Posts Tagged ‘not Islamic’

The Despicable And Pathological Radical Ideological Ignorance Of Barack Obama

February 18, 2015

Franklin Graham nailed it: what if Christians had beheaded 21 Muslims?

If you don’t think the world would have railed at the identity of the attackers vis-à-vis the identity of the victims, you are a true fool and I have nothing to discuss with you because there is no point having any kind of “discussion” with people who clearly have no regard whatsoever for reality or truth.

If Christians murdered Muslims execution-style, do you think the Islamic world would not be up in arms about it and demand that something dramatic and drastic be done to prevent it from ever happening again?  I don’t have to speculate here; we just had an atheist liberal who loved abortion and homosexual marriage murder three young Muslims and “the Islamic world” is out in force decrying it.  The only difference here is that the atheist did not say in advance that he was going to specifically target for murder a bunch of Muslims and then go do it the way the Muslims who just murdered those Christians had done.

In a similar vein, if Christians were murdering homosexuals, do you think that there would be an outcry?  What if Christians started to refuse women an education, the right to drive, the right to not have to literally wear a tent over their bodies because if a man so much as sees a woman’s ankle it’s HER fault he’s lustful?  What if Christians acted in rabid violence every time their faith was insulted?

It is amazing that liberals today are embracing the religion that does all these things, in addition that allows the torture-murder of helpless victims, of Christians, of Jews and of everyone else who doesn’t bend the knee to their warped religion.  And yet embrace it they do on a regular basis as it is easy to document (and see here).

And if what Islamic State is doing has nothing to do with true Islam, where are the one-point-six damned BILLION Muslim voices screaming in anger about what the Islamic State just did in the name of Islam and Muslims and Allah????  Where are the hundreds of thousands of religious leaders of Islam decrying vicious barbarity???  The crickets are chirping, chumps.  It is STUNNING how few Muslims are speaking out against what people who claim their religion are doing.

Pew Research documented that 25% of Muslims support some form of violent jihad.  Recently, in America, a study documented that 80% of mosques recommended “violence-positive texts.”

What if a white people lynched 21 black men and a right wing Republican refused to identify the identity of the victims OR the perpetrators and simply claim that “citizens of Georgia” had been murdered?  Does anyone doubt that the left would savagely criticize the president and claim he was a racist and a bigot and a facilitator of genocide?  And yet:

That’s EXACTLY what our liar-in-chief just did:

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The White House is being criticized for its statement over the beheadings of nearly two dozen Egyptian Coptic Christians at the hands of an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-affiliated group in Libya.

The line that critics are pointing to is referring to the Christians as only Egyptian citizens.

“The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists,” the statement reads. “We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens.”

Fox News contributors George Will and Charles Krauthammer criticized the White House for not referring to the Egyptians as Christians.

“Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the room where the White House semanticists meet every morning and figure out how they could probably make this announcement without offending those who did it. I think the phrase they should come up with is non-Islamic randomness,” Will said on Fox News Monday. “That would explain just about everything that they have to deal with, but it does – at this point, it is beyond burlesque, its pathological, it’s clinical their inability and unwillingness to say – to accurately describe things.”

Krauthammer said the Obama administration is refusing to “acknowledge the obvious.”

“It’s sort of deconstructing any resistance with its refusal to acknowledge the obvious and the obvious is this. It’s not just Islamic radicalism anymore or Islamic terrorism, which is only a tactic. This is Islamist supremacy and in that sense, it is akin to Nazism. That was a racial supremacy, here it’s Islamic and the ideology of ISIS is clearly supremacist in the sense that anybody who is not Islamic, in their understanding, is to be either enslaved or eradicated. This is a genocidal movement. You kill Christians, you kill Jews, you kill Yazidis but you may in certain circumstances enslave them. That’s what we’re up against and we have an administration that will not even admit that there’s a religious basis underlying what’s going on,” Krauthammer stated.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told Fox News that the White House has a difficult time saying Christian.

“ISIS made very clear in this video that this was an execution of ‘people of the cross.’ ISIS apparently has no difficulty saying ‘Christian,’ while the White House has a very difficult time,” Perkins said.

The killings raise the possibility that ISIS – which controls about a third of Syria and Iraq in a self-declared caliphate – has established a direct affiliate less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy. One of the militants in the video makes direct reference to that possibility, saying the group now plans to “conquer Rome.”

