Posts Tagged ‘war on terror’

The State Of The Union Is TERROR. Obama Has Failed The World And Is Determined To Bring Terrorism Into America.

March 23, 2016

A terror attack in Brussels ought to terrorize the United States and the American people: at least nine of the victims are Americans.

A scripture passage from Mark chapter 12 is highly illustrative when it comes to why Obama will NOT fight terror or even acknowledge that it is a real thing that needs to BE fought:

22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and[a] mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,[b] the ruler of the demons.”

25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

Obama won’t fight evil because the man himself IS evil.  And evil will not fight evil, because a house divided cannot stand.

You know, the way Obama has divided America and put us at each other’s throats.  Obama has created a spirit of rage and hate and distrust and contempt for both parties and for all government: that’s why we not only have Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders.  The only reason the Democrat Party isn’t melting down with Sanders taking 71% of all Democrats under 30 years old is because it has an intrinsically and pathologically fascist “super delegate” category in which the Party has lock-step control of the election rather than any genuine “democracy” or “vote.”

You want to talk about Donald Trump?  Okay, let’s.  I PREDICTED that a Donald Trump would arise because of Obama’s spirit of divisive hate in which he broke America into groups and pitted one group against another: race against race, gender against gender, income level against income level, religion against contempt of religion.  And dividing, he conquered by a fifty-plus-one margin that left the rest of the nation seething with increasing rage as he imposed his ideology like a tyrant emperor.  And then Obama set out to break the Republican Party by issuing sweeping executive orders that split the Republican Party as they scrambled and divided in their attempt to react to and deal with naked fascism.  My words on June 18, 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

I told you it would happen and I told you it would happen because of Obama’s hate.  And it happened just as I told you.  Which is why my prediction now stands as a naked FACT as to WHO divided America.

So America is now hopelessly divided because of Obama.  Our allies are weak and won’t support us because they cannot trust our strong commitment.  Because of Obama.  And our worst, most mortal enemies are emboldened and united like they’ve never been.  Because of Obama.

Obama has broken America’s faith; we are severed from GOD because of this wicked man who claimed that “As a Christian, I believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.”  But wicked man the liar is, he wickedly LIED out of the most craven, most cynical, political reasons.  Obama’s “Christianity” stands for and means less than one of my dog’s poops in the backyard stands for and means.  It is utterly worthless and means nothing and stands for less than nothing.  And now our “religion” is no different whatsoever than the agenda wishlist of the atheist American Civil Liberties Union whose founder once declared, “Communism is the goal.”

“God DAMN America,” Obama’s spiritual leader and mentor said:

Mission accomplished.  Obama is celebrating because those words “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!” are now his “fundamental transformation of America.”  God has always held nations accountable for the wickedness of their kings.  And we actually VOTED for this wicked king.

If you are a Democrat, it is because you have a radical hatred and contempt for God.  And good luck experiencing all the fun promised in the soon-to-be-fulfilled Book of Revelation when you finally get that antichrist you have dreamed of for all your roach lives.

It is an amazing thing the way Bush got blamed for the wars but Obama cut and ran AFTER BUSH WON HIS WAR and now the terrorists as a direct result of Obama’s stupidity are far stronger than they EVER were when Bush was president.  This is an easy thesis to document:

  1. Obama HIMSELF announced we were victorious: “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Hussein Obama, February 27, 2009
  2. Vice President Biden went further and called Iraq “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  You explain to me how he could say that in 2010 and Bush be to blame now.  Because if Bush had ruined the world in 2008, what is Biden doing calling it a “great achievement” in 2010???  No, rather, Bush handed Obama a peaceful, stable Iraq that Obama proceeded to flush down the toilet with his idiotic stupidity as he failed to listen to his own generals and foreign policy experts and ruined the world.  Here’s Biden’s quote: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  — Vice President Joe Biden, 2010
  3. Our enemy in Iraq announced themselves that they were defeated (until Obama gave them life with his treason): “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.” — General Jack Keane
  4. Obama ignored all of his generals and advisors in pulling out of Iraq:US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
    By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

    The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

    The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

    Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

  5. In fact Obama has ALWAYS ignored all military advice.  Obama in fact has never ONCE listened to a single decent expert who knew what the hell he was doing.  Because he is a demon-possessed FOOL par excellence.  Obama’s own leaders as well as the military advised him what he needed to do; Obama ignored their wisdom.  And the very hell those generals and leaders predicted came to pass just as they predicted it.  It is a stupid, pathetic, trivial and demonic mind that blames Bush for that.
  6. Furthermore, Bush was RIGHT and Obama was demonically WRONG:  George W. Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we listened to Great Satan Obama:Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early:“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda [Bush could not conceive that Obama would give birth to an even MORE vicious monster Islamic State that made al Qaeda look, well, “JayVee” in comparison].“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale [Yep, that sure happened thanks to Obama].“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan [Yep, check again: for the first time in the history of the world we have a true terrorist army that has created its own giant CALIPHATE.  Never saw anything like that when George W. Bush was president.  That is simply a fact].“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”  [Check yet again.  And since Obama stupidly gave Russia hegemony over the region, it would mean risking World War III.  All because Barack Hussein Obama is the worst fool who ever lived].
  7. Now add to that unmitigated disaster, that totally unforced error, Obama’s red line fiasco in Syria.  John Kerry said Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.
  8. Both military leaders, civilian leaders of the military and national security and foreign policy, and numerous conservatives such as MYSELF stated that Obama’s idiotic plan to pull out of Iraq would lead to disaster.  In any valid scientific laboratory, we were verified to be 100 percent scientifically proven RIGHT and Obama and every fool who believes in Obama was proven to be a demoniac jackass who hates the United States of America and is plotting its destruction.  In August 2008, I predicted, and I quote: “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for forfeiting Iraq, and then having to come back in a few years to do it all over again – this time against a determined Iranian insurgency.”  You tell me I was wrong, you demon-possessed Nazicrat Party liars, because all you have is a demonic delusion in your fool minds and I have all the actual facts.
  9. And as a result, I have with all those facts and evidence and history itself behind me written articles like this one: ‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East and Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat.
  10. And therefore Iraq has been in meltdown, Syria is a shambles, Libya is a shambles, Yemen is a shambles (and CONSIDER the debacle in Yemen given what Obama stupidly said), Egypt is a shambles, etc. etc.  Obama guaranteed Iran would have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to us and so terrorize us from acting in the region.  Russia and Iran are now without any question have hegemony over the Middle East.  And Israel is isolated and abandoned.  Which is why Israelis say Obama is the WORST American president in history.  And as I document three paragraphs below, Obama has cursed the world with more refugees than it has ever seen in all of human history.

So let’s refresh ourselves with what we just learned.  Both Obama and his vice president were both on record taking credit for Iraq AFTER Bush handed off a stable, peaceful Iraq having broken the terrorist army.  All Obama had to do was remain in Iraq with a relatively small force, just as we have done in Japan and Germany and in South Korea.  Obama’s military leaders were adamant that he stay, having told him in advance what would happen if he didn’t: namely, that the terrorists who had been defeated would be able to establish another stronghold in the vacuum Obama was stupidly leaving open.  Obama ignored them and the result was chaos just as they had correctly predicted it would be.  Barack Obama literally lost a war that had already been won.  Combine that with Obama’s depraved stupidity in countries like Syria and Libya, and you had a recipe for total disaster.  Again, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, Obama’s own top people, declared that Obama’s foreign policy had collapsed.  And now we are facing hell.  And it is a hell of Obama’s invention.

