Vicious Mass Death Terrorist Attack BY MUSLIMS In San Bernardino – And Lying Obama Wants To Bait And Switch Subject To Gun Control

Updated, December 4: I think it’s official now: the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, pledged ALLEGIANCE to Islamic State prior to the attack, according to authorities.  We are also learning that she and her likewise TERRORIST-husband had numerous contacts with individuals on the FBI’s watch list.  They watched numerous Islamic State videos online to entertain and motivate themselves.  So at this point, everyone but Obama and the fools appointed by Obama to undermine America now know that we just suffered a very major terrorist attack.

We are also therefore beginning to see the major intelligence failures in the mindset that has resulted in Obama’s indifference and denials.  End update.

This one hits REAL close to home.  This marks the first time in my lifetime where there has ever been a TERRORIST ATTACK on a location that I drive by on average at least twice a month.

Terrorism has hit home.

You read my blog and read all the articles about “terrorism” and you will see a very common theme: Obama dismissing it, ignoring it, doing nothing about it, OUTRIGHT APPEASING IT, and my prediction year after year that the boiling cauldron of Islam will explode all over the world and then come to kill us like chickens right here at home.

And yep, it’s happening.

Obama wants to declare this workplace violence.  You’ve got to know he’s putting all the pressure he can muster on the FBI to do that and you know his partisan lawthug Attorney General is doing the same damn thing.  But let me just ask you a damn question: WHO gets upset at a work party and then goes home and collects his wife and mother of their six month old child, suits up into an arsenal of combat gear and loads up a buttload of weapons they’d clearly amassed over a prolonged period of time, in addition they loads up their SUV with pipe bombs as well as remote-control cars loaded with I.E.D.s à la al Qaeda, and then initiated a carefully planned TERRORIST ATTACK?  And let’s point out for the record that the husband was a “devoutly religious Muslim” who went to Saudi Arabia to pick up his devoutly religious Muslim wife.

Syed Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia and when he came back he grew out his beard and began acting a WHOLE LOT more Muslim.  The early story was that he went to Saudi Arabia to marry, but there is growing evidence that he had known this woman and even been married to her BEFORE travelling to Saudi Arabia.  And apparently on his honeymoon he learned to make improvised explosive devices instead of doing what most couples do on their honeymoons.

The wife was very clearly radicalized – and many experts believe she was the one with the training and bomb-making expertise who looked for a “husband-candidate” whom she could enter America through and in turn radicalize to her ideology – but she sailed right through Obama’s background checks.  Maybe we can agree there are some giant gaping holes in our visa system.  But that’s okay.  Let’s allow tens of thousands of Syrian refugees after Islamic State boasted they would infiltrate these refugees and then actually pulled off that very thing in Paris, France to the shocked horror of that country.  And don’t worry; Obama says he will keep you safe.

And if Obama allows tens of thousands of Tashfeen Maliks into America, have no fear: Obama will exploit your murder to call for more bans on the Constitution.  Your otherwise insignificant death can be exploited by your messiah-in-chief!!!  Praise Allah!!!

Tim Reid of Reuters reports that in the six months before the attack, Syed Farook memorized the Koran.  And the AP reports that his friends and co-workers called him “a devout Muslim.”  He went to mosque twice a day, every day.  Not that he actually has anything whatsoever to do with Islam.  At least, not until Obama – who after all is clearly the Ultimate Authority – says so.

We know that these are mass murderers who are Muslim, and we know that they recently returned from Saudi Arabia.  And we know that the assault had been clearly planned for some period of time.

Oh, and Islamic State has already responded to the attack.  You know, the TERRORIST attack that Obama wants you to believe was “workplace violence” so no one – most especially himself – will be held responsible and so nothing will need to be done to stop the next terrorist attack which will also be labeled as workplace violence.

When you tell me that you even SUSPECT at this point that this murderous planned terrorist attack was “workplace violence,” I tell you I suspect you of being DEMON-POSSESSED.  Because you are simply too astonishingly stupid not to be under the influence of a powerful demonic spiritual force that has owned your mind.

A woman who lived nearby saw all the bizarre preparations for this attack as the “devoutly religious Muslims” feverishly worked in their garage, but Obama had cowed her out of speaking because she was more terrified of being accused of “racial profiling” than she was of enabling a vicious terror attack.  I mean, keep in mind, in this age of Obama, you can’t even say anything about a Muslim kid who brings something that looks absolutely identical to a damn BOMB to school.  So you’d better damn well keep your mouth shut or Democrats and liberals are going to come howling after you.

This was a TERRORIST ATTACK, just as it was a TERRORIST ATTACK in Oklahoma when a Muslim who had posted all kinds of radical Islamist postings on the internet, who tried to forcibly convert his co-workers to Islam, and then cut the head off of one woman and then tried to cut the head off another woman – just like Islamic States was doing at that very time – all the while screaming “Praise Allahu!”  was a TERRORIST ATTACK rather than “workplace violence.”

It’s amazing that I have to keep saying it; but that is actually the level of stupefied asininity that has overtaken our nation in the person of President Brainrot Obama.

Obama just promised the American people that he was on top of terrorism and he would keep us safe.  And then a pair of TERRORISTS MUSLIMS massacre their victims at a CHRISTMAS PARTY.

And Obama wants to bring MILLIONS MORE MUSLIMS into America and he is doing everything he possibly can to demonize Republicans who are saying hey, maybe we ought to think about that.  Praise Allah.  Allahu Akbar.

What we see above comes right out of the depraved, wicked heart of our first president named for a damn terrorist himself: a rabid commitment to a deceived worldview that makes people who ought to be intelligent too damn stupid to comprehend reality, plus a fear of doing the right thing such that perverted evil is triumphant time and again.

I watch Obama in amazement.  We had Obama going all over the country crowing about how he had decimated al Qaeda and how terrorists were on the run.  And then we had a massive terrorist attack against US soil in Benghazi, Libya where the first American ambassador since 1979 was MURDERED.  And Obama and Hillary Clinton falsely blamed a Youtube video made by an American citizen exercising his 1st Amendment right as the cause of the attack and actually arrested that man.  And we now KNOW from Hillary Clinton’s emails that they KNEW it was a TERRORIST ATTACK AND NOT A VIDEO. Hillary Clinton’s exact words: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

Then we come to find that a whopping number of intelligence analysts were shouting about the fact that Obama-appointed senior administration officials were ALTERING their intelligence as they kept screaming that terrorists and particularly that Islamic State was a giant spreading crisis threat.  But as the general who commanded the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time now testifies, that information “didn’t meet the narrative” of the White House.  General Flynn called it “the politicization of the intelligence community” and labeled it “dangerous.”  We learned that “authors of such [intelligence] reports said they understood that their conclusions should fall within a certain spectrum. As a result, they self-censored their own views, they said, because they felt pressure to not reach conclusions far outside what those above them apparently believed.”  In other words, Obama pressured them to make their reports conform to his politics and his political narrative.  And now we’ve got Obama on the record saying something that was an outright LIE, that he had “contained” Islamic State.  When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff specifically just testified that we have NOT contained Islamic State.  And General Flynn is saying that he had been trying desperately to report that fact to Obama all along.

So in other words you have an outright, proven LIE from Obama in 2010 over his false narrative before and after Benghazi.  Where Obama TREASONOUSLY ignored our national security for his sacred politics.  Then in the middle, like the meat in a sandwich, you have fifty top intelligence analysts testifying that basically Obama altered their intelligence reports and changed their conclusions to suit Obama’s false political narrative.  And now you’ve got Obama caught red-handed AGAIN publicly saying LIES that are refuted by our intelligence.  So on the one hand Obama is hell-bent on trying for force intelligence community to alter their reports to suit his deceitful narrative, and flat-out ignoring any honest assessments that manage to emerge from Obama’s enormous thick blanket of lies.

This is the same Obama who keeps claiming that terrorist attacks inside America are the result of “workplace violence” while steadfastly refusing like the steadfast FOOL that he is to acknowledge that these terrorists are MUSLIMS who are using ISLAMIC THEOLOGY as their primary recruiting basis.

Obama is a pathologically wicked, demon-possessed man who is immune from reality and seeks to impose the devil’s false version of reality.

Obama actually has the cockroach testicles to make this massive failure in his policies and in his duty to keep us safe about GUNS.  He literally gave a statement earlier today and described guns as “the broader problem.”  It doesn’t matter if we just saw a MASSIVE TERRORIST ATTACK in a Paris France that has one of THE most restrictive gun laws in the world.  Mexico has incredibly restrictive gun laws.  Just ask that poor Marine that Obama refused to lift a finger to help about Mexico’s incredibly restrictive gun laws.  But tell that to the cartels that massacre thousands of people because they have the ONLY guns around.  And California is like Paris in having highly restrictive gun laws.  But tell that to the terrorists.  For some mysterious reason apparently too complex for liberals to understand, GUN LAWS DON’T MATTER TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T OBEY THE DAMN LAW.  The ONLY people who won’t have guns under Democrats are law-abiding citizens.  Obama literally believes that the only people who should be armed in America are terrorists, criminals and his own fascist police state thugs who would actually HELP radical Muslims wage jihad against CHRISTIANS.  Just ask the Christian county clerk, the Christian wedding photographer, the Christian baker and the Christian Little Sisters of the Poor about that jihad Obama has been waging.