The militants had been holding 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians hostage for weeks, all laborers rounded up from the city of Sirte in December and January. It was not clear from the video whether all 21 hostages were killed. It was one of the first such beheading videos from an Islamic State group affiliate to come from outside the group’s core territory in Syria and Iraq.

The only thing you can say here is that Obama didn’t do it merely because Obama didn’t give enough of a damn to interrupt his Palm Springs golf vacation.

Barack Obama is a rabid ideologue.  And he is determined to be as ignorant as his twisted, dishonest ideology requires him to be.

We just had that attack in France where the Obama refused to identity the victims at the JEWISH deli as “Jews.”  Even though the MUSLIMS who murdered them WHILE SCREAMING ALLAHU AKBAR did so specifically because they were Jews and because they were in a Jewish-owned business:

President Obama has raised some eyebrows by suggesting in his interview with VOX.com that the shooting at a Kosher supermarket in Paris last month was “random.” It was a comment the president made in making the case that the media overstates the terrorist threat and that his job fighting terrorism is akin to a big-city mayor fighting crime.

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama told Vox’s Matt Yglesias in the interview.

“We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive.”

So we now have the pathology, and it IS a pathology of dishonesty and hypocrisy and deceit: Obama WILL NOT refer to the murdering terrorist by their religion and he WILL NOT refer to the victims of the murdering terrorists by their religion.

Krauthammer is completely correct: in the Islamic State, in this never-before-seen-in-all-human-history-until-OBAMA-terrorist-army with wealth and numbers and training unlike anything we have ever seen before, we have something metastasizing that has similar aims to the Nazis.  They have the same “we will either murder you or enslave you” mindset that the Nazis had.  The difference is that as the Nazis fixated on Aryanism, the Islamic State is focusing on Islam.

Factoid: there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims for Islamic State to recruit from.  Versus the Nazis’ German population of 69 million.  If the rise of that small of a recruiting population was able to rise into the “existential threat” that created World War II, how will a recruiting population that utterly dwarfs that number fare keeping in mind that nuclear weapons did not exist in the 1930s???

Obama and his oft-documented lying weasel Susan Rice have stated that Islamic terrorism – well, whatever the hell they’re calling it to avoid calling it what it actually clearly is – is not an “existential threat” like the Nazis.  But to the extent that’s true, it’s only because what we’re seeing happening in the Islamic world is so much bigger and so much more dangerous that it dwarfs the Nazis.

Obama and those secular humanists who think like him rabidly ignore the religious nature of the rising threat.  But here’s the problem, set forth in Robert Spencer’s great work, The Truth About Muhammad: the founder of the world’s most intolerant religion:

Difficulties aside, the texts [the Qu’ran and Ahadith] can be read and understood.  And if peaceful Muslims can mount no comeback when jihadists point to Muhammad’s example to justify violence, their ranks will always remain vulnerable to recruitment from jihadists who present themselves as the exponents of “pure Islam,” faithfully following Muhammad’s example. — Spencer, page 8.

Jesus truly was the Prince of Peace as the Bible calls Him.  But history makes very crystal clear that Muhammad was a man of violence and forced conquest who had fought in over 20 military campaigns and who actually had more than thirty more planned at the time of his death.  In 624 AD Muhammad launched the Nakhla raid and officially began the spread of violence in the name of Islam.  Also in 624 Muhammad began the practice of ethnic cleansing against the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe.  He put that same tactic into practice again the following year in 625 against the Jewish Nadir tribe.  Yes, rather like what we saw Islamic State do in Iraq.  In 627 Muhammad beheaded all the males of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe and enslaved all the women and children.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.  And in 631 Muhammad began his warfare against the Christians.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.

It is simply a FACT of history as well as a FACT of theology that Islam has profoundly violence tendencies from their founder that justify those tendencies that Christianity just as clearly does not have.  Again, Spencer points this fact out:

The difference is that no Christian could credibly argue that Jesus, the prince of peace, taught violence, or anything that contradicted his precepts that those who lived by the sword shall die by the sword, that men should turn the other cheek, and that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.  But if Muhammad taught violence, if Muhammad conflated religion and government it will change mujahidin around the world not one bit to pretend otherwise; they will continue to invoke what they believe to be his authentic teachings to justify their actions.  The fact that truths are difficult is no reason to choose unreality and “polite fictions.” — Spencer, pp. 10-11

I was surprised and pleased to encounter an article written in the reliably liberal Atlantic in which Graeme Wood acknowledged the following:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

And what we have no in Obama is a man who is rabidly unwilling to deal with the actual reason for the Islamic State doing what they are doing.  Just as he is rabidly unwilling to acknowledge what they are doing even as the Islamic State very clearly tells us what they are doing and why they are doing it.  In the name of Allah these Muslims are rising and growing and in the name of Allah they are murdering Christians and Jews in mindboggling numbers.