Case factually proven.  No one but an abject ideologue who is a complete fool and a total liar would say anything different.  And what do demonic Democrats do?  Blame Bush and blame Benjamin Netanyahu.  Because Bush could operate a pristine china shop, Obama could race through and knock down and break every single piece and blame it on Bush and Democrats would say that Bush destroyed the China.

Because of Barack Hussein Obama – and because to be a Democrat is to be a pathologically wicked liar and fool who will one day spend all eternity screaming in agony in hell and will NEVER be able to pay for the hell on earth you unleashed – there are now more refugees than there have EVER been in the ENTIRE history of the human race.

And so as a result the number of terrorist groups have exploded under Obama causing the number of terrorist attacks to have skyrocketed which caused the number of deaths caused by terrorist attacks have QUADRUPLED under Obama.

But if you’re a Democrat, you are too evil to understand or comprehend reality, you are too hell bent bending over for homosexual sodomy and too murderous in slaughtering our babies by the tens of millions to see anything but the blood covering your fangs and faces and eyes.

Obama blathers utterly meaningless, hollow, trivial speeches in flat tones, saying “we can and will defeat those who threaten our security.”  Which of course is a passive declaration of what is possible (we can defeat cancer) and future tenses (and one day we’ll actually DO it).  Because we very certainly ARE not actively defeating them.  Bush unleashed more firepower in EIGHT DAYS in Iraq than Obama has in SEVEN YEARS of his whatever-he-calls-what-he’s-doing.  And I earlier this morning heard a military expert say the Pentagon is releasing bombing details that wouldn’t have made it out of the lowest-level squadron briefing room because they are so trivial.  But that’s ALL Obama has to show he’s doing anything.

Obama has exploded the world into bloodshed by delivering us all into the terrorists hands.  And if a president is responsible for fighting a war he shouldn’t have fought, A LEADER IS EVERY BIT AS RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUSING TO RIGHT A WAR HE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO FIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF ALL HUMANITY.

How many attacks have we seen from Islamic State that are described in terms of “the worst death toll since World War II”?  That’s what Brussels just said.  It’s what France recently said after they got nailed a few months ago.  Russia said it when Islamic State brought down one of their passenger jets.  Hundreds have been slaughtered.  And if you go to Africa, THOUSANDS have been slaughtered.  Because for the Democrat Party “Black Lives DON’T Matter.”

Obama becomes like the cuckhold husband who has a gang of thugs break into his house and rape, torture and murder his entire family and then burn his house down.  And oh, Obama was holding a loaded gun the entire damn time but was too afraid to aim it at the thugs and pull the trigger.  That’s what we literally have here.

Barack Obama has failed the world.  And the consequences are going to get so ugly it is beyond UNREAL.

Brussels just got nailed.  At least two suicide bombers in a crowded airport terminal.  At least one other bomb found.  Dozens killed and over a hundred injured.  Because Brussels is screwed along with France and the rest of Europe and frankly the rest of the world as Obama’s unprecedented-in-all-of-human-history crisis refugee situation metasticizes into one terror attack after another.

Or let me put it this way: to coin a phrase Obama made possible, unless you are a “card-carrying soldier of Allah,” Obama has put you – and frankly every decent person on EARTH as Muslims who will most assuredly be subject to being RADICALIZED in the future – in harm’s way.

They already know and are reporting that was Islamic State that pulled it off.  And unlike our own wicked government, they don’t have an Obama to pressure the counter-terror authorities to report it as “workplace violence” or “gun crimes.”

It is an amazing thing, how we utterly failed to stop the San Bernardino terror attack that Obama and his roaches blamed on “gun violence.”  For example,  ABC News reported on a “secret U.S. policy” that blocked immigration officials from looking at the social media posts of visa applicants.  It is frankly remarkable.  Even worse, the female terrorist who came to curse us from Pakistan by way of Saudi Arabia, used a false address in her application to obtain a K-1 visa to come here.  Quoting the Los Angeles Times, “Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that the FBI has determined “they were radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, and as early as the end of 2013 were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom.”  The left wants to say, “Ha!  You got it wrong!  Terror bride Tashfeen Malik did NOT use a fake address.  And they cite a report that “Local residents say the version of the address provided is not precise, but the family does own a house in the neighborhood.”  DUMBASSES!  If I give you my NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR’S ADDRESS, let alone cite some address somewhere in the dang neighborhood where I live, I gave a false address, okay?  And since such information is highly specific, ANY false address would be equally misleading and equally bad.

Then you have Obama’s interference:

Report: Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino
Jonah Bennett Reporter
4:52 PM 12/10/2015

The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.

This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy.

“A public relations strategy.”  NOT a counter terrorism strategy.  Not a plan to bomb Islamic State into the stone age.  “A public relations strategy.”

Was there ANY question in HELL that this was a terrorist attack???  The liberal Atlantic puts it this way:

During a press conference in San Bernardino on Thursday, law-enforcement officials noted that the two dead suspects in Wednesday’s massacre had stockpiled an enormous arsenal: thousands of rounds of ammunition, 12 pipe bombs, and material to build more. They said that the couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, seemed to be preparing for more carnage in separate attacks. They noted “international travel,” and said that “if you look at the amount of obvious preplanning … there was obviously a mission here.” Anonymous officials told various news organizations that they believed the couple was in touch with suspected terrorists.

But when a reporter asked David Bowdich, who heads the Los Angeles field office of the FBI, whether the attack was terrorism, he was careful not to make a ruling.

And we know why that is, of course.  Because Barack Obama is an evil liar with an agenda to “degrade and ultimately destroy the United States of America.”

By the time they acknowledge it was what it was, it is too late to make it anything more than “it is what it is.”  You have to MOVE on these things.  You have to have something Obama does not have and does not want: the TRUTH.

Rather, Obama wants to play games in which he hides – to put it in Clintonesque terms – behind what “the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  So they quibble and quibble and quibble rather than just acknowledge the damn, literally BLOODY obvious and then DO something about REALITY.

That is the spirit of Obama, the spirit of the Democrat Party.

It is the spirit of lies and deception for the very worst and very most cynical political reasons.

There will be MANY MORE terror attacks.  Because we were fool enough to elect Obama as our king and evil enough to RE-ELECT him.  And unless this wicked nation gets right before God and repents of those evils, we who once called upon the LORD will go down harder than every other nation that ever existed combined.

Obama has demanded that we BRING IN tens of thousands of Muslims who are MOSTLY MEN and whom we cannot possibly vet because either they have no documentation whatsoever or because Islamic State has captured the machines and the blank forms to create their own passports.  Why is this significant?  Listen to what the security officials are saying in Brussels:

A Belgian counterterrorism official put it bluntly in an interview with BuzzFeed just last week.

“We just don’t have the people to watch anything else and, frankly, we don’t have the infrastructure to properly investigate or monitor hundreds of individuals suspected of terror links, as well as pursue the hundreds of open files and investigations we have,” the official said.

He added: “It’s literally an impossible situation and, honestly, it’s very grave.”

And guess what?  WE DON’T HAVE THE PEOPLE EITHER!!!  The FBI has repeatedly said that it is overextended, that they can’t possibly watch all the terrorist suspects (in all fifty states!!!) that are flooding into America.  I pointed out the following when the Muslim refugee crisis that Obama created first boiled over and Obama demanded we take in tens of thousands and Republicans said no freaking WAY:

We already have Islamic State having infiltrated ALL FIFTY STATES IN AMEICA, according to the Director of the FBI.

There are already 1,000 active investigations into Islamic State presence inside America, according to the FBI.

