ‘Without Preconditions’ View So Pinheaded

October 15, 2008

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

No preconditions.  Or preparations.  Or anything.  Just one leader sitting down with rogue terrorist dictators who would love to see the world painted red with American blood.  And then the endless lawyerly parsings and outright disinformation began.  Barack Obama was all over the board without ever once acknowledging that he was all over the board.

Joe Biden went from saying that Obama gave the “‘wrong answer’ on negotiating unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders” as a candidate opposing Obama to denying that he ever even said he would negotiate with Iran without preconditions in the first place in his debate with Sarah Palin as Obama’s running mate.  Biden is either lying, ignorant, or just plain pinheaded.  My choice: all of the above.

It wasn’t just Joe Biden who said negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions was stupid during the primaries.  Everybody said it was stupid – except for Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton said that Obama was “naive on foreign policy.”  And, as pointed out even by the very left-oriented MSNBC, that “older politicians of both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course.”

In short, it was, is, and always will be pinheaded in its pretension and naivity.

But we may not have to worry: Iran is coming to the rescue and saving us from the dangerous and naive foreign policy folly of Barack Obama:

Even though Senator Obama has said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other dictators within a year of taking office, there is no reason to think those meetings will go ahead.

Why? Because Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to do it.

The vice president for Iranian media affairs says Iran has preconditions of its own. He tells the Islamic Republic News Agency Americans are in dire need of re-establishing ties with the Iranian people and that Iran will only hold talks if “the U.S. moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”

Which is another way of saying that Iran has come out and informed the world as to just how profoundly stupid and incompetent Barack Obama is for making such an incredibly boneheaded foreign policy statement in the first place.  You can’t just show up and talk to people who despise everything you stand for and who want you dead.

Mind you, from what Jesse Jackson is saying about Barack Obama’s REAL (i.e., not spun into pablum for public consumption) position is via Israel, Obama may actually YIELD to Ahmadinejab’s demands:

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

In other words, Barack Obama may be preparing to comply with Ahmadinejad’s “preconditions.”  Ahmadinejab’s said that he would negotiate with the U.S. only if it “moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”  And Jesse Jackson is seriously contending that Obama would do precisely that.

Which would be even more of a pinheaded position than Obama’s extremely pinheaded “I would” answer at the July 2007 debate that set all this into motion in the first place.

The Obama campaign has attempted to distance itself from Jackson’s remarks, but you can’t know what a guy who said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel to an audience of Jews, and that Jerusalem should be fully subject to negotiation to an audience of Arabs.  How can you know what he really believes?  And you certainly have to wonder about how fervent commitment to Israel is, given his longterm relationship with PLO terrorist Rasheed Khalidi (or how opposed to terrorism he actually is, given his partnering with a leader of a domestic terrorist group that bombed over a dozen American sites (including the Pentagon and NYPD headquarters) and killed seven people).

And how should Islamic Arab and Persian terrorists feel if Obama shuns them when he was so willing to partner with a white terrorist bomber who bombed the Pentagon and the Capital?

Save The Ridicule For Katie Couric, Not Sarah Palin

September 27, 2008

I have read the transcripts, and really can’t for the life of me understand why liberals gleefully proclaim that Sarah Palin embarassed herself.  I think we should be ridiculing Katie Couric rather than Sarah Palin.

Case in point: Couric’s “gotcha” question regarding Henry Kissinger:

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can’t just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That’s beyond naïve. And it’s beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …

Palin: It’s dangerous.

Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, “Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.” Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren’t gonna go right. That’s part of diplomacy.

Okay, let’s do the fact check.  Was Couric right?

No.  The first “perky” anchor in major network history got it wrong.

Henry Kissinger has never called for direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions:

ABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday’s presidential debate saying he “would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.”

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality,” Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.