Look, I understand the attempt to trivialize radical, jihadist, militant extremist Islam as “not being true Islam.”  Just as I don’t believe that the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses represent “true Christianity.”  But it is frankly idiotic and asinine of me to merely assert that these religious groups don’t somehow even qualify as being “religious.”  And it is just as intellectually vacuous for me to merely wave my hand and dismiss their claims to be “Christian” without bothering to actually show how in fact they fail to truly be the real Christians they claim to be by arguing with them and refuting them according to the Holy Bible.

But that is precisely where we are at with Islam and the liberal progressives who run interference for this religion.  There is no debate and no provision to ever have any debate.  Thus there is no chance at any possibility of reform within Islam.  But the fact of the matter is that the tens of thousands of Muslims who are flocking to Islamic State aren’t doing so in search of wealth or some end of poverty (which will be with us forever, no Obama’s blathering nonsensical rhetoric aside); rather, they are searching for meaning – religious meaning – and they are flocking to the people who are fighting for a religious cause and who are claiming the historic mantle of founder of Islam, Muhammad.

Osama bin Laden was the multi-multi-millionaire son of a billionaire five times over.  Bin Laden’s successor Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a medical doctor.  Every single one of the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were financially well-off.  Today we’ve got men who went to the finest private schools on the planet posing with the corpses of people they just beheaded.  This war has NOTHING to do with poverty.  It is a pure lie to claim otherwise.  And yet the heart of Obama, the heart of the Democrat Party, the heart of progressive liberalism, the heart of secular humanism, the heart of the devil himself, is lies, lies, lies.

We find that between tw0-thirds and eighty percent of terrorists have university degrees and we find that a full 20% have engineering degrees.  The morally idiotic notion that income or poverty or education is a significant force behind terrorism is not only a lie, but a ridiculous lie.  So why is the left continuing to push a thesis that is so very clearly not the case?  And the answer is because they want more government control, which a bigger welfare state necessarily ensures.  That’s the real agenda.

I have been pointing out that liberals actually share a great deal in common with the fascist Muslims in that they BOTH conflate religion and government whenever it suits their purpose to do so.  There is no question that Jesus NEVER called for a large government to carry out the functions that He clearly reserved to His people in His Church.  But liberals falsely and hypocritically cite Jesus all the time to justify their massive welfare state.  Similarly, it was the New Testament ideas behind the Christendom of Western Europe from which arose people who were capable of making their own decisions because:

It is worth noting in passing that the office of priest, so prominent in the Old Testament, is not taken over by the early church. Prophets and elders (cf. Ezekiel 7:26) have their counterparts in the church and these titles are used. But there is no official counterpart to the priest, for, as the New Testament teaches, the whole church is a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5), or a “royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). We who are in Christ have all “been made priests to his God” (Revelation 1:6). Each individual has access to the holy of holies, God’s throne of grace, because of the once-for-all atoning death of Christ. No officer in the church has the function of mediating between the believer and God.

No officer in the church has the function of mediating between the believer and God; but liberals teach that only Obama and bureaucrats should have this power as they seize people’s money and forcibly redistribute it according to what THEY claim is the “common good” and as they pass laws and regulations up the whazoo under the belief that people are stupid and ignorant and can not be trusted to govern themselves.

The common good was realized by the people as they freely bought and sold and lived their lives.  But now we have Obama’s “wisdom” to impose it on us instead.

Classical liberalism, as forged by an understanding of genuine New Testament Christianity, emphasized individual freedom by limiting the power of government, by providing property rights and promoting the rule of law, by promoting laissez-faire free market economics.  Secular humanist and frankly atheist progressive liberalism has turned all of these on their head and they have profoundly perverted democracy and government just as the Muslim fascists have done as a result.  The only difference is the means; the ends are identical.

I’ve pointed out that progressive liberalism is Marxist in orientation and so believes in religion as merely being “the opiate of the masses.”  They arrogantly believe that no one actually believes in God; and therefore all that is left is socialist economics as the legitimate means by which people act.  But the great Christian writer G.K. Chesterton said the truth was the precise opposite:

Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people… [But] it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticize the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. That fact is written all across human history; but it is written most plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin…Lenin only fell into a slight error: he only got it the wrong way round. The truth is that irreligion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world.