It requires thirty agents to mount a round-the-clock surveillance of a suspect.  The FBI has testified that they do not have the resources to do more than sixty to seventy of these surveillances at one time maximum.  There is simply no possible way we can surveil the terror suspects we’ve already got in our country, let alone the potentially thousands more Obama and the Democrat Party want to let in.

WE ARE BRUSSELS NOW.  Or at least we’re about to be and we definitely will be if we elect another Democrat.

Democrats want American to be more Europe and that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  Obama has decreed it and is making it happen.

Obama’s foolish and wicked policies have guaranteed that America will get hit for YEARS.  Because he’s literally IMPORTED terrorists from overseas.

Because “No, no, no, NOT God bless America, GOD DAMN AMERICA” – Obama’s spiritual guru for 23 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, speaking as a prophet

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

January 16, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such a pathologically demon-indwelt leader would do this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And look what’s happened as a result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arutz Sheva reports:

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

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

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

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

Read on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

September 13, 2012

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.


Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

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

May 3, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Guantanamo Bay as a provocation, Obama said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Religions Forced To Confront The Dodo-Bird Effect Of Progressivism

April 18, 2011

There was a “Far Side” cartoon that makes all the more sense to me now.  A dinosaur was standing at the podium in front of a large auditorium full of dinosaurs.  And he was explaining, “We’re facing a serious crisis, gentlemen.  The world’s climates are changing, mammals are eating our eggs, and we have brains the size of a walnut.”

The religious side of liberalism is every bit as bankrupt as the political side, and the constantly shrinking membership bears that spiritual, moral and intellectual bankruptcy out.

I saw an article in the Los Angeles Times about liberal Judaism that brought out the fact that liberal “Judaism” was as much a Dodo bird as liberal “Christianity.”  During the same week I spoke to a “Catholic” I frequently chatted with who – after telling me he was a “radical liberal” who believed in abortion and socialized medicine – proceeded to tell me that he utterly rejected the virgin birth of Christ.  Which is of course a central defining belief of orthodox/traditional Catholicism.  And that prompted me to do some thinking about these so-called “mainline” liberal religious movements, and just how utterly meaningless they are.

I better nip one objection in the bud immediately, realizing as I do that many liberals either can’t read very well or can’t understand what they read.  The following article is about the astounding decline of “Conservative” Judaism.  But “conservative” here has nothing to do with politics or even with theology.  “Conservative Judaism” is every bit as liberal as any liberal mainline “Christian” denomination.  It embraces homosexuality; it embraces the notion that the Bible is basically a meaningless book that can be interpreted and then reinterpreted according to constantly changing societal norms.  Which is to say, Conservative Judaism ultimately stands for nothing, and isn’t “conserving” anything remotely important.

That said, “Conservative rabbis” met in Las Vegas to try to deal with a crisis: they are going extinct.  What came out of the meeting is all the more hilarious:

Leaders of Conservative Judaism press for change as movement’s numbers drop
Leading Conservative rabbis gather in Las Vegas to ‘rebrand’ the movement, but there is little agreement about how to draw people back into synagogues.
April 12, 2011|By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

Three hundred rabbis walk into a Las Vegas martini lounge. Bartenders scramble to handle the crowd — the rabbis are thirsty. Suddenly, an Elvis impersonator takes the stage.

We are faced with two possibilities.

One, this is the beginning of a joke.

Two, they don’t make rabbis the way they used to.

The Rabbinical Assembly, the clerical arm of Conservative Judaism, would have you believe the second message, or something like it. That’s why it launched its 2011 convention with a martini reception at a Las Vegas synagogue. The gathering was billed as an attempt to “rebrand” the Conservative movement, which has seen alarming declines in membership in recent years.

“We are in deep trouble,” Rabbi Edward Feinstein of congregation Valley Beth Shalom in Encino told the convention the next day. “There isn’t a single demographic that is encouraging for the future of Conservative Judaism. Not one.”

Those words could apply equally to a number of U.S. religious denominations, especially liberal Protestant and Jewish faiths. Membership is falling; churches and synagogues are struggling financially; and surveys show robust growth among the ranks of those who declare no religious affiliation.

The situation may be especially alarming to the Conservative movement because it was, for many years, the largest denomination in American Judaism. It was the solid center, more traditional than Reform, more open to change than Orthodoxy.

A decade ago, roughly one of every three American Jews identified as Conservative. Since then, Conservative synagogue membership has declined by 14% — and by 30% in the Northeast, the traditional stronghold of American Judaism.

By 2010, only about one in five Jews in the U.S. identified as Conservative, according to the American Jewish Congress.

The Reform and Orthodox movements also saw declines, although not nearly as steep. Reform Judaism for a time claimed the most adherents, but today that distinction goes to people who identify themselves as “just Jewish,” meaning they don’t associate with any of the traditional denominations. Many are entirely secular.

“We’re all in trouble,” said Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly and one of those trying to save the Conservative movement. Correcting herself, she said, “We’re not in trouble, but we’re in urgent need of rethinking the institutions of Jewish life.”


The movement’s problems, many agree, begin with its name, which has nothing to do with political conservatism and doesn’t accurately describe a denomination that accepts openly gay and lesbian rabbis and believes the Bible is open to interpretation. But that’s just for starters.

Deep dissatisfaction with the organizations that lead Conservative Judaism prompted a number of influential rabbis in 2009 to demand urgent change, warning, “Time is not on our side.” The group won promises of substantial change from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative congregations, and helped prompt reforms in the institutions that train and represent rabbis.

A similar revolt by prominent Reform rabbis preceded that denomination’s continuing effort to reinvent itself, a project launched at L.A.’s Hebrew Union College last November.

So what does it mean for a religious movement to reinvent or rebrand itself?

“It’s one thing for a corporation to say ‘We’re going to reinvent ourselves,'” said David Roozen, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

“Sometimes they get into another business,” he said. “A religion … can evolve, it can be reinterpreted, you can express it in a slightly different style, but you can’t just be doing Judaism one day and say ‘I’m going to sell cars’ the next.”

The Conservative rabbis won’t become car salesmen, but they batted around some fairly radical ideas and predictably stirred up some opposition.

There was talk of eliminating membership dues for synagogues or switching to a la carte “fee-for-service” plans — so that a parent who wants only to send his or her child to religious school won’t also be paying to support the congregation’s other programs. But some said dues give congregants a vital sense of ownership.

Wolpe, the Sinai Temple rabbi, said the movement needs a slogan, one that’s short enough to fit on a bumper sticker. He suggested “A Judaism of Relationships.”

“We don’t have a coherent ideology,” he told his fellow rabbis. “If you ask everybody in this room ‘What does Conservative Judaism stand for?’ my guess is that you’d get 100 different answers…. That may be religiously a beautiful thing, but if you want a movement, that’s not such a hot result.”


And then there was the name. Some prefer Conservative, which was adopted when the movement began in the 19th century. It denotes the founders’ determination to conserve the best of Jewish tradition while being open to prudent change. But others said it is one reason the movement is seen by young people as being hopelessly uncool.

One suggestion: Change it to Masorti, a Hebrew word meaning “traditional” that is used by Conservative Jews in Israel and Europe.

“If we really want to appeal to the new generation, if you want to create a real worldwide movement … we need a common name, and I think it needs to be a Hebrew name,” said Rabbi Felipe Goodman of Temple Beth Sholom in Las Vegas.

As the meeting ended, there were pledges to work toward meaningful change. One example of what that might look like is an effort to employ a new definition of kosher food that would require ethical treatment of the workers who produce it —something that is being called magen tzedek, or “seal of justice.”