For one thing, I’m not going to turn over any guns to a fascist dictator-thug president who has a disgusting habit of selectively and arbitrarily “following” the law.  He goes after Arizona for trying to enforce laws against illegal immigration but refuses to enforce the same federal law he cited against Arizona as he protects the thousands of “sanctuary cities” in this country.  He proudly states that he is NOT going to follow the Defense of Marriage Act LAW but is now rabidly following every law on the books to attack Christians who rightly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Obama told America at least TWENTY-TWO TIMES that he did NOT have the authority to impose executive action on immigration. And then did what he told us he’d be violating the Constitution and literally would be an EMPEROR if he did.

So – and I’m being deadly serious here – I frankly don’t give a dang how many people have to die in gun violence given that the clear alternative is a fascist Obama imposing his leftist tyranny on me and on my family.

I’ve just got to mock liberals.  Another gun free zone, another mass shooting.  At this point you can literally justifiably argue, “Guns don’t kill people, liberal gun-free zones kill people.”  Nearly every single mass shooting in America has occurred in a gun free zone where the murderers knew that liberals had ensured that everyone would be utterly helpless victims with no means to defend themselves.  Which I submit is a beautiful metaphor for liberalism.  Because as I pointed out recently, the difference between liberals and conservatives boils down to this: conservatives are people who would rather die fighting; liberals are people whose dream is to perish as whining VICTIMS on their knees.  I mean, think about it: liberals invariably do absolutely everything they can to make themselves victims of someone or something: liberal blacks claim they’re victims of whites; liberal women claim they’re victims of men; liberal gays claim they’re victims of straights, etc.  It’s just what they are: they’re pathological VICTIMS.  And so the gun-free zone is a place where liberals can be the ultimate helpless victims of their stupid cowardice and perish just like the cringing little whining cowards that they are.  The only problem is that they demand that everyone else be a victim just like THEY are.

In USA Today, Trevor Hughes wrote a column titled, “USA has actually accepted gun violence.”  And that’s true.  Just as “USA has actually accepted traffic accidents.”  As much as liberals despise our founding fathers and despise the Constitution that they enshrined, America is a FREE society that non only cherishes freedom and liberty, but enshrines the means to PROTECT that freedom and liberty.  And they want to do away with our 2nd Amendment right to defend our freedom and our liberty so they can take away our freedom and liberty.  Just as the Nazis did with THEIR “Democrat Party” gun laws; just as the Soviet Union did with THEIR “Democrat Party” gun laws.

Right now, as we speak, the left is rabidly agitating against police departments – and the funny thing is nearly ALL of these departments are under Democrat control in Democrat cities – because their goal is to do away with “local police departments” so they can end up with an NKVD-style (i.e., the Soviet “People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs”) federal police force that an Obama or a Clinton can use the same way Obama used the IRS as his “Internal Revenge Service” against conservatives.

Obama has oft-demonized the right of American citizens to have “weapons of war.”  Frankly, he ought to resign then.  BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF IS THE ULTIMATE WEAPON OF WAR.  Obama EXPLODED terrorism: terrorist attacks skyrocketed 150% in the first five years of his failed presidency and we aint seen NOTHIN’ yet as they surged ANOTHER 81% this year from last. So WHO is the damn “weapon of war,” Obama???  YOU ARE.  He has emboldened our very worst enemies on earth – be they the surging numbers of radical jihadist terrorists or be they Russia or China or Iran – while at the same time giving birth to a “black lives matter” movement that is inciting racial violence all across America.  And at the same time he has broken the Republican Party and ENRAGED a growing faction of it because of his Führer-style tactics.  Obama LIED and falsely promised that he would transcend the political divide and instead he is THE most divisive leader in the entire history of the world’s oldest republic bar none.  As I document with the above link, I pointed that fact out in 2009 and there is so much more abundant evidence of that FACT now that it’s beyond dispute.  Four years ago I wrote a long, massively-documented article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And Obama has only proven that he is ten TIMES the fascist thug that he was in 2011.

Obama has enraged and divided America beyond the breaking point.  He has literally released “the mystery of lawlessness” that the Bible prophesied would be unleashed in the last days just before the coming Antichrist.  And he did that by using “the law” as a political weapon rather than upholding the law as he swore to do as president.

And so, yeah, Barack Hussein Obama is the living EMBODIMENT of why the founding fathers enshrined the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because they foresaw his stench and the fascist stink of the modern Democrat Party and they wanted to give the American people some means to defend themselves from it.

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama’s REAL enemy continues to be the American people rather than Islamic terrorists who are murdering decent people all over the world, my own region of America included.  Why do I say that?  Because when you go to war with an enemy, what do you do?  You take away their ability to resist, you attack them until they are helpless.  Well, by going to war with what our Constitution guarantees as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” who are you rendering powerless?  What the American Declaration of Independence calls “We the people,” that’s who.

As a final statement to this article, I simply NEED to point out that there are four components to this war of Islamic-inspired terrorism.  There is a military component.  There is an economic component.  There is a political component.  That’s true.  But most important of all, THERE IS A RELIGIOUS COMPONENT.  It is this religious component that is the SOURCE of terrorism’s power.  It is through the RELIGIOUS component of Islam that the terrorists are able to recruit what has under Obama become a vast terrorist army controlling the world’s very first terrorist caliphate.

If it weren’t for Islam, the terrorists would have virtually NOTHING.  But they are citing ISLAM and the RELIGIOUS CLAIM that it is Allah’s will and that if they kill others and die trying to kill others, that they will go to PARADISE.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton REFUSE to acknowledge that REALITY.

As a result of the Obama-Clinton “narrative” on terrorism, the Muslim nations have no reason whatsoever to fight terrorism.  After all, it is NOT their problem or their war, is it?  It’s ONLY their problem and their war if it is THEIR religion that’s responsible for this violence.  And that is why they are sitting on their hands.  Because we’ve taken their religion off the table when it ought to be damn near the only thing ON the table.

I mean, just THINK about it: if Obama says, “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam,” then why the hell should Muslims fight to stop terrorism?  It’s not their fight because Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party SAY it’s NOT THEIR FIGHT.

During the Cold War, the left mocked the concept of “mutually assured destruction,” the doctrine that any attack on the United States would result in such a massive response that whoever dared to launch one would surely be destroyed themselves.  Because the left actually preferred to be destroyed rather than fight back.  Well, mutually assured destruction worked, because the Soviets believed in American resolve back then and they didn’t want to be destroyed.  Well, times have changed but liberals are as stupid as ever; now we are dealing with an enemy who because of their religion are literally willing to DIE to achieve mutually assured destruction.  They yearn for it.

And again, the American left would rather perish than actually fight back.

And the last thing the American left wants is for YOU to have the right to fight back.  Hence their unrelenting war on the 2nd Amendment.  Where even a massive Obama FAIL to protect America is cited as grounds to give the left the Nazi-gun-control-policies they have been fighting to implement/impose for decades.

Meanwhile, terrorists motivated by Islam have declared war on America, while Obama has declared war on America’s Constitution.  That’s why there aren’t anywhere NEAR enough FBI agents to investigate the giant and growing list of Islamic State terrorist suspects in America as Obama has massively stockpiled IRS agents whom he is using as his personal Internal Revenge Service and a weapon to enforce his ObamaCare.  And that is similarly why Obama has gone to war with police agencies and “demilitarized” them from being able to possess the VERY ARMORED CARS THAT WERE SO ESSENTIAL IN ENDING YESTERDAY’S TERRORIST ATTACK.

It comes down to this: in the moments immediately before the police confronted the terrorists, officers on the scene were heard on the radio repeatedly screaming for a BearCat (a military armored car).  Obama would have denied their request, just as he is currently refusing to allow other departments that don’t already have one to be able to get one and in fact is taking back ones that have already been issued.

How many more people would have died if the San Bernardino police didn’t have the equipment that Obama is doing everything he can to keep police agencies from possessing???  And the answer is it doesn’t matter.  Not to Obama, anyway.  He truly doesn’t care; he sees leftist ideology and nothing else.

Like I said, Obama’s enemy is NOT terrorists or terrorism, it is the American people and their means to protect themselves and safeguard their freedom and liberty from people – including liberals – who want to take that freedom and liberty away from us.

That’s the one-two punch that knocks out America.  And when we’re down they’re going to cut our head off.

Proof That Nuke Deal With Iran So Important To Malignant Narcissist-in-Chief That He Is Willing To Kill Every Single American In Coming Apocalypse

The Los Angeles Times – a major liberal newspaper of record – offered the following page one news story about Obama’s nuke deal and about how EVERY SINGLE MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY FROM ISRAEL TO SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, BAHRAIN, QATAR, U.A.E. and OMAN, ETC. IS DEEPLY OPPOSED TO IT.