That is exactly what has happened under progressive liberalism: the Government has become the God.  Progressive liberals have driven God out of the government, out of the schools and even out of the offices or the corporate world with their dictates of political correctness according to which if one is offended, the whole must put aside the thing that caused offense (unless that thing be progressive liberal doctrine such as homosexuality or abortion).  Government is our God and our Savior and our Provider and tells us what is right and what is wrong.  Our culture has become depraved and toxic because irreligion has become the opium of the people.  We have no values worth truly fighting for and so we are not fighting.

What is interesting is that when you read the quote by Karl Marx in context, what you find is that the Christian religion of Russia prior to the Communist Revolution was KEEPING PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE.  It was an “opium” that was preventing them from rising up in violence as Marx wanted them to do.  We find that the worst orgy of violence in the entire history of the world that followed Karl Marx’s hateful beliefs – the same beliefs which Barack Hussein Obama adheres to, for what that’s worth – came as the true religion of Christianity was abolished and a godless religion of atheism was imposed in its place resulting in the murder by the State of more than 100 million human beings during peacetime alone.

We face a terrifying crisis that we cannot possibly prevail against because our leader of the free world will NOT acknowledge the actual problem and instead continues to seek to impose a “solution” that has nothing to do with the actual problem and in fact will guarantee the very opposite result of MORE violence.  Because if you want to talk about the Crusades or the Inquisition – as Obama wants to do every time he points his wicked finger at the ancient past of Christianity to conceal today’s rabidly violent Islam – you should also talk about the violence of secular humanism that makes anything ANY other religious movement ever did pale by comparison.

The number of Christians being murdered is growing exponentially under the cancer of Obama.  Because his way is the way of the devil.

Charles Krauthammer has been brilliant in exposing Obama’s lies, deceit, hypocrisy and his “truly pathological in its inability to actually state what’s going on”:

Asked by substitute host Ed Henry whether the wording matters, Krauthammer argued that it does and compared how Winston Churchill “saved England and civilization” in World War II by using “the English language and he put it to work” while the Obama administration is doing “precisely the opposite.” 

He declared that the White House is doing so by “deconstructing any resistance with its refusal to acknowledge the obvious” that “Islamic supremacy” is at work and “akin to Nazism.”

Later, Krauthammer compared the struggle against ISIS to the Cold War in that “the leadership of the United States” will be the ones having to end the threat but, for now:

We have an administration that is truly pathological in its inability to actually state what’s going on. In the video that was released that showed the savage beheading, it was addressed to the nations of the cross. It pledged itself to the conquest of Rome. When the Pope, who is not exactly a Christian militant, who isn’t exactly a revanchist on, you know, on behalf of a Christ, says these people were killed because they were Christian and the administration says that the ones who were killed were Egyptian citizens, you’ve got a serious problem and it’s in this administration and it is with the President.

And the pope rightly points out that there are more Christian martyrs under Obama today than there were in the time of Nero.  Obama is a tool in Satan’s hand to murder Christians by proxy.

I believe that Obama believes that the notion of an all-powerful government that can impose a totalitarian system on the people is where progressive liberals and radical Muslims can come together.  Obama has already negotiated both with terrorist organizations (the Taliban and see here) and with terrorist regimes (Iran).  There is simply no question that Obama truly believes he can negotiate with the most radical and most evil people on earth.  The only question is why he believes that.

I believe that Barack Obama believes – as a secular humanist – that progressive liberalism can bargain with radical Islam on the basis of Marxist economics and reach some kind of compromise.  Just as Neville Chamberlain believed he could do so with Adolf Hitler to attain “peace in our time.”  The Bible describes moral idiots who cry out for peace when there is no peace:

They offer superficial treatments for My people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. — Jeremiah 6:14

That is precisely where we are at today under the cancer of this presidency.  We have a president who actually believes that he can politicize terrorists the way he can politicize Republicans and win a debate by framing it with rhetoric.  But Islamic State doesn’t want to have a debate; they want to burn people alive.

The fact is that one of the very first things that Barack Obama did as president was to send the bust of a man he clearly despised – Winston Churchill – back to England because he did not want that great man’s wisdom contaminating his White House. And as Winston Churchill clearly saw the threat of Nazism and enlisted the aid of an FDR who came to see the same growing threat and realized that we had to confront evil before evil confronted us after all of our allies were defeated, so history is doomed to repeat itself when fools ignore its lesson.