“This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square,” said Rabbi Morris Allen of Mendota Heights, Minn., who is leading the effort. Magen tzedek “shifts the entire message of who we are as a religious community. Suddenly, it’s about more than just what is said at the prayer service on Saturday morning.”

Let me begin my analysis by means of a contrast.  Rabbi Morris Allen says, “This is an answer for Conservative Judaism because it’s about the marketplace, it’s about the public square.”  By radical, radical contrast, Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who He is—God incarnate—and what He accomplished—the redemption of sinners who embrace His atoning death for the sin of humanity.

“Conservative Judaism … [is]… about the marketplace.”  That is so sad.  “We need to sell more widgets, or rebrand our widgets, or maybe produce a different kind of widget.”

One of the reasons that Judaism is so swiftly disappearing is because of atheism and a virulent form of Jewish secular humanism which basically holds that it’s perfectly okay to not believe in God as long as you act as though you did.

Dinesh D’Souza points out why precisely why this phenomenon would occur – given the enormous influence of liberalism in Judaism – in his examination of why liberal “Christian” churches are losing membership in droves:

“Unfortunately the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement.  Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco’s gay pride parade?”

And D’Souza provides a sizable pile of statistics to show that the traditional (i.e. evangelical) denominations and churches are growing leaps and bounds even as the liberal mainline churches are going the way of the Dodo bird.

His point, of course, is that these liberal religionists are dying out because they don’t stand for anything that has any spiritual power whatsoever.

Here is the story of Christian growth in the world today:

Compared to the world’s 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

Africa has been the most stunning area of Christian growth over the past century. There were 8.7 million African Christians in 1900 (primarily in Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Africa); there are 475 million African Christians today, and their numbers are projected to reach 670 million by 2025. Another astonishing growth spurt, measured typologically, has been among Pentecostals and charismatics: 981,000 in 1900; 612,472,000 in 2011, with an average of 37,000 new adherents every day – the fastest growth in two millennia of Christian history.

Christianity – which views itself (and which I personally believe is) the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture – is the fastest growing religion on the planet.  Christianity is the world’s only universal religion; the only religion with a global reach.  It is particularly spreading in the third world and in Asia.  Soon, China will be the largest “Christian country” in the world.  There may very well already be more Christians in China than there are in America.  In Korea, Christians already outnumber Buddhists.

While mainline liberal Protestant and (mainline liberal) Catholic “Christianity” withers on the vine, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is exploding.  And while Western Europe and America increasingly deny the Christendom that brought them to greatness in the first place – even as they increasingly become less and less great as a result – Christianity is taking deep abiding root in cultures whose transformation can only be described as “miraculous.”

Meanwhile, as the statistics prove and as Dinesh D’Souza explains, atheism is shrinking in spite of all its grandiose claims to represent the fulfillment of modernity and knowledge.  “Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ is now proven false,” D’Souza writes.  “Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population…  God is very much alive.”  Secular humanists have long self-servingly claimed that the progression of “reason” and “science” would conquer religion, but this is now demonstrated to be a lie, a fairy tale of secularism.

Christianity stands for something.  And as much as I may personally despise Islam, it too at least takes a powerful stand – even if it relies primarily on force and terrorism to make that stand.  Atheism and secular humanism are only parisites hanging on to Christianity and its superior moral values, and the political liberalism that theological liberalism invariably leads to is the nihilism of objective moral truth all together.

Allow me to provide a concrete example of the empty nexus of liberal politics and liberal theology.  Barack Obama, a quintessential theological and political liberal, has repeatedly stripped God out of the Declaration of Independence and its profound establishment of Creator God as the only and ultimate grounds for legitimate human dignity, freedom and rights.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” our founders assured mankind, and “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Not so with Obama.  On his repeatedly stated version, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But just what created us (random mutation or perhaps benevolent fairies?) and exactly how did we become endowed with these rights that most cultures and most worldviews and in fact most political systems throughout human history have denied?  And further, why did the Judeo-Christian worldview which inspired these founding fathers be dumped on its head, such that its antithesis in the form of the radical homosexual agenda and abortion on demand be enthroned in its place?

Basically, the Judeo-Christian worldview – “Christendom,” if you like – has been treated like a salad bar in the Western Civilization that had been forged by Christianity, and secular humanists can pick out the parts that they like and throw away the rest.  But it’s not a salad bar; Judeo-Christianity as both a religion and a worldview is far more like the foundations of a great building.  And what these secular humanists have been doing is pulling out the foundational pillars one block at a time until there is nothing left to sustain the surrounding structure.

Which is precisely why the West – which used to be called “Christendom” – is now on the verge of complete collapse on virtually every level.

I see the war on terror, and from the start I have seen the glaring flaw in our strategy (yes, even when George Bush was waging it).  Basically, we have confronted totalitarian Islam on the military, political and economic fronts.  But we have utterly ignored the religious front – which is precisely the major front by which totalitiarian Islam has been attacking us.  Like it or not, 9/11 was a religious act.  And there has been no major movement whatsoever – either by the Western powers or by the movements within Islam itself – to confront the religious grounds of the totalitarian Islamists.

And the reason is because we have nothing to confront them with.  Secular humanists/atheists have undermined public religious expression at every turn, while cultural relativists have contextualized religion in such a way to strip it of any spiritual power whatsoever.  Now when we truly need true spiritual power to confront the demonic power motivating radical Islam, basically all we’ve got is allegorical dirt clods.

In the sphere of Islam, jihadists have the superior Qu’ranic argument that it is THEY who are carrying out Muhammad’s vision for Islam, not the liberal Westernized contextualizers who want to make very clear claims of Muhammad into metaphors and allegories representing something else.  Muhammad was a man of genuine violence; he had been in some thirty military campaigns in his life; he had committed numerous genocidal campaigns against “infidels”; and he had another thirty military campaigns planned at the time of his death, including the conquest of Western Europe as the means to spread Islam (“submission”) and the call of Allahu Akbar (a comparative which means “Allah is greater”).  If Muhammad is in any way, shape or form a representative paradigm of what it means to be “Muslim,” then the jihadists are right.

And liberalism – whether it be religious/theological or political/cultural liberalism – has exactly what to answer that?  Other than mocking or trivializing it?

Did political liberals – like the liberal rabbis from the LA Times article above – truly believe that we overcome the threat of terrorism by simply changing the name to “overseas contingency operation” from “war on terror”?

As bad as the religion of Allah may be for a free society, it has a great deal of force when the competition is cultural nothingness, the decaying leftovers of “salad bar pseudo-Judeo-Christianity.”

2 Timothy 3:5 says of such “Christians”:

“They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)

St. Paul told us, “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1).  The risen and glorified Jesus told St. John of the seventh and final church age, “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” (Revelation 3:16).
of my mouth!

And it is with this final age of de-spiritualized, unglodly lukewarm “Christianity” and “Judaism” that makes God literally puke that staggering Western Civilization rises to the bell.

If anyone wants to know why I come across as angry from time to time in my blogging, it is because when I look around, I keep seeing the series of morally and even rationally terrible and despicable choices we have made right here in America that will invariably end with Antichrist, the Tribulation and Armageddon.  And it will not have been God that made this happen, or God who chose this end for mankind; but rather mankind that chose this end for itself.

C.S. Lewis said:

“We can always say we have been the victims of an illusion; if we disbelieve in the supernatural this is what we always shall say.  Hence, whether miracles have really ceased or not, they would certainly appear to cease in Western Europe as materialism became the popular creed.  For let us make no mistake.  If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up and the great white throne appearing, if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology.  Experience by itself proves nothing.  If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream.  Experience proves this, or that, or nothing, according to the preconceptions we bring to it.” (God in the Dock, “Miracles,” pp. 25-26).

