President Obama's SOTU - Out With A Pathetic, Self- Serving Whine

My normal saying when covering something like this is that I watch these things so you don't have to. This time, I couldn't even get close to lasting through the whole thing. You're welcome to try, but there should be a medical advisory on watching this one.

It's gotten to the point where our president doesn't even have to make an effort to act like he believes what he's telling us. The self-serving lies have actually gotten pathological. And as usual, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever his fault.

I think Rand Paul,being interviewed this morning on Good Morning with Dan Mitchell had it exactly right. “Well, I think from President Obama’s perspective, the best thing he could do would be to leave office early. I wish that tonight he would announce, ‘hey guys, I’ve really been a failure as a president over the last seven years and I’m gonna take off early so cause I want to go play golf.’"

As much as the president tried to use this to BS and build himself a legacy, the emperor's new clothes aren't covering a thing. For example, he touted the success of ObamaCare, totally ignoring the fact that most of the state exchanges have either gone belly up or are about to, that the 'savings' he promised are a total myth, that the 18 million new people he claims signed up are almost all freebies who are being subsidized and would have been covered far better by existing MedicAid programs anyway, without totally destroying the existing system and spending the billions ObamaCare cost to implement. The so-called Affordable Care Act is anything but, with many Americans forced to pay much more for a lot less care or even going without medical coverage and paying the tax penalty because it's actually a lot cheaper than Obamacare's cheapest Bronze coverage with its expensive premiums and huge deductibles.

I reached my limit at the part where this most partisan of presidents, who has done everything he could to illegally bypass congress, demonize Republicans and avoid working with them threw in his little song and dance about how we need to 'fix our politics,' something that of course, he had no part in wrecking. That's the point where I simply couldn't watch anymore.

There's a lot more I could do to tear this stuff apart, but why bother? He's a miserably failed president with a despicable character and the only question that remains is how much damage he's going to do before January 2017.

 

Obama: 'Killing Babies To Harvest Their Organs Is An Atrocity'

 

Yes believe it or not, the president actually said that..except he was talking about Africa to Africans, not America.

President Barack Obama told a group of young African leaders on Monday that harvesting organs from humans that are killed as part of an African ritual was “craziness” and a “cruel” tradition that needed to stop. He warned of dehumanizing marginal groups of humans and of the problems that arise when “you are not able to see someone else as a human being.”

In a wide-ranging question and answer session with members of the Young African Leaders Initiative [YALI], a woman from Kenya said “Persons with albinism in Africa are being killed and their body parts harvested for ritual purposes. My request to you is to raise this issue with heads of state of African countries to bring these atrocities to an end.”

Obama decried the practice and went on to encourage the young people to do everything in their power to fight on the behalf of vulnerable humans.

'Cruel traditions?' 'Protecting the vulnerable?' Has our president not seen the recent videos of Planned Parenthood apparatchniks wheeling and dealing over the body parts of aborted babies...with special emphasis on selling the organs of 21-16 week-old babies whom already have a nervous system and can feel the pain of being ripped from the womb?

In fact, he hasn't. According to his spokeshole Josh Earnest, the president chose not to watch the videos. Hardly surprising, since when the president was a state legislator in Illinois, he fought tooth and nail for infanticide...fighting against legislation that would have mandated that babies whom survived an abortion attempt receive medical care. That was too much even for the radical pro-abortion group NARAL to stomach.

What an obscene hypocrite our president is.

(H/t, Molly at the Federalist)

Obama’s Cynical Synagogue Speech

 

by David Gerstman

President Obama’s speech a week and a half ago at Washington D.C. synagogue Adas Israel was alternatively promoted as both an opportunity to address the scourge of anti-semitism, and a chance to reach out to American Jews. The speech did nothing to advance either goal and was tone-deaf to any Jews, or Americans for that matter, who don’t buy into the president’s foreign policy.
As far as his reaching out, the president simply rehashed all of his administration’s arguments about closing off Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon. He offered nothing new. Of course, he said that the deal he’s trying to make with Iran will make Israel safer. He made a point of saying that he shares the goal with Israel of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; but he said it with no real conviction. He was just repeating a talking point. Repeating all of his talking points isn’t going to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with him.

Notably, he repeated his 2012 line about having Israel’s back. But with Israel’s political establishment – Isaac Herzog is no less skeptical of the emerging deal than Benjamin Netanyahu is – doubting the efficacy of the ongoing diplomacy, that claim hardly seems credible. He says that he welcomes debate, but the night before Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress, Obama gave an interview to Reuters attempting to undercut Netanyahu’s arguments.


Instead of addressing reservations with the deal, Obama simply repeated his own arguments. Again that’s not how you convince doubters.

The same dynamic was at work when he discussed the peace process.