Which is why the beast is coming.

Advertisements

Obama’s ISIL Speech And His Whole Foreign Policy: What A Giant Crock Of Crap

September 15, 2014

I can’t help but think back to the Jimmy Carter years and marvel at how history keeps repeating itself because we keep allowing the same sorts of fools to make the same sorts of idiotic mistakes.  So we go back to 1979, when the Soviet Union, realizing that Jimmy Carter as a liberal was a pathologically weak and cowardly disgrace, invaded Afghanistan.  And Carter’s “show of resolve” was to boycott their damn Olympic Games rather than actually DO anything.

It was as a direct result of the correctly perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter that the United States was forced to begin the process of intervening in Afghanistan.  It was Jimmy Carter who began to arm the Taliban, dumbasses.  It was Jimmy Carter who because of his failed presidency set up the crisis that has metastasized into the cancer that it is that still haunts the United States decades later.

And here we are, another liberal and another complete meltdown of foreign policy and national security that will have massive consequences on the United States until the day we collapse and miserably perish as a nation.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted to perish as a nation, pure and simple.

History is a terrible thing when you doom yourself with terrible leaders.

From the very beginning of Obama’s speech on September 10, it was obvious that the most documented liar in the entire history of the human race who has been seen by more people lying than any human being who ever lived was even more full of his special brand of fecal matter than usual.

Take when Obama said “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state,” for instance.  Obama’s “argument” that Islamic State wasn’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Muslim runs afoul of this very simple historic reality: by his “reasoning” there haven’t been any “Muslims” or any “Islam” since at least 656 AD – when the very first Shi’ites murdered the very first Sunnis.

I actually have in my possession the hard article from uberleftist Time Magazine dated March 5, 2007.  Check out the title: “Why They Hate Each Other.”

Well, according to Obama, they hate each other because they’re not Muslim.  Or else they wouldn’t be killing Muslims, would they?

Take, for example, the Iran-Iraq War.  One-and-a-half million Muslims were killed – by other Muslims.

I mean, by Obama’s argument, the Sunnis aren’t “Islamic” because most of their victims have been Shi’ites and the Shi’ites aren’t Muslim because most of their victims have been Sunnis.  So there ARE no “Muslims” and there’s no such thing as “Islamic.”

But there you have it: Barry Hussein, in his demonic wisdom, has just solved the problem of Islam the same way he solved the problem of the war on terror that we are reeling from now: he just defined it away.  Because he is a liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue and without integrity and because he is a true fool.

Obama says Islamic State isn’t a “state.”  Well, THAT’S convenient, given the fact that they BECAME a “state” under YOUR failed watch due to YOUR failed policies.

I remember as an example going against Republicans when George H.W. Bush said, “There’s no recession.”  Well, shoot, I had got out of the Army and graduated from college just in time to run full facial into that “no recession.”  But yes, there was TOO a recession.  And all denying facts does is make those who share your ideology look like FOOLS.  Which is precisely what everyone who share’s Obama’s ideology is right now.

Islamic State has seized territory the freaking size of the United Kingdom. It has trained, expert fighters who were part of Saddam Hussein’s officer corps.  And to make it even worse, it has FAR more and better funding available than Osama bin Laden’s pre-9/11 attackers ever dreamed of having to finance their operations.

We just learned that Obama’s dismantled “intelligence” service has underestimated the number of ISIL/ISIS fighters by a factor of three.  They are mustering THREE TIMES the number of fighters that we thought just a short time ago.

The problem with Obama is that reality refutes him:

ISIS can muster 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, triple previous estimates: CIA
A new CIA assessment reportedly shows that the Islamic State can gather many more fighters than was previously thought. A spokesman for the intelligence agency told CNN that their recruitment has been stronger since June, ‘following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate.’
BY  Michael Walsh / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS /
Published: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM/ Updated: Friday, September 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

The CIA estimates that ISIS has more than three times the number of fighters it previously thought.

The Islamic State can call upon between 20,000 and 31,500 terrorists throughout Iraq and Syria, according to a spokesman for the intelligence agency.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity and additional intelligence,” the spokesman told CNN.

Experts used to think the number of fighters for the jihadist group, whose savagery has been widely condemned, topped out at 10,000.