The problem with liberalism is that it “fundamentally transforms” whatever it touches – whether Christianity, Judaism or fiscal and economic reality – into a game of make-believe pretend.

Margaret Thatcher put the end-state of econimic liberalism succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And then comes the collapse.

When radical Islamist jihadists attack, you can’t answer or fight with make-believe.  Any more than you can fight massive debt with make-believe mass-printed dollars.

My one consolation is this: I’ve cheated; I’ve skipped ahead and read the last pages of Revelation.  God – and most definitely not Allah or secular humanism or liberal mainline pseudo religiousity – wins in the end.  And when God wins in the end, via the return of Jesus Christ as true King of kings and Lord of lords, He will win in a very literal way indeed.

Liberal Supreme Court Justices Support Material Support To Foreign Terrorist Organizations

June 21, 2010

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama-installed Sonia Sotomayor gazed into the Constitution like gypsies gazing into the murky depths of a crystal ball, and somehow discovered the penumbras and emanations justifying allowing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
Published: June 21, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars ”material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

”Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion ”that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

The law allows medicine and religious materials to go to groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The Obama administration said the ”material support” law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terror groups.

One of the funny things is that the “humanitarian aid group” that is behind this case is ITSELF tied to terrorism.  But American liberals are determined to serve as the useful idiots for Islamic jihadists.

Better that every single American die a horrible death of radiation poisoning from the next major terror attack than that a single terrorist be deprived of a single “right” as championed by morally idiotic liberal justices on the US Supreme Court.

Even Barack Obama and his insanely leftist administration realizes the sheer craziness of these three morally idiotic whackjob justices.  Which begs the question why Obama would have appointed one of said morally idiotic whackkob justices.

Obama is saying he opposes Sonia Sotomayor’s stupid ruling.  But the dumbass disgrace supported it and hundreds of idiotic rulings just like it when he appointed this racist and sexist “wise Latina” to the bench in the first place.  It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, and then opposing the gunshot wound in your foot.

Leftist ideas cannot possibly work in the real world.  Governing by leftist ideology is akin to playing Russian Roulette with all six cylinders loaded.

Obama is about to appoint yet another moral idiot whackjob to the Supreme Court, who will curse this country with her despicable lunacy for decades to come.

You can’t really blame Obama, or his Supreme Court appointees, though.  They are merely working to enact the vision of “God damn America!” that Obama’s reverend for 23 years planted in the mind of the Manchurian President.

Here’s why we have such contemptible justices who are trying to destroy America one asinine and self-destructive decision at a time:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Obama campaigned on a platform of complete moral idiocy.  At some remote level, he is beginning to realize that his ideology is utterly useless and inherently self-destructive as a basis from which to actually govern.  But moral idiocy is all he has to offer.  So he’s paralyzed, stuck somewhere between being utterly useless and being inherently self-destructive.

All he’s got is the perennial campaign; the ability to actually govern or lead has been purged from the White House until this president is himself purged from the office.

Obama supports the lunatic environmental movement, and then flounders in the Gulf as every solution to contain the damage of the oil leak is opposed by the very environmentalists he appeals to.  Obama supports the pro-illegal immigration movement even as he falsely promises to somehow reduce illegal immigration.   Obama supports the lunatic liberal judicial approach, and then flounders in the war on terror (renamed the “overseas contingency operation” to satiate the left) as the very liberal judicial approach he so favors gets in the way of actually winning or even just not losing.

The sad thing is that you can count on Obama to keep appointing fools – and then being forced to resist the very rulings that his fools dictate.

That’s just what fools do.

Absence Of Values: Obama Targets American Citizen For Death Without Trial

May 15, 2010

There’s a phrase that Francis Schaeffer used: “feet firmly planted in mid-air.”  It aptly describes the plight of the secular humanist left.  Here’s a quote to familiarize yourself with the concept:

Since present day Humanism vilifies Judeo-Christianity as backward, its goal to assure progress through education necessitates an effort to keep all mention of theism out of the classroom. Here we have the irony of twentieth century Humanism, a belief system recognized by the Supreme Court as a non-theistic religion, foisting upon society the unconstitutional prospect of establishment of a state-sanctioned non-theistic religion which legislates against the expression of a theistic one by arguing separation of church & state. To dwell here in more detail is beyond the scope of this article, but to close, here are some other considerations:

In the earlier spirit of cooperation with the Christian church the ethics or values of the faith were “borrowed” by the humanists. In their secular framework, however, denying the transcendent, they negated the theocentric foundation of those values, (the character of God), while attempting to retain the ethics. So it can be said that the Humanist, then, lives on “borrowed capital”. In describing this stuation, Francis Schaeffer observed that: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” His meaning here is that while the Humanist may have noble ideals, there is no rational foundation for them. An anthropocentric view says that mankind is a “cosmic accident”; he comes from nothing, he goes to nothing, but in between he’s a being of supreme dignity. What the Humanist fails to face is that with no ultimate basis, his ideals, virtues and values are mere preferences, not principles. Judging by this standard of “no ultimate standard”, who is to say whose preferences are to be “dignified”, ultimately?

What happens when “preferences, not principles” encounters a difficulty?  The preferences will go out the window every single time.  Call it a “preference” for “the ends justify the means.”  Who needs moral principles when Obama has political pragmatism?  And bye-bye, any professed principles.

“Feet firmly planted in mid-air,” and the abandonment of principles in favor of a constant stream of moral relativism and ends-justifies-the-means thinking has plagued the amoral Obama administration again and again.  Obama damned Bush over Gitmo; but he’s doing the same thing.  Obama damned Bush over military tribunals.  What is he doing now?  He damned Bush over the surge strategy in Iraq; what in the world would you call the strategy he’s employing now in Afghanistan?  Obama damned Bush over the practice of rendition, but he’s doing it as much as Bush did.  Obama denounced Bush for holding terrorist detainees without trial, but he’s doing the same exact thing.  The list goes on and on.  Obama attacked Bush over his lack of transparency, only to be far less transparent than Bush ever was.  Obama criticized Bush for protecting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, but has since engaged in bailout after bailout of the rich and powerful.  Obama blasted Bush for being partisan, but he has become the most partisan president in American history.  Obama denounced the right for using reconciliation to pass key legislation, and then used it to pass the most significant legislation this country has seen in 60 years.  For all Obama’s lefty rhetoric, he has abandoned virtually every principle he professed.

Quite possibly above everything else, Obama pronounced himself the man who would end the war on terror – if nothing else than by the sheer magnificence of his person – and restore all the principles of liberalism’s views toward constitutional protections to the enemies we would confront on the battlefield.

But when the rubber met the road, the amoral president demonstrated that his moral values amounted to dust in the wind, which would blow away in the face of the next challenge.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

Obama and his supporters have routinely depicted Obama (somewhat falsely) as “a constitutional law professor.”  But stop and think about it: this “constitutional law professor” now has the view that it’s okay to blow away an American citizen without any form of legitimate trial.  He’s dogmatic about protecting the sanctity of the guy’s cellphone calls, but he has no compunction about ordering the guy to be blown to bits without a trial based on secret intelligence.

A pretty remarkable degree of chutzpah from a guy who once demagogued a president over his treatment of foreign terrorists.