And it details the fact that Saudi Arabia among the other Middle Eastern Sunni countries are deeply aware that Obama essentially guarantees them the right to complete legally develop nuclear weapons merely by waiting ten years.  And that even IF Iran doesn’t cheat (fat chance given that they have cheated in EVERY deal they have ever made with us) they can obtain nukes under the deal merely by waiting ten years.  And how would we negotiate then when we gave them the right to build nukes ten years from now?

And it details the shenanigans that Obama and his treasonous White House is playing not only with Iran but with EVERYONE to shove this deal down our collectivists throats.  Those shenanigans include Obama guaranteeing the Saudis that he will guarantee a World War Three nuclear holocaust if Iran ever uses the bomb he is giving them by committing America to total war.

Do you like that part of the deal, liberal?  Do you like the fact that Obama’s wicked deal is pushing Sunni Arab countries to obtain their own nuclear weapons to the bomb that they all know Obama is giving Iran???  Do you like Obama creating a nuclear arms race in the craziest part of the world???  Do you like the part that guarantees that if any of these nations are ever attacked by Iran as backed by Russia, the United States will jeopardize every single life of every single American in an Armageddon-style nuclear holocaust???  Does it bother you that every single decent Middle Eastern ally is horrified by the details of this deal whose details Obama has prevented either Congress or the American people from seeing???  Does it bother you that Obama’s policy is to treat our historic allies as enemies and our historic enemies as allies???  Does it bother you that Obama is desperately trying – against ALL advice and ALL common sense – to make Iran the most economically powerful nation in the region so it can fund even more destabilizing war and terrorism across the world than it is already doing as we speak???  But it’s here in black-and-white:

U.S. promises to beef up defense aid to Persian Gulf allies
By Paul Richter and Alexandra Zavis
April 7, 2015, 6:30 PM|Reporting from WASHINGTON
▼ White House invites leaders of six Arab nations to the presidential retreat at Camp David
▼ Obama’s goal is to keep Arab monarchies from buying sensitive technology or a nuclear weapon from Pakistan
▼ The White House is weighing new security commitments to Israel

Obama administration officials are promising a major strengthening of U.S. defense commitments to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies, possibly including a nuclear commitment to their security, in an intensifying effort to win their support for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

Officials say they hope to reassure nervous gulf Arab states by providing more military aid and training to their defense forces, and by making more explicit commitments to help them repel external attacks.

The administration is studying whether to make any nuclear assurances, though officials emphasize no decision has been made.

The White House has invited leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council nations — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — to the presidential retreat at Camp David in coming weeks, though the date is not confirmed. U.S. officials are expected to make public new security arrangements at the meeting.

The administration’s goal, officials said Tuesday, is to convince the Arab monarchies that U.S. security guarantees will make them safer than if they buy sensitive technology or a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, a Sunni Muslim ally, as the Saudis have privately threatened to do.

The White House is weighing separate new commitments to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown no sign of tempering his fierce criticism of a deal that would ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for verifiable limits on its ability to enrich uranium or conduct most other nuclear work for at least 10 years.

Negotiators from six world powers and Iran have set a June 30 deadline to try to complete the proposed accord. But the details released when the framework for the agreement was announced Thursday unsettled the Persian Gulf monarchies that have been core U.S. allies for 70 years, as well as Israel.

The monarchies see themselves as Tehran’s chief regional rivals and fear that the nuclear deal signals an American “pivot to Persia” that would empower Shiite Muslim Iran and leave the Sunni Arab states at a disadvantage.

President Obama took pains in several interviews to try to allay those fears.

“We’re going to be there for our [Persian Gulf] friends,” Obama told columnist Thomas Friedman. “I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.”

With much of the Middle East torn by civil war or other upheavals, the oil-rich gulf monarchies remain crucial U.S. allies.

Several have joined the U.S.-led airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. The U.S., in turn, has provided intelligence and logistic support to the Saudi-led coalition bombing rebel forces in Yemen who are backed by Iran.

Strengthening U.S. relations with the gulf states “is a big deal — it’s got to be one of the central components of the U.S. strategy after the Iran deal,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration official now at the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

Goldenberg compared the White House outreach to the way the Nixon administration worked to bolster security ties to Japan and Taiwan after opening relations with China, their main regional rival, in 1972.

But the Obama administration faces unique challenges.

The Saudis especially have been disappointed with Obama’s approach to the Middle East. They see themselves battling Iran in a sectarian war raging across Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, and fear easing of the economic sanctions in a nuclear deal could reinvigorate Iran’s economy and make it even more of a regional threat.

Saudi officials have made clear that they don’t want a public battle with Washington, and on Monday issued cautious statements of support for the framework. “We hope there will be a deal based on the principles that the U.S. government has articulated to us,” Adel Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, told reporters.

But privately, many Saudi officials say they are skeptical that the deal will stop Tehran from eventually developing nuclear weapons because the restrictions it would impose are not permanent.

“The regime will sit and wait for 10 or 15 years to pass and it will restore its nuclear activities legally and legitimately,” said Mustafa Alani, a security studies scholar at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai who is close to the kingdom’s rulers.

Such concerns have been expressed privately to the Obama administration through the region’s embassies, Alani said. The aim isn’t to torpedo an eventual agreement. “We believe a diplomatic solution is better than any other solution, military or more economic sanctions,” he said.

One challenge for the White House is whether it can expand a defense relationship that already is enormous. Bahrain is home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, and the Pentagon keeps 35,000 troops, two aircraft carrier task forces, cyber warfare specialists, drone aircraft units and more in the region. The United States and Saudi Arabia are in the middle of a 20-year, $60-billion arms deal.

It’s also not clear that U.S. nuclear security commitments would be useful or welcomed by the gulf states.

The administration would have a hard time trying to get Congress, which has been skeptical about the U.S.-Saudi relationship, to enact a treaty that put a U.S. nuclear “umbrella” over Arab Sunni nations, as the United States has over Japan and South Korea.

Such agreements aim to deter nuclear attack by warning foes that the United States would retaliate with overwhelming force if an ally is attacked with a nuclear weapon.

The administration might try to adopt the policy by administrative action to end-run Congress. But the gulf states might not welcome a public statement to guarantee their safety. Because of domestic anger at the United States, these governments have long been leery of being too publicly aligned with Washington.

“They want an American security blanket, but without us having to shout about it,” said Simon Henderson, a Persian Gulf specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a public policy group in Washington.

U.S. officials say they may try to persuade the Saudis to sign a so-called 1-2-3 agreement, which gives countries special U.S. help building a civilian nuclear power industry as long as they accept restrictions to prevent development of a nuclear weapons program. But analysts said the Saudis probably would not agree because, at least in theory, it would give them less freedom to pursue a nuclear program someday than the Iranians.

Another possible gesture would be to declare the gulf states “major non-NATO allies,” said Thomas Lippman, a Saudi specialist at the nonpartisan Middle East Institute in Washington. The designation, applied to close allies like Japan, Australia and Israel, provides special help in buying weapons and obtaining U.S. weapons.

Richter reported from Washington and Zavis from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Times staff writer Laura King in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

We’re so screwed it’s beyond unreal.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about you, your parents, your spouse, your children, your family, your friends, etc. etc.  He is a truly wicked and depraved man.  He is a malignant narcissist who cares only about himself.  And he wants to be able to posture himself as some historic “dealmaker” who – as he put it – “slowed the rise of the oceans and began to heal the planet” and “made the world better, safer and more peaceful than it has ever been.”  He is determined to leave office crowing about that and try to set up the next Democrat for election to the White House, and he frankly doesn’t CARE what happens three or four years from now because of his wicked deal.

When you examine how North Korea kept pushing and cheating and lying and playing us after Bill Clinton made his infamous nuclear deal with that dictatorship.  When you see how they kept cheating and working until they had the ballistic missiles they needed and then – POOF!!! – went nuclear, you should understand that Democrats are simply not capable of learning and will make the same mistakes over and over and over again.

I mean, holy crap, please look at the chronology from the time that Bill Clinton crowed about making the world wonderful and North Korea detonating a nuclear bomb armed with missiles to deliver it.  And try to prove to me that Obama has demonstrated and manifested the absolute hardness that he will go to war with Iran if that country doesn’t cross so much as one ‘t’ or dot one ‘i’ as that country follows North Korea’s example.

WATCH Bill Clinton make all the same damn false promises and provide all the same damn false assurances about his wicked North Korea deal that Obama is deceitfully making now:

For God’s sake, Democrat, please stop, think, learn from history and slow down in your mad rush to allow Obama to pave the way for Antichrist so you can take the mark of the beast and burn in hell forever and ever and ever.

Because right now, RIGHT NOW, Democrat, YOU are guaranteeing the rise of Antichrist and YOU are guaranteeing Armageddon.  God is one day going to hold YOU responsible for what YOUR leader whom YOU voted for did.  And hell will be eternal because even eternity will not be long enough for YOU to pay for YOUR crimes against the world that YOU are setting into motion right now.