The CIA assessment’s new figure was revealed on the 13th anniversary of 9/11 — a day after President Obama outlined his plan to “dismantle and ultimately destroy” ISIS in an address to the nation.

Obama’s denial that “Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state” is an even MORE profoundly stupid misjudgment and dismissal than his infamous “JayVee” remark that the lying fool now denies making.  But again, as evidenced so many damn times it’s beyond unreal, Obama is a fool who believes that denying simple factual reality is the secret to success.

If you like your health care plan and your doctor you can keep your health care plan and your doctor; if you don’t like Islamic State let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist and maybe it will somehow go away.

And it doesn’t matter how much of a lie that is.

And yet that factual denial of reality is the quintessence of Obama’s “strategy” and his “speech.”

Here’s the Los Angeles Times – note, NOT Fox News because they don’t like Obama because they’re racists – assessment of Obama’s “plan”:

Analysis Obama strategy in Iraq, Syria hinges on long shots
By Patrick J. McDonnell
SHARELINES
▼Sunni-Shiite divisions in Iraq too profound for quick fix
▼U.S. envisions unity and an effective army in Iraq, and a reenergized ‘moderate’ rebel front in Syria
▼Iraq, not Syria, seen as key concern for U.S.
September 11, 2014, 7:10 PM|Reporting from Beirut

As the United States pivots back onto a war footing in the Middle East, President Obama’s strategy is rooted in at least three basic assumptions, all of them highly questionable.

In his prime-time speech Wednesday, Obama envisioned the emergence of a newly unified Iraqi government, an effective Iraqi fighting force and a reenergized, U.S.-backed “moderate” rebel front in Syria. Along with U.S. training and airstrikes, and help from international allies, those three factors would spell defeat for Islamic State militants who have made deep inroads in both Syria and Iraq.

All three goals seem long shots in a region where U.S. aims have often foundered amid harsh and intractable realities.

Well that’s just GREAT.

If you like your Islamic State, you can keep your Islamic State.  If you DON’T like Your Islamic State, you can get your head slowly and agonizingly cut off with a deliberately small and most likely intentionally dull knife.

Obama says he’s going to destroy ISIL in one breath and he denies the possibility of American boots on the ground in the next.  Those two statements are mutually exclusive and fundamentally incoherent: if your goal is actually to destroy ISIL, YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE DESTROYED.  That very much includes relying on the full panoply of US military force (at least the force that’s left after Obama dismantled it in the name of his fool’s “peace dividend” that was irrational and based on a demonic Obama lie to begin with).  Obama’s promise that he will not send troops is tantamount to a promise that he will not destroy ISIL.  As is painfully obvious to anybody who realizes that if the US doesn’t send troops, there won’t be anybody to fight ISIL with any backbone whatsoever:

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday Arab states would play a critical role in a coalition against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but no country in the alliance was talking about sending ground troops to participate.

You know, versus the 37 countries that sent 26,000 troops into harm’s way that Barack Obama and his demonic Democrat Party slandered as “cowboy diplomacy.”

Allow me to pour something called “reality” on Obama’s “strategy”: SOMEBODY HAS TO SEND TROOPS OR PLEASE JUST SURRENDER TO THE TERRORISTS AND SUBMIT BY BARING YOUR THROAT TO THEIR KNIVES.

The ONLY ground force that is capable of defeating ISIL is US – US as in “U.S.”

I remember just a year ago when Obama and Kerry argued that their aitrstrikes would be “unbelievably small.”  And the attitude was, “Well, hell, don’t even bother, then.”  And here we are.

If all of the above isn’t frankly insanely idiotic enough, take John Kerry the day after Obama’s speech denying that the U.S. was at war with the Islamic State that Obama denies is Islamic and denies is a state:

“If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [ISIS], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Kerry said Thursday on CNN. “I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan.

Okay, nothing to see here, folks.  Don’t get all worked up just because this ISLAMIC STATE CALIPHATE my boss created just sawed two Americans’ heads off in a declaration of war against America.  Now please go back to sleep.

Fine.  If we’re not at war with these people, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THEM???

Don’t worry.  It will be “unbelievably small.”  Pinpricks, really.

Let’s just let history keep repeating itself until we’re all just shocked and appalled that we’re suddenly in ARMAGEDDON and there’s no way out because every path leading away from the end of the human species was long since eroded away by cowardly, dithering liberals.

There comes that point where you either show yourself to be serious or you show yourself to be a joke.  And Barack Obama is a joke and he is not to be taken seriously when it comes to anything other than his fascist domestic ideological agenda.