Now, one might think that the political left and the liberal mainstream media would be frothing in outrage over all of these abandonments of principle, but the left is as incapable of genuine moral outrage as they are of genuine moral principles.  Which is to say that the media damned Bush over every breach of constitutional ethics from a leftist perspective, but they largely never mention all of Obama’s myriad breaches of the very same ethics.

Whenever the left offered its next political Utopia, the mainstream media of the day sanctified the government takeover as wonderful.  And then failed to speak out as the next regime, and then the next, and then the next, became a living hell on earth (as an example, here’s an article about the “hidden” history of evil in the Soviet Union.  Why is it “hidden”?  Because the left has steadfastly refused to look at the ugly face of socialism/communism).

Standing for nothing, with their feet firmly planted in mid-air, Barack Obama and the leftist radicals he champions have no principles to plant their feet upon.  The result has been one abandonment of principle after another beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.

From Shock And Awe To Shock And Flaw

January 12, 2010

From an interview with former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman in the National Review:

Lehman: Clueless Obama [Robert Costa]

After watching President Obama’s remarks on national security this afternoon, John Lehman, the secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of the 9/11 Commission, tells National Review Online that, “frankly, I’m pissed off.”

“President Obama just doesn’t get it,” says Lehman. “I don’t think he has a clue. It’s all pure spin. He’s ignoring key issues and taking respectable professionals like John Brennan and turning them into hacks and shills. It’s beyond contempt.”

“The president has ignored the 9/11 Commission’s report,” says Lehman. “This whole idea that we can fix things by jumping higher and faster is ridiculous. The fact is that the system worked just like we said it would work if the president failed to give the Director of National Intelligence the tools he needs: it’s bloated, bureaucratic, layered, and stultified.”

“President Obama continues to totally ignore one of the important thrusts of our 9/11 recommendations, which is that you have to approach counterterrorism as a multiagency intelligence issue, and not as a law-enforcement issue. He’s made a lot of commission’s members angry for dismissing our report and ignoring key recommendations.” Obama, he adds, has taken a “lawyer-like, politically-correct approach” to national security issues like terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists. “You got to blame the president for enforcing the politically-correct and legalistic policies that led to these failures.”

I myself didn’t bother to watch the latest Obama press conference.  I have long-since come to the realization that Obama may not like waterboarding very much, but he doesn’t mind torturing truth.  But I did look over a couple of articles reporting on it.  I didn’t see anything new, other than that Obama is saying his old garbage in a slightly different way.  A good leader has to pay attention to what his spin doctors draw from focus group studies, after all.

Charles Krauthammer has done an excellent job describing how “Obama just doesn’t get it.”

From an article he wrote that came out January 2nd:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

And one of the chief ways Obama just doesn’t get it is Gitmo.  Rather than re-declaring war on terror (which his administration early on abandoned), Obama has made his central front the war on Gitmo.  Why?  Because he believed that it was our actions, rather than the hatred of the terrorists, that was causing the war.  And by allowing our enemy to dictate what we do or don’t do, Obama thought that we could pacify the enemy.

Charles Krauthammer stated how utterly asinine that thesis truly is while on the Fox News Special Report Panel:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When you hear Gibbs talk about Guantanamo as a recruiting tool, this is what we hear over and over again. I mean, it’s as if he knows no history at all. The list of grievances that Al Qaeda has is endless and replenishing.

When Usama bin Laden declared war on the United States officially in a fatwa 1996 and 1998, the two top reasons were, a, the occupation of the holy places, Mecca and Medina, and, second, the suffering of the Iraqi people under anti-Saddam sanctions.

Well, there are no soldiers, American soldiers in Saudi Arabia anymore, and there are no sanctions obviously on Iraq. But the war continues. These excuses are endless.

Bin Laden sometimes starts the speech by saying in the name of Andalusia. Andalusia is Spain and Portugal, which was Muslim until it fell to Ferdinand and Isabel in 1492. Guantanamo Bay isn’t going to undo that.

The idea that we ought to send people when we have a rate of recidivism of 20 percent over all, but probably extremely high, much higher than that, for Yemen and Saudi Arabia who will rejoin the fight as a way to eliminate excuses, which are all that these are, these are not — these are excuses and not at all grievances, is absurd.

The reason the way is on is because Al Qaeda hates our way of life, our independence, our tolerance, our respect of women, and the threat it poses to the fanatical kind of Islam that they are advocating.

That’s right.  The Pentagon says that 1 in 5 released Gitmo detainees is returning to rejoin the militants.  But Obama is still fixated on emptying the place that keeps them from hurting anyone.

A few minutes later Krauthammer finished his thought:

In the end the issue isn’t Guantanamo. That’s a question of location. You can ultimately have it in the U.S., an abandoned air base in Alaska — who cares? It’s the question of defending the idea of detention without trial.

You do that in all wars, all countries do. You hold an enemy combatant until the war is over. And you have to argue that that is legitimate.

When Obama denies that this is a War on Terror, he takes away the legitimacy of that stand, and thus he has to end up releasing people.

Obama should be focused on trying to fill Gitmo to overflowing.  But he just wants to close it down out of an uncomprehending philosophy.

Gitmo didn’t even EXIST when the Jihadists launched the massive 9/11 attack against us.  The war in Iraq didn’t exist.  The war in Afghanistan didn’t exist.

To use any of these things as somehow causing the terrorists to hate us is beyond self-delusion.  But that has been precisely what Obama has done.

Regarding security, Obama again perpetuates the fundamental flaw of the left: focusing on protecting terrorists’ rights rather than focusing on protecting Americans’ lives.  Focusing on high-tech gadgets and budgets rather than on focusing on proven solutions that have worked for decades.  Focusing on your fingernail clippers and shampoo rather than focusing on the terrorists through profiling.

Obama is using Predator drones to massacre “alleged” terrorists in foreign countries without reading them their rights or filing charges against them in court.  Which I’m all in favor of.  Because we’re at war, and that’s what a country that is at war does.  The people attacking us are committing acts of war against the United States.  But then Obama irrationally and hypocritically files criminal charges against terrorists caught in the act of committing terrorism.

Obama is reading terrorists captured on foreign soil their Miranda rights.  Which is the quintessence of not having a clue.

Note To Obama: We Want A War On Terror, NOT A Comedy Of Error

January 5, 2010

Let’s make sure everyone’s up to speed. On Christmas day a terrorist with a bomb just like the one a terrorist tried to use 8 years ago nearly creates an explosion that would have murdered 290 passengers, plus whoever happened to be in the jumbo jet’s path as it crashed into the airport. The only thing that saved us from mass death and unmitigated disaster was pure dumb luck and the heroism of a passenger – who dragged the terrorist down and separated him from the device he was still attempting to detonate.

Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security trotted out to say “the system worked” – earning immediate derision even from the liberal lamestream media.

As Joe Scarbororgh put it:

“Unfair, how is that unfair, the system worked? Is there a part of the system where we’re going to have the guy from Denmark jump over 3 seats, beat up the guy and put out the fire?”

Well, it became pretty apparent pretty quickly that neither Obama’s system that was ostensibly supposed to protect Americans from terrorists, nor his administration’s statements ostensibly supposed to cover his ass, were working at all. So Janet Napolitano uttered a revision of her previous statement: “Our system did not work in this instance. No one is happy or satisfied with that.”

She says that she was misinterpreted the first time, and what she meant was that the system worked after the attack, as opposed to before the attack when it utterly failed. Aside from the fact that it really matters that the system work BEFORE the terrorist gets on the plane with the bomb in his underpants, 20,000 pilots angrily pointed out that no, it utterly failed afterward, too:

DALLAS — The pilots union at American Airlines says federal officials failed to notify crews on planes in the United States about the attempted terror attack aboard a Northwest jet on Christmas Day.