Barack Obama is now not merely making all the same mistakes that led the world into World War II by appeasing our enemies and emboldening them with weakness; he is making the same mistakes that led the world into World War I by forming crazy alliances that will drag the United States into total global war.  This deal with Iran is the worst of all possible worlds.

And yes, it is WORSE than war with Iran, because if we went to war with Iran now, at least we wouldn’t be going to war with a country that can devastate several of our largest cities and kill millions of our people as they seek to cause the appearing of the Twelfth Imam by bathing the world in blood.

PLEASE understand that as evil and as insane as North Korea is, their goal is to survive and continue their regime at all cost, whereas Iran as ALL radical jihadist Muslims have demonstrated OVER AND OVER again that their goal is to die as martyrs in an ocean of blood at all costs.

PLEASE allow just one moment of sober thought that hasn’t been beamed directly into your brain matter by Satan to enter your head so you can comprehend REALITY.

But no, Democrat, YOU are hell-bent on hell.  The truth has been veiled to you because you are defiant of God, bent on depravity, such that your warped mind has been blinded by the god of this age.

Hell is coming for you, Democrat, every bit as much as destruction is coming upon the world because of you.  Because “YOU offered superficial treatments for God’s people’s mortal wound. YOU gave assurances of peace when there WAS no peace” per Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11.

RIGHT NOW, Democrat, YOU are declaring to God, “If this is a bad deal that my messiah Obama is making with Iran, let it fall upon MY head and the heads of MY children.  Let my nation perish as we are forced by Obama into a full-fledged nuclear Armageddon.”

The very heavens are testifying against Obama and against YOU (and see also here), Democrat.

You whine about global warming on one hand for crises and then hypocritically cite “insufficient global warming” as your excuse for Obama’s failed economy on the other, but it is YOU who have brought “climate change” with your depraved shaking of your fist at God according to Romans chapter one verses 18-31 and according to Pslam 139 and now as you curse Israel by abandoning her in her hour of need.  And so God is fulfilling His Word to us according to Amos 4:7, “”I kept the rain from falling when your crops needed it the most. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away.”

Because of your wickedness as God judges YOU and curses YOU for your wicked actions through him, you will inherit all the curses of Deuteronomy 28:22-26:

22“The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. 23“The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. 24“The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.

25“The LORD shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26“Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.

THAT is precisely what you are negotiating for in your false messiah’s “deal” with Iran, Democrat.  Iran will get its wish as it bathes the world in blood to make the beast come.  Because, yes, what they call the Twelfth Imam is one of the beasts of Revelation according to Revelation chapter thirteen.  And notice that it is only AFTER Israel depicted as a woman pregnant with Child – is abandoned to her fate unless God Himself save her in Revelation chapter twelve that the beasts come in chapter thirteen.

Hell is coming for YOU, Democrat.  And it is coming because right now YOU are sowing to the wind and demanding that you reap the whirlwind.

Don’t think that YOU will escape from the hell that YOU are bringing, Democrat.

Jesus came into the world as the ultimate fulfillment of Psalm 139.  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.  But YOU and EVERY SINGLE Democrat saw only an unwed young girl and told her to have an abortion.  And so your baby Jesus was slaughtered in the womb just as YOU have slaughtered 60 MILLION babies in the womb.  And so Jesus never lived to live the perfect life that you would not live, wicked Democrat, and to take your place for you and die for your sins.

You don’t have much time, Democrat.  Soon the Rapture is coming, the moment when Jesus Christ meets every single true believer in the air before the coming divine judgment of the Tribulation.  You won’t be going with Jesus because you have long-since placed your faith in human government and in Obama, rather than in Jesus.

One way or another, we are watching in this Malignant Narcissist Fool-in-Chief – who can’t help but keep hating Christians because Obama hated Jesus first just as Jesus testified the wicked would do – bring about the very end of days just as the Bible foretold the end would come.

And that is because Barack Hussein Obama is an Antichrist who is now openly paving the way for THE Antichrist.

And every single Democrats is actively helping him to do it.

Don’t think for one second that YOU won’t share Obama’s fate, Democrat.  Obama is powerful only because YOU gave him power.  And he is using that power that YOU gave him to ultimately bring hell to earth.

Saudi Source Says Obama Willing To Give Afghanistan To Taliban For Quiet

Back in May of 2008, I wrote about the danger of appeasement that the election of a liberal Democrat to the presidency posed.

The trend of American casualties had been increasing, without question, but we have NEVER seen the kind of DOUBLING of fatalities (we’re now at 293 American fatalities, versus 155 last year, with more than a month to go) that we are seeing now under Obama’s leadership.  That’s because the Taliban and the terrorists now know that we have a dithering, indecisive, vacillating and appeasing weakling in the White House whom they will be able to push around.

And apparently their piling on is paying off big as “the leader of the free world” cringes before them.

This story is only coming from a single source in Saudi Arabia, but, if true, it means we’re at Neville Chamberlain’s level of disgusting appeasement in exchange for a psuedo “peace in our time” all over again.

Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Source: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 22, 2009

Even going back to April of last year, the Democrat presidential debates displayed a frightening ignorance of history, which would invariably lead to appeasement and – following the pattern, more demanding and stubborn enemies who sensed our weakness –  if their policies were ever implemented:

As a student of history, I remember the abject failure of the Western allies to grasp the growing threat of their enemies throughout the 1930s. I remember the refusal of the liberal governments of the Allied powers to comprehend what are now known to have been fundamental realities of naked aggression and looming war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain abandoned his country’s commitment to Czechoslovakia with a promise from Hitler of peace. The liberal, “anti-war” Chamberlain returned home saying, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Chamberlain saw Britain’s policy as a willingness to compromise and a desire for peace. But Hitler saw only weakness, hesitation, and cowardice, and became emboldened for total war. Again and again, the West had had an opportunity to demonstrate its genuine resolve to Hitler, and again and again the West had failed to stand.

In our present day, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a shocking degree of treachery in regard to Iraq. It is their war as much as it is Republicans’ war – because it should be America’s war.

History repeats itself because we keep putting the same sort of moral cowards in power.

Note that I was referring to Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, in my above warning.  Why?  Because the Democrats were talking tough about Afghanistan, even as they talked about walking away from Iraq.  Who could have known that a Democrat would so violate his own promises and be so shockingly weak in a war that he himself said was a “must win”? I fully believed that Barack Obama would be a weakling and an appeaser in office; but I simply had no idea that he would be as pathetically weak as he has actually revealed himself to be.

Thankfully, George Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq worked – and worked so well that even Obama’s weakness hasn’t been able to turn the success in Iraq around.  Barack Obama opposed that strategy and said it would fail.  And when he was proven wrong, this weakling and coward merely deleted his wrong, deceitful, and malicious prediction from his web site.

Obama’s dithering (and that’s the term Pentagon officials used, rather than merely Dick Cheney, btw), have 1) emboldened the enemy, 2) undermined American troop morale, 3) undermined the confidence of the military that Barack Obama will remain true to his commitment, and 4) weakened the people of Afghanistan’s trust for us all at once.

The last is the worse: the months that Obama has spent cravenly dithering while the resurgent Taliban have spread their control has forced the Afghani people to begin to choose the Taliban – whom will stay the course – over a U.S. under Barack Obama which clearly won’t.  And that means we may have already lost.

And now this?

What do you expect from the president who sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of weakling appeasers just like Obama selling out Poland to Russia?

On top of the defeat in Afghanistan, Obama faces a far more significant defeat in Iran.  Obama is desperate to talk; Iran is determined to build nuclear missiles.  Iran will get become a nuclear military power under Obama’s watch, because the only way to prevent them from becoming such a power is to be willing to go to war with them to stop them – and Iran knows that Obama will not take that step.

As the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran manifests itself in the form of increased terrorism, sky-high gas prices, and even nuclear war, just remember: we conservatives tried to warn you.

Update, November 23, 2009: Did I say that 293 U.S. soldiers have been killed so far this year?  Make that 297.  Meanwhile, the survivors are hunkering down and beginning to despair that they are in Afghanistan for no apparent reason while their commander-in-chief dithers around for three months more worried about his own political skin than about his soldiers.

Obama Grovels Before Yet Another Foreign Leader

There’s a scene in the movie Crocodile Dundee that reminds me of the current Obama fiasco (there’s ALWAYS an Obama fiasco, but this is the fiasco of the hour).  Mick “Crocodile” Dundee visits New York and is confronted by a mugger with a switchblade.  His gal-pal, Sue, says, “Mick, give him your wallet!”  And Dundee says, “What for?”  Sue, looking at the switchblade, says, “He’s got a knife.”  An amused Crocodile Dundee says, “That’s not a knife,” as he draws this gigantic Bowie knife that dwarfs the trivial-by-comparison switchblade.  “This is a knife.”  The mugger runs away.