If Couric wanted to ask Sarah Palin whether it would be appropriate to send a high level US official other than the President of the United States, it was her duty as the one asking the questions to make her question clear.  Given the obvious fact that it is a PRESIDENTIAL precondition-free negotiation with rogue regime leaders (thanks to Barack Obama’s idiotic position), Sarah Palin had every reason to assume that was what Couric was talking about.

So if anyone should be ridiculed, it should be Katie Couric – who was so eager to catch Palin in a “gotcha” question she botched her own trap – instead of Sarah Palin.

Democrat Says Sarah Palin Choice ‘Shockingly Irresponsible’

August 30, 2008

Democrat strategist and CNN commentator Paul Begala claimed that John McCain’s choice of Vice President is “shockingly irresponsible” and suggested that McCain is “out of his mind.”

He suggested that Democrats would launch an all-out attack on that basis.

Good.  Let’s make experience the issue.  Let’s make this years’ Presidential election a referendum over who has the most relevant experience.

I found Begala’s argument a classic example of concentrating so much on rhetoric that reality was discarded altogether.

On CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 program, Begala attempted to make the argument that Sarah Palin had no experience in foreign policy.  And that it was “shockingly irresponsible to place her a heartbeat away from the Presidency.  When it was pointed out that, if anything, Barack Obama had even less experience, and that Barack Obama is actually running for President, Begala did not bother to respond to that issue.

Instead, he framed it this way: 18 million Democrats voted for Obama, which is another way of saying that 18 million voters decided that Obama did have enough experience.  However, in the case of Sarah Palin, only one man made that determination.  Therefore Begala could rest at ease with Obama’s experience, and legitimately attack Palin’s lack thereof.

Well, apart from the fact that 18 million other Democrats essentially voted that Obama didn’t have enough experience, there’s another problem: Barack Obama in actual point of fact doesn’t have any more experience than Sarah Palin.  If 18 million Democrats decided the world was flat, it wouldn’t make it so any more than if merely one did.

Not only has Sarah Palin been to Iraq, but she went there in her capacity as the head of the Alaska National Guard.  Obama visited Iraq as the head of nothing.

Further, Sarah Palin as Governor has actually negotiated with foreign governments, most notably Canada, Russia, Japan, and South Korea.  Can Barack Obama point to an official negotiation with a foreign government?

And, if it isn’t already obvious enough, Sarah Palin as Governor of oil-rich (as well as other experience in the energy field) is vastly more aware of the key energy issues than Barack Obama.

And most certainly, as Governor, Sarah Palin obtained incredibly relevant experience as a senior executive.  Nothing Barack Obama has ever done is comparable to Palin’s governing.  Campaigning for President does not qualify one to be president any more than applying for medical school qualifies one to be a physician.

So in considering Paul Begala’s frankly stupid claims, it’s rather hard not to have Shakespear’s “sound and fury, signifying nothing” quote come to mind.

The big political knock on Sarah Palin is that she doesn’t have a great deal of experience.  But, amazingly, that may become her greatest political asset, as unhinged Democrats, in decrying a candidate for Vice President’s lack of experience, actually underscore the lack of experience of their candidate for President.

John McCain just turned 72 today, it is true.  And he’s had skin cancer.  But he’s been given a clean bill of health, his mother is 96 years old, and skin cancer is generally only fatal if is allowed to advance untreated.

Sarah Palin, if elected, would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, it is true.  But no heartbeats would separate Barack Obama if he were elected.  Instead, the most inexperienced American President in the last century would immediately begin to run the country at one of the most critical periods in the nation’s history.

I have to laugh: an inexperienced Presidential candidate is fine.  But an inexperienced Vice Presidential candidate?  Well, there’s cause for all kinds of concern.

I don’t think John McCain minds allowing experience to be the central issue of the campaign.

One note: You can count on in-the-tank-for-liberals reporters asking foreign policy “gotcha” questions as a matter of routine between now and election day (something they somehow never got around to doing with Barack Obama).  Do you know who the President of Bolivia is?