The Allied Pilots Association calls it “a large-scale communications breakdown concerning this terrorist event.

But other than before and after the attack, the system worked.

Granted, Janet Napolitano is an incompetent clown. But at least she paid her taxes, in contrast to all the other incompetent clowns in the Obama administration who didn’t bother.

Well, the B-team failed. Obama finally decided it was time to bring out the “good, solid B+” team and appear before the cameras himself. Obama came out a full three days after the terrorist attack, presumably armed with accurate information.

After telling Americans that the terrorist was going to be treated like a US citizen rather than like a foreign terrorist and enemy of the state (while simultaneously claiming he would do everything possible to keep us safe), Obama said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was merely an “isolated extremist.” Hardly anything to trifle over. Go home, folks, nothing to see here.

Little Green Footballs immediately called Obama’s idiotic statement the “Outrageous Outrage of the Day.” And every thinking human being on the planet knew that Obama was chock full of the stuff they use to fertilize farmland.

The New York Daily News voters were apparently more prescient in Obama’s grade: 57% gave him an ‘F’, another 19% gave him a ‘D’, and only 13% combined gave him an ‘A’ or the ‘B+’ he gave himself.

Sorry, there IS no ‘A’ team on the Obama administration. Or even an ‘A-‘ team. Obama is a narcissist who is consumed with his image. He just couldn’t emotionally handle having someone on his administration who actually knew what he or she was doing.

So now we’ve finally got Mr B+ by his estimation (and Mr F by most Americans’ view) finally coming out yet again and saying what every non-brain-dead person knew was correct right away when Obama was saying the exact the opposite: that the terrorist was part of a major terrorist organization, very likely al Qaeda:

“We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America,” the president said.

Only we already knew all that the day Obama called Abdulmutallab an “isolated extremist,” too. The media had already published links between Abdulmutallab, al Qaeda, and Yemen before Obama even addressed the nation only to deny the obvious.

As Forbes’ Claudia Rosett put it in her title, Abdulmutallab was “Not So Isolated, And More Than Extremist.”

The only one whose isolated here is Obama. And of course, the phrase “more than an extremist” applies to Obama, as well.

Basically, one can’t help but get the idea that the Obama administration is pretty much swinging wildly at every pitch, and missing every time.

From all reports, Abdulmutallab was singing like a canary until Obama gave him his lawyer. And then he clammed up like, well, a clam, after said lawyer advised him to shut his mouth. Counter-terrorism officials are using every “pretty, pretty please” trick in their new Obama terrorism manuals to get the kid to tell them what they need to know to break up the next plot. But to no avail.

58% of Americans (that’s 1% more than think Obama deserves an ‘F’ as in “failure” for a grade) think that we should be waterboarding Abdulmutallab until he either tells us what we need to know, or grows gills.

Unfortunately, we voted for a president who would rather protect terrorist’s rights than protect Americans’ lives.

Remember how the Obama administration demonized the Bush administration and the CIA for trying to keep us safe? Too bad Obama won’t try to keep us safe.

I said it back in February 14th of last year, and I’ll say it again now: “Hold Obama Responsible For Dismantling American Intelligence.”

But that’s hardly the dumbest or craziest thing Obama is doing. Even as we find out that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was trained by a Gitmo terrorist whom we had foolishly released, Obama – who has already sent half a dozen terrorists to Yemen – is “absolutely” planning to continue to send more. As many as 90 more, to REALLY train those new Yemen-based al Qaeda terrorists right. When even Democrats are starting to say, “ARE YOU FULL OF STUPID!?!?

It’s almost as if Obama realizes that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would have been a better terrorist if he’d only had even more help arrive from Gitmo – and wants punks like Abdulmutallab to “be all they can be.”

Obama finally announced today that he was suspending Gitmo transfers to Yemen for at least a little while, whereas only yesterday administration officials were swearing up and down that the transfers would continue. But Obama is allowing “diversity visas” to proceed full speed ahead. Why? Because we don’t have enough radical jihadists coming to us from Yemen. The words “terrorist state” really don’t seem to matter to these people.

We also find out that 61 terrorists previously held at Gitmo returned to terrorism to be captured or killed again in 2008. Which means a lot more probably went back to terrorism; but that only 61 were actually caught. Doesn’t matter. Obama wants Gitmo closed, and if our soldiers and intelligence agents have to fight or track down terrorists they’ve already captured once, well, our warriors are paid to die, aren’t they?

The numbers of Gitmo detainees who were released only to return to terrorism looked real bad in 2008. So what does the Obama administration do in 2009? You know, that open, honest, transparent administration? They suppress the report about how many freed Gitmo detainees returned to terrorism. That’s what. Because what you don’t know can never hurt you – even if it is wearing a bomb in your airplane.

Update January 6, 2010: The White House are covering up their numbers on Gitmo detainees returning to terrorism, but the Pentagon just released a frightening picture.  Fully one in five of the terrorists we are releasing from Gitmo are returning to terrorism to threaten American lives yet again.

Given this information, the president who releases terrorists is a terrorist.

But don’t you worry. If we catch these terrorists in the act of trying to murder Americans again, Obama will make sure they get their Miranda rights read to them a second time.

The Heinous Failure Of The Obama Administration Against Terrorism

December 29, 2009

This essentially is the first time that Democrats have been in charge of the war on terror.  And – contrary to Obama’s “good solid B+” that he gave himself – Democrats have flunked hideously.

According to Rasmussen, 79% of Americans believe another terrorist attack is likely within the next year.  Which is a thirty point jump from the end of August.  That’s a profound lack of confidence in Barack Obama.

“The war on terror.”  The very phrase demonstrates the unforgivable incompetence of Barrack Hussein.  Because his people refused to use the word “terrorism” and tried to replace it with “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disaster” to deny the reality of terrorism through politically correct re-labelling.  But with terrorist attacks occurring on US soil, what’s the deal with the word “overseas”?  It’s right here.

After days of White House officials saying they did a smashing job, even Obama is now finally calling his own administration’s handling of this terror attack “totally unacceptable.”

“There was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security,” Obama [FINALLY] said today.

There have been over a dozen attempted terrorist attacks against the United States on American soil in 2009, and two of them have been successful.

“Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.”

And they don’t like us any better because of Barack Hussein’s naivete, incompetence, and constant apologies denouncing his own country, either.

We have only to look at the last two attacks to see the casual disregard and the blatant incompetence the Obama administration has demonstrated in the war against terrorism.

During the November Fort Hood terrorist attack that killed thirteen soldiers and wounded dozens more, the Obama administration first denied any link to terrorism, then basically suppressed the investigation after scores of details began to emerge revealing what a shocking failure of the system had taken place under Obama’s watch.  Obama himself gave an incredibly weird speech just after the attack, in which he offered a “shout out” to a man whom he incorrectly identified as having received the Medal of Honor before spending mere moments acknowledging that more than a dozen US soldiers on a secure American base inside the United States had just been murdered by a jihadist.

And we’re now beginning to see a rather frightening disconnected pattern emerging as to how Obama deals with terrorism.

In any event, we just had a situation in which a terrorist very nearly detonated a device that probably would have brought the plane down – killing 290 – and possibly would have killed many more as it crashed into Detroit’s airport.  The words “Christmas miracle” are being used to describe the luck we had in so narrowly avoiding this disaster.

And what was the Obama response?  Well, at first, nothing.  The same fawning sycophants that Obama surrounded himself with – who awakened him immediately to notify him that he “won” the Nobel price – didn’t bother to tell him that the United States had just experienced a terrorist attack for three full hours.