ABC reporter Jake Tapper tries to put Obama’s bow into “perspective” by pointing out that Richard Nixon had at least sort of bowed in 1971.

But let’s apply what we just learned from Crocodile Dundee.

That’s not a bow.

Apparently, Bill Clinton did something that wasn’t quite a bow, either.

But about what Obama just did on his Asia tour (while he runs away from his decision to send the troops his general requested for Afghanistan, while he runs away from the latest unemployment report of 10.2%, runs away from his inability to label the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack)?  Well….

THIS is a bow.

And it’s not just a bow.  It is a grovel.  It’s the profoundly disturbing and disgusting genuflection of a man who clearly has no business representing a people who drove away kings by force of arms bowing down low before his betters.

It’s an insult to everything America stands for.

ABC’s Jake Tapper put it this way:

“The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”

Just like this prior contemptible event, in which Obama groveled before the Saudi king:

Mind you, Obama did not merely cravenly grovel before King Abdullah (making America grovel before Saudi Arabia by proxy), he cravenly lied to the American people about cravenly bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia.

You’d think he would have learned his lesson, but grovelling just seems too deeply ingrained into his psyche.  He just can’t help himself.  It’d part of his unfortunate condition of statolatry.

Obama’s “Disgrace America Tour” is kind of like the Rolling Stones — it just keeps going on and on and on and on.

Obama doesn’t have to grovel before Nancy Pelosi — as long as he lets her have complete control over “his” healthcare agenda.

Here’s a picture of Vice President Cheney offering his respects to the Japanese emperor.

Ah, thank God for an actual grown-up who actually understands that American leaders do not grovel before foreign ones.

I’m betting that “inexperienced” Sarah Palin wouldn’t have groveled before the emperor, either.  Apparently, bowing and groveling is something that they teach at Harvard.

You know what I wonder?  I wonder if FDR or Harry Truman, who defeated Imperial Japan at the great cost of 100,000 American lives following their vicious attack against Pearl Harbor, would have bowed down before the Japanese emperor?

Just wondering.

Is Saudi Arabia Now A Better Ally To Israel Than Obama’s America?

The Obama Administration is shaping up to be the Carter Administration, transported thirty years into the future.

I’ve pointed out the frightening similarities quite a few times:

Messiah Obama Really IS The Second Coming… Of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

Carter-era Economist Sees Deja Vu In Barack Obama

The Obama ‘Crisis In Confidence: Welcome Back, Carter’

And that doesn’t even include Obama’s incredibly Carter-like abandonment of Poland and Czechoslovakia (hearken back to Carter’s abandonment of the Shah of Iran which led to the Ayatollahs whom Obama is helpless to prevent from obtaining nuclear weapons now).

So we should pay very close attention to what Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser has to say about Israel and Iran to the new “Carter” in town:

Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran

September 20, 2009 11:10 AM

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama’s foreign policy cred.  The Washington Post reported: “Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski.”

Just imagine: a prominent Democrat foreign policy expert is arguing that the United States of America should literally serve as Iran’s last line of defense against an attack by an Israel determined to keep a country that has repeatedly vowed to annihilate them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

It is not for nothing that only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis DON’T believe that Barack Obama has sold them down the river.  For what it’s worth, 88% of Israelis believed that George Bush was their friend.

This is where it gets amazing:

SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE

Sunday September 27,2009
By Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey

INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.

The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.

The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband acknowledged that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East was “particularly potent” and refused to rule out military action altogether but he insisted: “We are 100 per cent focused on a diplomatic solution.”

Gordon Brown, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have warned Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he must allow in weapons inspectors or face more sanctions.

The scene is set for a showdown next Thursday when Iranian officials meet representatives of the E3+3 group of Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China in Geneva.

Significantly, Russia, which has previously resisted pressure for sanctions, said it also found the latest disclosures “disturbing”.

The site near Qom was detected three years ago by British, US and French intelligence agencies.

Diplomatic sources said it could hold 3,000 centrifuges, capable of making enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb each year.

It is almost as though the world had turned upside down.

The prominent Democrat expert on national security – who gave Obama “cred” during his campaign – is advising Obama to shoot down Israeli planes and absolutely refuse to allow them to defend themselves against nuclear destruction.

And Saudi Arabia – which recognizes that an Iranian bomb is a threat to themselves as well as to Israel – is welcoming Israel to use its airspace to eliminate a threat that NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED.

Iran’s newly revealed secret underground nuclear facility is a clear revelation that they are bent on developing nuclear weapons.   And their nose-thumbing response to the United Nation’s tepid and frankly pathetic “warnings” was to test-fire long range ballistic missiles.

I just want to weep as I see my country plunge to the most despicable and disastrous depths in such a shockingly short time.

Obama’s Disgrace America Tour Off To Great Start

Let’s reflect on the past few weeks.

First Obama treats the Prime Minister of Britain – America’s closest historic ally – like dirt and then has his State Department announce that “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

But that’s okay; he’s balancing that despicable treatment by doling out more of the same shoddy treatment to the 2nd greatest ally of the United States, Israel.

Apparently, Obama seeks to appease the countries who despise us by turning his back on the countries who have loved us.

Then he goes on his “Apologize for being an American” tour during the G-20 summit. He didn’t get any meaningful commitments from anybody to give us any kind of meaningful help in our “good war” in Afghanistan, and he got absolutely nobody to follow his “let’s all keep on recklessly spending” stimulus plan. But he gave up American economic sovereignty by ceding control over to an international body anyway. At least Judas got 20 pieces of silver for his betrayal; Obama got nothing for his.

During that tour, Obama had the gall to apologize to France – to FRANCE! – for American arrogance. That pretty much proves that Obama believes America is the most arrogant country in the history of the world.

And he bowed down before the king of Saudi Arabia before lying about the fact that he had bowed. The first American president to break with the tradition that American presidents do not bow down to kings. The tradition of “sic semper tyrannis” is officially over.

Then – after bowing down before a Muslim king – Obama went to Turkey to renounce American Christianity, and all the founding history that went with it.

With his genuflection to serve as a capstone foreign policy moment for American submission, Obama then journeyed to Mexico to tell them to blame America for all their problems, and repeats the already utterly disproven demagoguery that “More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” to support his thesis. Pretty smart, this: he gets to demonize America for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels and at the same time he gets to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

And then we went to the Americas Conference to appear as the “poor ignoramus” that Hugo Chavez said he was a few weeks earlier:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Geez. I never would have believed Hugo Chavez would ever be right about anything. Hugo Chavez should look in a mirror, of course, but he’s absolutely spot-on in his assessment of Obama.

The governments of the United States and Venezuela finally agree upon something; and Obama and Chavez subsequently shook on it to confirm the fact: Barack Obama IS a poor ignoramus.

Well, at least he didn’t bow down before him, although some have suggested that perhaps if Obama bows down before the Ayatollah of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea perhaps they’d abandon their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Why nuke us if we’re already subservient?

And then Chavez took another photo op moment to present Obama with a book that presents the Marxist-socialist thesis that America is the source of evil that is responsible for all of Latin America’s problems. Chavez DID say the poor ignoramus needed to read up on his Marxist fabrication of history, after all.

Sad thing is I bet Obama reads every page of the book Chavez gave him. And believes it.

After listening to a deranged speech in which Daniel Ortega demonized and blamed the United States for every problem in Latin America (having clearly read Obama’s new book), Obama’s response was as telling as it was depressing:

“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

It’s NOT about YOU, dammit! This guy just pissed all over your country – the country that you took an oath to DEFEND, by the way – and all you care about is whether he blamed YOU the way you’ve blamed George Bush 5,000 times?  STAND UP FOR AMERICA! Tell the world we’re NOT the hateful country that sleazeballs such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Ortega claim.  But, no; you’ve done even more blaming of America than Ortega during the last several weeks.

Very recently, Obama continued the disgrace America tour by releasing CIA memos so he could refer to “the dark and painful chapter in our history.” Yet another attempt to rub our nose in our morbid and completely illegitimate desire to protect ourselves from the lethal hatred of terrorists. CIA officials are supposed to be thankful that Obama did not reward them for their efforts to protect the country by having them criminally prosecuted. It was apparently vitally important that our terrorist enemies be made to realize that they no longer have absolutely anything whatsoever to fear from being captured by American forces. All they have to do is lawyer up while enjoying three hots and a cot while they destroy our country just like the ACLU does – from within – by using our own institutions against us.

The disgrace America tour goes on and on under Barrack Hussein. Let’s not forget the sermons from Obama’s spiritual leader for 23 years: this IS “God damn America,” after all.

I end by reflecting on the words of Mark Levin from Liberty And Tyranny, page 18:

For the Statist, the international community and international organizations serve as useful sources for importing disaffection with the civil society. The Statist urges Americans to view themselves with through the lenses of those who resent and even hate them. He needs Americans to become less confident, to doubt their institutions, and to accept the status assigned to them by outsiders – as isolationists, invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and exploiters. The Statist wants Americans to see themselves as backward, foolishly holding to their quaint notions of individual liberty, private property, family, and faith, long diminished or jettisoned in other countries. They need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals and self-appointed global watchdogs hostile to America’s superior standard of living. America is said to be out of step and regressive, justifying the surrendering of its sovereignty through treaties and other arrangements that benefit the greater “humanity.” And it would not hurt if America admitted its past transgressions, made reparations, and accepted its fate as just another aging nation – one among many.