Obama’s “strategy” rests on refusing to ever send US troops back to the region that he himself acknowledged George W. Bush left safe and secure and stable and instead relying on fighters that he openly MOCKED just a short time ago.

I love this headline because it has the virtue of being so completely true:

Obama has a plan for ISIS in Syria. It’s the opposite of his old plan.

The article points out:

The administration’s longstanding position has been that ISIS’s Syria presence is a problem, but not one that the US can solve through military force. As recently as August 8, Obama downplayed the idea that arming supposedly moderate Syrian rebels — most notably those under the banner of the Free Syrian Army — would help to build a strong fighting force.

He told the New York Times that “there’s not as much capacity as you would hope” for molding an effective group out of “an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.” The administration actually did propose spending $500 million in late June to arm and train the rebels as a counterweight to ISIS, but very few people believed that would be enough help to make the rebels competent to destroy ISIS.

And as for airstrikes in Syria, he said in August that “we can run [ISIS] off for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes are gone, they’re coming right back in” without an effective local partner…

Obama mocked arming these very same people his “strategy” now completely depends on as a FANTASY just ONE MONTH AGO:

Obama Admits Arming Moderate Syrian Rebels Has ‘Always Been A Fantasy’
By: DSWright Monday August 11, 2014 10:01 am

Though many have critiqued President Barack Obama’s strategy of bypassing a terrorism law to give weapons to so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, few have touched the level of comprehensive disdain the president himself has with his own policy.

The weapons the Obama Administration sent to Syria famously ended up in the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Some of those weapons are likely being used now in Iraq against government forces and to commit the kind of massacres President Obama ordered American air power in to try and stop.

In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, Obama not only declined to defend his policy of giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but offered a withering critique of his policy and the reasoning behind it.

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”

Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor. It was President Obama who, despite warnings and protests from numerous groups, bypassed a law against arming terrorists to give weapons to the Syrian rebels. Now it was all a “fantasy” and had no hope of working?

Well, Mr. Wright, I suppose you can put either reset your jaw or just start stomping on it while it’s on the floor.  Because Obama just went back on the policy he had just went back on.

Barack Obama is demon-possessed, and that’s the moral equivalent of being completely INSANE.

You want more pretzel-twisted Obama “logic”???  Obama is now demanding that he can do what he wants based on a resolution that he demonized and later tried to repeal:

WASHINGTON (AP) – On the cusp of intensified airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is using the legal grounding of the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush relied on more than a decade ago to go to war. But Obama has made no effort to ask Congress to explicitly authorize his own conflict. […]

As a U.S. senator from Illinois running for president in 2007, Obama tried to prevent Bush’s administration from taking any military action against Iran unless it was explicitly authorized by Congress. A Senate resolution Obama sponsored died in committee. […]

The White House has cited the 2001 military authorization Congress gave Bush to attack any countries, groups or people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Earnest on Thursday described the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, generally known as the AUMF, as one that Obama “believes continues to apply to this terrorist organization that is operating in Iraq and Syria.” […]

The White House also finds authorization under the 2002 resolution that approved the invasion of Iraq to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction

Obama is using both authorizations as authority to act even though he publicly sought their repeal last year. In a key national security address at the National Defense University in May 2013, Obama said he wanted to scrap the 2001 order because “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.” Two months later, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, asked House Speaker John Boehner to consider repealing the 2002 Iraq resolution, calling the document “outdated.”

This is the God-cursed, demon-possessed, dishonest, ignorant FOOL that you trusted your lives and the lives of your children with, America.

By the way, those two resolutions used the word “war” a total of nine different times.  Since Obama has refused to use the word “war,” they clearly don’t apply.

I don’t know about you, but I think about this dishonest, depraved fool who by his own rhetoric is the very worst kind of hypocrite, and I feel like vomiting until every piece of intestine I’ve got is lying on the floor in a bloody pile.

What Obama should ask for is for Congress to pass an “Irresolution to Surrender” rather than a resolution to fight a damn war.  Because he HAS no resolve and under his “leadership” America never will have any “resolution” to do anything other than bow down before his Muslim masters.

And ALL liberals are demon-possessed; it is as quintessential to being a progressive liberal as being a total hypocrite is to being a progressive liberal.  Thus Jay Carney helps CNN prove that they are a network of propagandists that make Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda look honest by comparison and claims that no one could have possible known that terrorism would be so resurgent if we abandoned Iraq.