Obama didn’t bother to respond (and interrupt his glorious Hawaiian vacation) even after he heard about it.  But his minions began running around.  Their initial blathering was that “the system has worked very, very smoothly.”

Apparently, Obama believed that the media would give him the same adoring propaganda that they gave him during the campaign (which Bernard Goldberg dubbed “A Slobbering Love Affair“).  The narrative was that since the attack didn’t succeed, Barack Obama must be a brilliant commander-in-chief.  But fortunately, that lie was almost immediately revealed as a lie and angrily refuted even by the mainstream media.

I mean, even the New York Times is saying Obama screwed this up terribly.

The same incompetent Obama official – Department of Homeland Security administrator Janet Napolitano – who claimed how well the system worked proceeded to acknowledge that the system was a failure the very next day.  “The system did not work in this instance,” she said by way of massive understatement.

So the system that worked very, very smoothly actually didn’t work.

Mind you, this was also the same Obama official who had previously refused to call terrorists “terrorists,” but had no problem calling our very own returning veterans who had fought such terrorists “rightwing extremists” while hiring a man who turned out to be an actual terrorist to explain how our soldiers were potential terrorists.

Then the Obama administration went back to their tried and true formula, and the only thing they are actually good at: they decided to blame Bush.

From the Washington Post:

“White House officials struggled to explain the complicated system of centralized terrorist data and watch lists, stressing that they were put in place years ago by the Bush administration.”

The problem with that thesis is that the Bush system actually worked.  Here was a kid (I say “kid” because he looks like he’s about 15 years old) whose name showed up on a terrorist watch list.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that the Obama administration ignored the list.  Or that they ignored the fact that the UK had refused to issue the kid a visa a few months back after catching the kid in a lie regarding his purpose for visiting the country.  Or that the kid had spent the last couple of months in terrorist-dreamland Yemen.  Or that the kid’s father had personally gone to the UN embassy and said his son had been radicalized.  Or that the kid had no passport to go to the United States.  Or that the kid suspiciously didn’t bother to check any luggage on an international flight.  Those things were Goerge Bush’s fault exactly HOW?

Like every other time Obama has pointed a demagoguing finger of blame at Bush, there were at least three fingers pointing right at him.

Now we’re finding out that the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab actually met with the Central Intelligence Agency at the US embassy in Nigeria on November 19 and told them that his son was radicalized.   Basically, he couldn’t have done more without hiring a skywriter to scrawl, “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a terrorist!” over the White House.

We’re now finding out that the CIA had been tracking this kid since August.

And it’s George Bush’s fault that this terrorist got through?

Realize that whenever Obama blames Bush, what he is really admitting is that he is a pathetically incompetent non-leader who will not take responsibility for his failures.

George Bush wouldn’t have said that his system was perfect.  He would have argued that it needed to be constantly updated.  But Barack Obama not only has failed to improve on the security protections put into place by George Bush; he has worked hard to tear those protections apart and leave this nation and its citizens dangerously exposed.

Stop and think about it: Shoe Bomber Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem and as Tariq Raja) attempted to blow up a plane with PETN back in December, 2oo1 – only a couple of months after 9/11.  Bush systematically implemented policies to keep us safe.  Obama tore those policies apart, and look what is happening.

We can blame George Bush for not recognizing that Barrack Hussein was a dangerous man, and sticking him in Gitmo before he had a chance to do more damage.  But other than that, no honest person would blame George Bush for Obama’s failure.

When Obama finally bothered to make his initial comment on the attack (in a short statement, taking no questions), he said that the attack had been committed by an “isolated extremist” (and please note the inherent contradiction within even his own statement!).  But by the time he said that, it was already obvious that the only thing “isolated” about this attack was the Obama White House.  The kid said he had been trained and sent by al Qaeda, and that there were some 25 more terrorists just like him ready to unleash hells of their own.  And it turned out that the PETN explosive had come from al Qaeda-base Yemen.  And al Qaeda acknowledged that this kid was one of theirs.

Steve Hayes called Obama’s “isolated extremist” remark “stunningly foolish.”  And even the liberal Washington Post pointed out “the disturbingly defensive reaction of the Obama administration.”

Obama also said that his administration was doing “everything in it’s power to keep you safe.”  And then he treats the terrorist who had just tried to murder hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans like a common criminal and allows him to lawyer up while doctors attend to the wounds he incurred trying to murder said Americans.  For what its worth, the Bush administration would have recognized that this terrorist wasn’t a “criminal” at all, but a perpetrator of an act of war against the United States of America, and an enemy of the state.  And the Bush administrator – rather than focusing on the kid’s “rights” – would have instead focused on the country’s right to find out who had sent this punk to murder its citizens and every detail of every aspect of leading up to the attack so that we could stomp out another nest of terrorists.

Allow me to quote Joe Wilson to respond to Barack Hussein: “You lie!”

This was a cascading leadership failure from top to bottom.  A lousy disgrace of a president picked a lousy disgrace of a Homeland Security Secretary.

Now for the idiotic and frankly immoral liberal devices to defend America in a war they won’t even acknowledge is a damn war.

The word “profiling” immediately comes to mind.

Mind you, it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t profiling, just that they are focusing on the wrong profile.  I mean, the terrorist in question wasn’t a returning combat veteran who’d recently come back from protecting this country from terrorists; he didn’t have any “tea bags” on him; he wasn’t an evangelical Christian; he wasn’t pro-life.  They just had the wrong profile, and need to adjust it to include actual terrorists.

Let us not forget that the terrorists are profiling us.

The Christmas terrorist attack was a naked attempt to murder as many Christians as possible during Christmas.  Obama Democrats shriek at the thought that we might profile a terrorist.  But the terrorists are sure as hell profiling us.

Then you add the fact that for the last eight years millions and millions of innocent and harmless Americans have been subjected to invasive and embarrassing procedures to make sure we’re not jihadist murderers, but this young Muslim male who attended madrases and came from Yemen and paid for his ticket in cash and didn’t have a passport gets aboard with his damned bomb?

That American grandma in the walker isn’t your terrorist, dumbasses.  And it is an affront to common sense and even sanity that you treat that Grandma the same as the 23 year old Muslim whose just come from Yemen.

A lot of liberals are now STILL saying that we don’t dare violate the civil liberties of Muslims, regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999998% of all the hundreds of thousands of terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims. They want us to use invasive and expensive scanning equipment that literally strips us naked and shows our boobies, our bottoms, and our hoo hoos, and tramples on everybody’s basic rights, rather than focus on the group that is perpetrating the terror attacks.  We need to violate the civil rights of 300 million Americans, rather than acknowledge that Muslim terrorists are all actually Muslims.

The craziest thing of all about the body scanners that liberals want might be this: Muslims apparently wouldn’t stand for submitting to such scans, and Obama liberals are such moral idiots that they would probably exempt Muslims from the scans used to detect explosives brought on planes by Muslims.

George Bush was like Winston Churchill in the war on terror; and Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain tried to compromise with terror, negotiate with it.  Winston Churchill, nearly alone among leaders (FDR included), realized that Nazism was so evil that it literally had to be fought to the death.

Obama Democrats believed George Bush viewed terrorism through an ideological prism, and saw nonexistent enemies everywhere.  The thing is that Obama Democrats ALSO view terrorism through an ideological prism, but see enemies NOWHERE.  And Obama’s ideology keeps biting him in the balls because both his ideology and his policies simply fail to correspond to reality.