Californians Reject TWO Alternative Energy Props; Will Dems Pay Attention?

The People’s Republic of California – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 24 points – did something else that should send an even louder message: the “green,” “global warming,” “alternative energy” initiatives got utterly annihilated.   Proposition 7 – which would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 – went down 65% to 35%.  And Proposition 10 – which would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology – went down 60% to 40%.

Noel Sheppard wrote it up with the title, “Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?”  Answer: no way, Jose.

Sheppard asks, “Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?”  Not when the media is thoroughly corrupt, and proponents of anthropogenic global warming are demagogues.

I’ve written about the fraud that is known as “anthropogenic global warming”:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A question should be raised for all to hear that is never raised because the media is corrupt and produces little more than outright propaganda:

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

And one thing is certain: the Democrats you elected to run your lives certainly aren’t going to raise it, either.

Californians rejected both measures because they came to realize that they would have cost an already overstressed economy $15 billion dollars.  Are Californians liberal?  Big time.  Democrats are now in nearly total control of the state.  Are Californians socialist nuts?  Oh, yeah.  As one example among many, Californians in Berkeley passed two resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”  Are they suicidal loons who will go right off the cliff with their ideology?  Incredibly, as it turns out, not quite yet.

But what you don’t realize, America, is that you are going to have an alternative energy boondoggle that makes both California propositions look like a drop in the bucket forced onto your economy.  There isn’t a federal proposition system such that voters get to decide whether polar bears should be considered more important than your kids.  You already voted for it, whether you knew it or not.

You voted to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid near complete dominion over the Senate.  He lectured us:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And – like it or not, ready or not – you WILL stop using fossil fuels.  The fact that there is nothing to replace them with is irrelevant (did you know that 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels?  Did you know that alternative energy sources can’t even begin to replace fossil fuels?).

You voted to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi TOTAL domination in the House of Representatives.  In her frankly unhinged spiel on global warming, she ranted:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Democrats finally blinked on oil drilling after decades of obstruction.  They did so only after it was long past obvious that Americans overwhelmingly wanted them to harness our domestic oil supply.  But now that they have total power, and the price of oil has gone back down due to the coming recession, you can count on them to go back on whatever they said they would do.

And Barack Obama was recently discovered to have said of vital fossil fuel coal – which supplies 49% of the nation’s electricity:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And what would be the effect of that?  Obama wanted to make sure his San Francisco audience knew that he was going to implement his intentions with his eyes wide open:

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Get ready, America: you voted to have your economy destroyed by foolish ideological agendas, and you are going to get it.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we’re going to abandon it.  No matter how much it costs us; no matter how harmful it is going to be on our economy; no matter how hard it is for millions of American families.  And we’re not going to drill for domestic oil, no matter how much it would help.  The people we elected don’t want oil.  They think it’s icky.  Same with nuclear energy.  They might occasionally talk about “being willing to consider” these energy sources.  But they aren’t; and you can know that because they never have been.

That’s why I earlier called Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama “The Three Stooges Of American Energy Policy.”  But the real stooges are the Americans who voted for them.

Ultimately, the joke will be on the nation that put these radical ideologues with their radical agenda in power.

Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama: Saving The Planet, Megalomaniac-style

Nancy Pelosi is bending over backwards to use any tactic and any trick to block any Republican energy proposal.

Why? Because Nancy Pelosi is a superhero. She’s out to save the planet. Maybe she calls herself “Supernanny” (I would offer “Superninny”).

A quote from a Politico interview provides one of the many bizarro world insights into her fractured psyche:

With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Let’s face it, Washington: This speaker is different. She’s the first woman ever to hold the post and a very tough one at that, with a penchant for the mystical.

David Rogers is too kind: Speaker Pelosi has a penchant for the bizarre.

The thing that makes her posturing so ridiculously laughable is that she says she’s trying to save the planet by blocking domestic drilling. Doesn’t she realize that Saudi Arabia is part of the planet she claims to be trying to save?

She wants them to increase their production:

"As record oil prices continue to burden American families and businesses,
reports indicate that the President's visit to Saudi Arabia today to push for
increased production has failed. Despite considerable influence, the Bush
Administration has been ineffective in pressuring Saudi Arabia and, yet again,
has failed to effectively use diplomacy to exact short-term relief for
American consumers."

This underscores the hypocrisy of this woman: she does everything she can to block domestic oil production in a move to save the planet, and practically at the same time she denounces the President for being unable to get another country to increase its oil production on the same planet she claims to be trying to save.

It’s even more absurd and hypocritical than that: her Democrats in her House of Representatives actually passed a bill to sue OPEC for limiting oil supplies.

Consider the implicit statement of her preposterous position: “I as Speaker will do everything I can to prevent America from harnessing its own oil resources because I’m trying to save the planet; but I will simultaneously do everything I can to force another country to increase its production.”

How does Nancy Pelosi’s head not explode from all the contradictions?

Nancy Pelosi’s effort “to save the planet” is resulting in our dependency on foreign oil to the tune of $700 billion a year.

Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Barack Obama are on the same page when it comes to energy. They produce plenty of finger pointing and demagoguing, but produce no energy at all.

And Barack Obama is quoting Pelosi in his own megalomaniacal and self-aggradizing self-image:

“This is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for… I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

This is unfolding like the beast of the Book of Revelation and his false prophet. It is scary and getting scarier.

There’s piece by Gerard Baker in the Times of London lampooning this image of Obama as Messiah. I have written about it as well. But it’s frankly not a laughing matter any more. The language that Obama is using concerning himself is frankly religious. We haven’t heard anything like this since der Fuhrer – who spoke at the same setting in Germany – and spoke to similar enthralled crowds. A man with this level of pseudo-self-identity is a man who can go down a disastrous path without hesitation. He becomes the man Justice Louis Brandeis envisioned when he said, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

When millions of people become caught up in a zeal that is mindless because it is without any defining substance to follow a man because he is a symbol of something else, there is no limit to the depths of chaos we can descend into.  Remember it was not “warmongers” who left the Western world shockingly unprepared for the holocausts of World War II; it was the self-righteous appeasing liberal mindset epitomized by Neville Chamberlain.

As usual, Barack Obama paints a beatific picture that is utterly devoid of details. Just what is it Obama thinks would represent “America returning to its best traditions”? And just why on earth is he its symbol? Perhaps it’s absolutely refusing to become energy independent while sending lawyers to another country to force it to supply the energy that we refuse to supply for ourselves? Obama is a man who is so entirely devoid of policy substance, and so self-assured of his infallibility, that he can routinely make completely contradictory statements without ever acknowledging any change at all.

We have seen the Congress spiral down to its lowest level of unpopularity ever recorded under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And now we are on the verge of electing someone who will very likely be an even greater disaster.

The thought of these two self-aggrandizing megalomaniacs having control over the control fills me with a dread unlike anything I’ve ever known.

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

Watch it on Youtube if prefer seeing your idiots in living color.

Well, how about if YOU stop, Harry. And tell all your fellow liberals and Democrts to stop right along with you. The rest of us realize that we need the stuff, and that we will continue to need it for decades to come.

Let us not forget to point out that Barack Obama has the same stupid and self-defeating ideas about energy.

So it’s not coal and oil that we’re sick of, Harry. We’re sick of you and your irrational and self-defeating energy policies. Coal and oil is what made our country great; it’s what our economy has been – and continues to be – based upon. It’s what we will continue to need in order to continue to improve our way of life.

Stop and think about it: Route 66; the interstate system; distant communities interconnected by vast stretches of freeways and roads. Our entire way of life has been based upon the mobility that oil has provided. We can’t just get rid of oil and keep right on truckin’. The Democrat’s vision will create enormous adjustment and enormous pain for Americans.

At some point, we will clearly need to transition to another dominant source of energy. But there is simply no way that we will be ready to make that transition any time soon. To refuse to allow our vast domestic oil supplies to be utilized by citing theoretical alternatives is foolish beyond crazy.

While a few R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only) politicians (I like the term “Stockholm Syndrome Republicans”) have embraced global warming alarmism and environmentalist bans on drilling, the simple fact of the matter is that it was Bill Clinton who vetoed taking advantage of our oil reserves over a Republican effort to expand our supplies, and it has overwhelmingly been Democrats who have thwarted every effort both to increase oil drilling and oil refining every since.

The result is that we have been deliberately left completely vulnerable to just the kind of sky-high prices that we are seeing now.