Except for that reality thing again:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — George W. Bush, 2007

Everything Bush said would happen if we abandoned Iraq has happened.  Every single damn thing.  Anyone at this point who says Obama was right on Iraq is worse than a fool; he or she is demon-possessed.

Let me start with Syria and work my way back to Iran.  In Syria we had a unique situation as described by the UK Telegraph:

There’s a remarkable piece in the New Yorker about how President Obama is grappling with his wrenching dilemma over what to do about Syria. It’s one of those examples of American journalism that gives you a genuine feel for the atmosphere behind the scenes – and of how, in the words of one former US official, “all the options are horrible”.

That set me thinking about an incident that has been widely reported, but whose true significance might not have been fully appreciated. Last year, the entire US national security team came up with a unanimous recommendation. These people very rarely agree with one another, but they all told Obama that the time had come for America to arm the Syrian rebels. The degree of consensus was remarkable: Leon Panetta, then defence secretary, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and General David Petraeus, then head of the CIA, all advised Obama to tip the balance of the war by sending weapons to carefully vetted units within Syria’s insurgency. And the President turned them down.

“There may be another time in history when a President’s entire national security team recommended a course of action and he overruled them, but if there is I’m not aware of it,” says Senator John McCain in the New Yorker.

If things had become better in Syria, then it could be said that Obama was right and everybody else was wrong.  But, you see, things are so much worse in Syria due to Obama’s dithering inaction it is beyond UNREAL.  And Obama’s foolishness will haunt us for years to come; we had a real opportunity to knock out Assad because there is no question his regime was teetering when literally even ALL his OWN advisors and John McCain and Lindsey Graham and all the conservative Republicans were urging him to arm the pro-democracy rebels.  We had a real chance – even Obama’s own top experts agreed on that – to have a pro-democracy government rise in Syria.  But because Obama refused to act decisively, the “pro-democracy rebels” – having no weapons and no support and no means to fight – were killed off by both Assad’s regime and by the better organized and better funded and better equipped terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL.  And our opportunity vanished.

And now if we bomb Syria, but refuse to put boots on the ground as Obama is insisting upon, who is going to benefit most from bombing ISIL in Syria?  Bashar al-Assad and his thug regime, that’s who.  Because rest assured HIS boots on the ground will be there to mop up and occupy what we refused to enter.

So now – thanks to Obama – we get to choose between a vicious terrorist army and a vicious dictator thug who has always supported terrorism.  Because when evil rules, there ARE no good choices.

And we’re also in the same sort of  horrible position in Iraq.  Because thanks to Obama’s total abject failure there, helping Iraq means helping Iran.  It didn’t have to be that way.

Obama LIES when he claims that it wasn’t his fault he pulled out of Iraq and that he tried but could not reach a status of forces agreement that we needed to keep our troops safe in Iraq.  Bullcrap: Obama was crystal clear from day one that he was abandoning Iraq.

As Obama abandoned Iraq, he took credit for the “victory” that Bush had won by fighting even as he claimed credit for getting us out.  Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Barack Obama claimed that Iraq was and would remain “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But the FACT is that General Petraeus was begging Obama NOT to abandon Iraq even in 2009 as Obama took office, but Obama was already overruling his key general back then.  And as Obama was actually announcing his pullout in 2011 that he’d already said he was going to follow through with in 2009, key generals who been the architects of the successful surge strategy were stating at that time that Obama’s fool strategy would end in DISASTER.

We would have had an Iraq that was free of ISIS/ISIL on the one hand, and significantly free of Iranian influence on the other.  But now, thanks again to Obama, we are cursed with both dominating Iraq.  And we have literally become the ally of the most dangerous and most poisonous regime on the face of the earth as we help IRAN drive out the Islamic State from the Iraqi territory they now dominate.

There are no good choices now.  Obama has made any good choice impossible.  There are only bad choices or even worse choices guaranteed down the road if we fear the death toll that will be caused by the bad choices.

You need to understand something: what is happening now is the result of a fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party believes we have to confront evil and declare war on it and fight it and kill it.  The Democrat Party denies the existence of evil.  They simply do.  They view themselves a ubersophisticated, and able to see all the many nuances and shades of gray that they mock black-and-white- and right-and-wrong-seeing Republicans for not understanding.  And professing themselves to be wise, Democrats become fools and complete moral idiots.

And now we’re going to start paying in spades for our “No, no, NO!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” president.