Democrats argue that drilling is pointless because it won’t produce any results for 10 years. But that is insane. Number one, only a fool doesn’t plan for the future. Number two, had Bill Clinton allowed us to drill in the 90’s we wouldn’t be where we are now. And number three, oil drillers say that they could be getting substantial oil out of the ground within one year; and even the most technically difficult sites wouldn’t take longer than six years to harvest.

Democrats argue that they have provided oil companies with leases giving them access to millions of acres for exploration. But these leases weren’t granted on the basis of geologists’ studies (that these are the best locations for oil); but rather on the basis of “junk” land that doesn’t have any political (and likely not any energy) value. It’s the equivalent of the U.S. Government putting the Indians on the crappiest land in the country and then saying, “There: we’ve given you plenty of land.” The reality is that 92% of our offshore reserves and most of the state and federal lands are off limits to oil companies.The outer continental shelf – which contains the best known sources of oil – are completely off limits to the American oil companies, even as Chinese rigs are going up in those very same oil fields!!!

An Associated Press story titled, “Much of oil, gas off limits” says:

WASHINGTON — About half the oil and more than a quarter of the natural gas beneath 99 million acres of federal land is off-limits to drilling, the Bush administration says in a report that industry sought to highlight environmental and other hurdles to development.

Just 3 percent of the oil and 13 percent of the gas under federal land is accessible under standard lease terms that require only basic protections for the environment and cultural resources, according to the survey, which was ordered last year by Congress.

An additional 46 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the gas “may be developed subject to additional restrictions” such as bans to protect winter rangeland for foraging antelope, nesting areas for bald eagles and jagged slopes from erosion during parts of the year.

The revised inventory, released Tuesday by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, is starkly different from a study done three years ago. That version, which covered 59 million acres in the Rocky Mountains, estimated more than 80 percent of oil and gas was accessible, although in some cases subject to restrictions. Environmentalists often cited that figure in arguing that a wealth of energy resources is available for developing without going into pristine areas now off limits.

And, the actual fact of the matter is that the oil companies are routinely unable to drill even in those leased areas that the Democrats deceitfully claim that they have available to them. There are plenty of stories like this out there:

Billings, Mont. (AP) – Two conservation groups have asked the federal government to impose new restrictions on oil and gas development in the West to protect the greater sage grouse, a popular game bird on the decline.

Scientists contend sage grouse breeding areas are suffering in the face of accelerating oil and gas exploration in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and other Western states.

West Nile virus, drought and residential development also have taken a toll on the bird, which is being considered for the endangered species list.

Federal rules now say oil and gas companies cannot drill within quarter of a mile of sage grouse breeding areas. Last week, Idaho-based North American Grouse Partnership and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership of Washington, D.C., filed a legal petition asking for the rule be extended to two miles.

I don’t apologize for caring more about my family and friends than I do about some rare species of bird. Frankly, Democrats should be apologizing to the American people for caring more about a few birds than they do about them.

Again and again, Democrats, Democrat-controlled government bureaucracies, and their left-wing allies in the “environmentalist” and “litigation” communities have blocked oil companies from doing anything. The result is years of lawsuits and court proceedings, red tape, delay, and other excessive costs that make such projects unfeasible.

There’s an old joke about a modern-day Noah trying to build an ark in today’s liberal political environment. It certainly has the pro-bureaucracy, anti-business policies that characterize the Democratic Party in mind.

Democrats routinely use environmental groups’ minimized estimates as to how much oil is actually in a given field. The oil companies believe there is much more available in those fields; that’s why they want to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to start getting that oil out of the ground. Think about it: Democrats routinely say that there isn’t very much oil in places like ANWR, and that oil companies don’t want to drill anyway. If that were even remotely true, then why are the Democrats repeatedly preventing oil companies from drilling by force of law? If the Democrats are anything other than lying demagogues, allow the oil companies to drill where they believe the oil is without the massive bureaucratic hassles; and if they don’t drill and increase our oil suppolies, the Democrats could say, “See, we were right.”

“Proven reserves” are resources that drilling has confirmed exist and can be produced with current technology and prices. By imposing bans on leasing, and encouraging environmentalists to challenge seismic and drilling permits on existing leases, politicians ensure that we will never increase our proven reserves. In fact, reserves will decrease, as we deplete existing deposits and don’t replace them. The rhetoric is clever – but disingenuous, fraudulent and harmful.

They have repeatedly argued that opening up ANWR would do virtually nothing to alleviate the price of gasoline. But Democratic Senators have called upon the Saudis to increase production by amounts that would be less – even according to ridiculously low liberal estimates – than the amount of daily oil flow that ANWR would generate.

The Geological Survey and Congressional Research Service say it’s 95% likely that there are 15.6 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR. And we could add to that an estimated 169 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, Rockies, Great Lakes, Southwest and ANWR – as well as natural gas, coal, uranium and hydroelectric resources that are currently off limits because of Democratic activism.

One of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil. If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50 billion annually.

Mexico has increased its oil production 64 percent since 1980. Canada’s production has increased 85 percent. If we’d increased production at the rate of our North American neighbors, we’d be producing 91 percent of our current consumption, noted National Review’s Noel Sheppard.

Democrats routinely demonize oil companies for their “excessive” and “windfall” profits. But – as usual – they merely prove what hypocrites and demogogues they truly are. Look at the revelations from The Hill:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who calls for “windfall profit taxes on big oil,” has some $200,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who publicly says that oil companies are guilty of “price fixing,” has some $350,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx) – who speaks of “unjustifiable tax breaks for big oil” has $350,000 in Exxon Mobil and Chevron holdings. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) who claims oil companies are “gouging” has $200,000 in holdings with Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Schlumberger. These Democrats are privately profiting from the very companies they publicly claim are so terrible. What hypocrites!

And they falsely demonize oil profits in the way of the classic demagogue. The reality is that the oil companies invest FAR more than they retain in profits; and the reality is that their profits are actually quite modest given the sheer massiveness of their operations.

Investor’s Business Daily says the following:

Yes, oil companies make money. But they spend more than they make on finding new sources of oil. A new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion.

Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion.

This is an industry that has redefined innovation, reinvesting profits to find innovative ways to recover oil and gas wherever they find it. This includes fields once considered “dead,” vast tracts miles beneath the ocean surface, and sands or even shale in North Dakota.

Democrats talk about the need to conserve oil and use alternative energies instead. But do the American people truly want to drastically and dramatically change their way of life when the clear alternative of domestic oil production is readily available? Even the most radical environmentalist activists such as Al Gore clearly don’t want to make such a transition in their own personal lives: Gore has routinely been faulted for his own shockingly high rate of energy consumption. And as I see drivers routinely whiz by me on the freeway, I realize that few Americans are determined to make the kinds of painful sacrifices that Democratic strategies call upon them to make.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that such sacrifice will amount to anything. With China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world increasing its oil consumption, all the “global warming” hyperbole justifying the deliberate restriction of US energy consumption (and therefore economic production) will be “much ado, signifying nothing.” If China and India use the oil we would have used – which by all accounts is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen – then what is the net climate gain?

As a further point revealing the absurdity of Democrats’ claims that we must not drill for oil lest we contaminate the environment and increase global warming, just what do you think is going on in the Middle East? When they increase their production to meet our energy needs (at a massive profit), are they not contaminating the environment and increasing global warming even more than we would, given our higher level of technology and environmental regulations?

Democrats are currently hollering and screaming about speculators artificially driving up the price of gas. But let us consider this:

NEW YORK — Oil prices rose Monday on disappointment over Saudi Arabia’s modest production increase and concerns that output from Nigeria will decline. Retail gas prices, meanwhile, inched lower overnight, but appear unlikely to change much as long as oil prices stay in a trading range.

Saudi Arabia said Sunday at a meeting of oil producing and consuming nations that it would turn out more crude oil this year if the market needs it. The kingdom said it would add 200,000 barrels per day in July to a 300,000 barrel per day production increase it first announced in May, raising total daily output to 9.7 million barrels.

But that pledge at the meeting held in the Saudi city of Jeddah fell far short of U.S. hopes for a larger increase. The United States and other nations argue that oil production has not kept up with increasing demand, especially from China, India and the Middle East.

The fact that the price of oil goes UP when the supply goes DOWN ought to tell you something about what is truly driving the shocking price increases: supply and demand.

As we see the volatility of oil prices, and as we see that threats in the Middle East, or in unstable regimes such as Nigeria, send our prices through one roof after another, thinking, rational people must surely come to realize that there is an urgent, long-term strategic need for American to have it’s own stable domestic oil supply.

And one political party – the Democrats – are clearly standing in the way of that critical strategic goal. Our survival depends upon energy independence. But Democrats are literally STANDING on our ability to provide that independence.

Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon

As a conservative, I obviously found difficulties in a number of issues and statements raised in the Democratic debate last night (April 16). But the candidates response to the issue of the war in Iraq – particularly framed as it was against the even greater issues of a looming nuclear Iran and the threat of a nuclear arms race in the most violent, terrifying, and paranoid region in the world – was downright disturbing.

As I listened to the Democratic candidates, I had a dizzying moment of “deja vu all over again” as I recalled the historic lessons of the disasterous liberal failures that enabled World War II. And I could not help but remember the biblical narratives prohecying that total future apocalypse commonly known as “armageddon.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=13.

MANDY GARBER of Pittsburgh asked the following question: “So, the real question is, I mean, do the candidates have a real plan to get us out of Iraq or is it just real campaign propaganda? And you know, it’s really unclear. They keep saying we want to bring the troops back, but considering what’s happening on the ground, how is that going to happen?”

CHARLES GIBSON followed up: “Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director in your campaign, Howard Wolfson on a conference call recently was asked, “Is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month whatever the realities on the ground?” And Wolfson said, “I’m giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it, the answer is yes.”

So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you’re going to order those troops to come home?”

SENATOR CLINTON replied: “Yes, I am, Charlie. And here’s why: You know, thankfully we have a system in our country of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice and then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goalposts when it comes to Iraq.

And I am convinced that it is in America’s best interest, it is in the best interest of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interest of Iraq, that upon taking office, I will ask the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner, because obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment is dangerous.

I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States, because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdraw that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years.

I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq.

But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we’ve had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do.

But I think it’s important that this decision be made, and I intend to make it.”

CHARLES GIBSON addressed Senator Obama with the same question: “And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is — this is talking about you — when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that.

So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.”

SENATOR OBAMA: “Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That’s not the role of the generals. And one of the things that’s been interesting about the president’s approach lately has been to say, well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I’ve provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.

And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, we are overstretched in a way — we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn’t already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable. That’s not smart national security policy, and it’s going to change when I’m president.”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS then turned attention to the issue of Iran and the threat it represented to the region: “Senator Obama, let’s stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”

SENATOR OBAMA responded: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I’m president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we’ve got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?”

SENATOR OBAMA: “As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “Senator Clinton, would you?”

SENATOR CLINTON: “Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don’t now have.

Number one, we’ve got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he’s not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He’s not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.”

Now, I am glad that both candidates want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the region, and want to promise to protect our allies in the region. I believe these are all very good things.

But I want to focus attention on the fact that withdrawing from Iraq will actually have the very opposite effects from these goals, and will virtually guarantee that none of these goals would be attainable. If the United States abandons Iraq, it will put us on a trajectory toward disaster.

In an earlier article, I attempted to draw some of the parallels between our abandonment of Vietnam between 1973 and 1975, with what would almost certainly happen were we to similarly abandon Iraq. In short, the United States pulled its forces out due to domestic protest after it had painstakingly attained a stable military situation. The 1968 Tet offensive had been a military disaster for the Communist North, and the Viet Cong guerrillas had been annihilated in the American counteroffensive. But the domestic protests, and the scandal that undermined the Nixon presidency, forced the United States to negotiate with the North. Nixon claimed a “Peace with honor,” but the Democratic-controlled Congress refused to honor the American commitment to South Vietnam. Military aid ceased; funds were cut off. And when North Vietnamese tanks rolled on Saigon, the Republic of South Vietnam had nothing to stop them with. A bloodbath of massive proportions followed that spread from Vietnam to Cambodia to Laos. Three million died after the war, and untold numbers of refugee “boat people” perished at sea.

American prestige was terribly undermined as our enemies realized we truly could be defeated, and our allies realized that we would not necessarily keep our promises. The United States soon withdrew its commitments elsewhere, including its backing of the Shah of Iran, who had been the closest American ally in the region. To this very day, our enemies believe that the United States can not stand a prolonged war with casualties, and that we will withdraw – “cut and run” – from our allies and our interests if they can pile up enough bodies.

I think about these things. And I greatly mourn that we may very well be in the process of repeating our same mistakes in nearly exactly the same manner. Only this time the stakes are much, much higher, and the disaster that will surely follow will be much, much worse.

As a student of history, I remember the abject failure of the Western allies to grasp the growing threat of their enemies throughout the 1930s. I remember the refusal of the liberal governments of the Allied powers to comprehend what are now known to have been fundamental realities of naked aggression and looming war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain abandoned his country’s commitment to Czechoslovakia with a promise from Hitler of peace. The liberal, “anti-war” Chamberlain returned home saying, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Chamberlain saw Britain’s policy as a willingness to compromise and a desire for peace. But Hitler saw only weakness, hesitation, and cowardice, and became emboldened for total war. Again and again, the West had had an opportunity to demonstrate its genuine resolve to Hitler, and again and again the West had failed to stand.

In our present day, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a shocking degree of treachery in regard to Iraq. It is their war as much as it is Republicans’ war – because it should be America’s war.

In his 1998 State of the Union Address before the United States Congress, President Clinton told the world, “I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot deny the will of the world. You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.” A week later, President Clinton said, “I will say again, one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

On 31 October 1998, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, saying, “It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime.”

After the horror of the 9/11 attacks, the full horror of Islamic terrorists murderous intent was nakedly revealed to a shocked United States. Military and civilian national security authorities alike immediately realized that the attacks would have been far, far worse if the terrorists had been able to obtain WMD capability. And they knew that major terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda were determined to obtain WMD.

President Bush confronted Saddam Hussein over his country’s weapons program, but the Iraqi dictator refused to give the United States a clear picture of his capability. The United States Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq in 2002; the United States House of Representatives approved the resolution, 296-133. The vote wasn’t even close. The resolution actually passed by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that had empowered President George H.W. Bush to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That 1991 measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate. Furthermore, a clear majority of Democrats in the Senate supported the October 2002 war resolution: 29 Democratic Senators voted “aye” and only 21 “nay.”

On 17 March 2003, Senator Hillary Clinton said on the eve of war, “Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties.”

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on 15 December 2003 after celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein, she declared, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote” and was one that “I stand by.” The speech she gave that evening is noteworthy given the abject treachery she would come to show in repudiating everything she said that evening.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html

Democrats can’t just walk away from a commitment to a war that this nation elected to undertake, can they? But that is exactly what they did. To paraphrase the famous John Kerry flip flop of his failed 2004 presidential campaign, “I voted for that war before I voted against it.” We were at war, but the Democrats turned and ran on Republicans the moment the fighting got fierce. And for simple political opportunism they have spent the five years since talking about Republican war-mongering rather than their own moral cowardice.

UPI reported on story titled, “Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks.” The article begins: “Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable “emboldenment effect” on insurgents there. ‘We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases,’ says the study, published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading U.S. nonprofit economic research organization.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/FOREIGN/259963993/1003

Can anyone believe that when major Democrats say things such as, “The war is lost” (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) that this doesn’t embolden our enemies to stay in the fight?

Somehow, both Democratic presidential candidates as well as the very nearly the entire Democratic political apparatus believes that they have absolutely no responsibility for the war, or to the people of Iraq. They believe they can simply blame it all on Bush and the Republicans and count on an ignorant and increasingly amoral America to go along with their revision of history.

But when they abandon the commitment to Iraq that better and more honorable Americans made to that country, they will be undermining the future of America.

Democrats will be mouthing the mantra, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Even as they set the stage for total Armageddon. Iran – just as Nazi Germany – will see what the Democrats view as high-minded liberal foreign policy as weakness, hesitation, and cowardice. And the next Democratic president will either see that Armageddon arise during his/her own administration, or else he or she will set it up for the next presidential administration just as Jimmy Carter set up the modern state of Iran by betraying the Shah and enabling the Ayatollahs to take over in his stead.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama agreed that we must not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But how will the Democrats – who now universally and roundly condemn President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq without total proof of WMD when he had used WMD repeatedly on his enemies – arrive at the threshhold of certainty? The fact is, we can never be certain what is going on iside a totalitarian state such as Iran (or Iraq). Further, when the Democrats have spent the last five years proclaiming that the war in Iraq was a mistake, how are they now going to be able to say with a straight face, “And we’re willing to make the same mistake with you” to Iran?

Iran will know that 1) all they have to do is continue to develop their nukes in some degree of murkiness, because Democrats can’t go in unless they are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN Iran has such weapons. So we won’t ever be able to go in there under a Democratic administration. And 2) Iran will know that even if Democrats DID go in (Which they won’t!), they wouldn’t stay the course if the fighting got tough (which it most certainly would). All Iran has to do is keep piling up bodies – even if its just the bodies of their own – and Democrats will turn and run. It is what they do. More than anything else in our generation, cutting and running defines the Democratic Party.

Clinton and Obama also let it be known that Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will trust them when they pledge to defend them from Iran, making their own nuclear programs unneccessary. The problem of a nuclear Iran goes beyond a nuclear Iran: it creates an imbalance of power that will force Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to develop their own nuclear programs to balance the Shiite Iranians. Think of a nuclear arms race going on in the most radical, terrifying, murderous, and paranoid region in the world. And Sunnis – who we know DON’T get along real well with Shiites, will trust the United States to stick by them through thick and thin? Yeah, right; the Democrats who have spent five years vowing to cut and run from staying in Iraq will now stand by their word to help you, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? (“But we really mean it this time!”).

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

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