And it is precisely because I care so deeply about the state of Israel — it’s precisely because, yes, I have high expectations for Israel the same way I have high expectations for the United States of America — that I feel a responsibility to speak out honestly about what I think will lead to long-term security and to the preservation of a true democracy in the Jewish homeland. (Applause.) And I believe that’s two states for two peoples, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. (Applause.) Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land, as well. (Applause.)

Now, I want to emphasize — that’s not easy. The Palestinians are not the easiest of partners. (Laughter.) The neighborhood is dangerous. And we cannot expect Israel to take existential risks with their security so that any deal that takes place has to take into account the genuine dangers of terrorism and hostility.

But what’s been noticeable about President Obama’s approach to the peace process since he’s been president is that because he has such “high expectations” of Israel, he only expects efforts from Israel. He’s asked nothing of the Palestinians. (This conceit prompted Eli Lake to ask why Obama couldn’t care a little bit less about Israel.)

Last year Israel’s former peace negotiator Tzipi Livni told an interviewer that last year’s American-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were torpedoed by Mahmoud Abbas, who refused to accept an American-sponsored framework that Netanyahu reluctantly accepted. When that happened there were no administration leaks about how Abbas was missing a historic opportunity or questions about his commitment to peace. And there was certainly no public haranguing of the Palestinian leader. Is there any reason to expect that when President Obama decides its time to start a new peace process he won’t demand some upfront concessions by Netanyahu to convince the Palestinians to negotiate?

In other words, whether addressing Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Obama offered no reason for a skeptic to change his mind. So his purpose was clearly not outreach.

And what about anti-semitism? Obama’s mentions of anti-semitism were general. He spoke of it as a “scourge,” but didn’t address a single specific instance of official anti-semitism. Why not? In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg earlier in the week Goldberg asked him about the official anti-semitism of Iran, so it isn’t like Obama could claim ignorance of the issue. Robert Wistrich, perhaps the world’s top authority on anti-semitism, passed away a few days before Obama spoke, but Obama didn’t mention his name.

Neither of the purported reasons for Obama’s talk were addressed (seriously) by the president. As Michael Doran noted, in A Letter to My  Liberal Jewish Friends, published last week in Mosaic Magazine, Obama was speaking specifically to the “liberal Jewish community.” You could say he was preaching to the choir, making sure that one of his most loyal constituencies doesn’t stray. The pre-speech PR was misdirection, to make the president appear conciliatory and magnanimous. The speech itself was motivated by cynical self-interest.

Doran goes through the various reasons the president chose to speak as he did at the synagogue, but in the end he comes down to what was Obama’s likely calculation.

The president’s sophistry demonstrates a simple but profound truth: his commitment to the progressive values of tikkun olam is governed by its own “red lines,” and is entirely utilitarian. Which again raises the question: what was his purpose in stressing this shared progressive commitment in his address to you, and what was his purpose in subtly reminding you of the costs of failing to abide by its terms?

The answer, I hope, is obvious. On June 30, Obama will likely conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. This will spark a faceoff with Congress, which has already declared its opposition to the deal. Congress will inevitably pass a vote of disapproval, which Obama will inevitably veto. In order to defend that veto from a congressional override, however, he must line up 34 Senators—all Democrats. This calls in turn for a preemptive ideological campaign to foster liberal solidarity—for which your support is key. If the president can convince the liberal Jewish community, on the basis of “shared values,” to shun any suspicion of alignment with congressional Republicans or Benjamin Netanyahu, he will have an easier time batting down Congress’s opposition to the deal with Iran.

I think Doran is correct. Obama knows that a deal with Iran is not popular. He also knows that despite the limits that Corker-Menendez puts on him, it still means that a future nuclear deal with Iran will stand if the Senate cannot override his veto, even if Congress is not convinced that he made a good deal and initially votes the deal down.

As more news stories like Tuesday’s that Iran has increased its enriched uranium by 20% since the Joint Plan of Action was agreed even as Obama and his administration insist that Iran has abided by its terms, skepticism of the deal will only increase.

So as Doran pointed out, President Obama was asking his hardest core supporters to stand by him and ensure that minority who will support his bad deal with Iran will be a big enough minority to ensure that the deal stands.

crossposted at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Disgracing 'The Spirit Of Selma'

Yesterday was the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the famous march across the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma, Alabama back in 1965. The events celebrating this occasion merit a look.

President Barack Hussein Obama was present of course, leading the charge on what could aptly be called 'white guilt day.' Or even more aptly, Democrat Party approved white guilt day, since this was structured to essentially be a campaign event.

None other than the New York Times acknowledged this by deliberately cropping former Republican George W. Bush and his wife out of the picture. And of course, there were a number if stories in the complicit media about no Republicans attending, when in fact quite a number of GOP politicians did, braving a hostile audience..after all,that was largely a Republican triumph. If it had been left to Democrats, the Voting Rights Act that followed would never have passed:

 
Above is Pravda-on-the-Hudson's actual front page



President George W. and Laura Bush can be seen 3rd and 4th from your right in the front row of the actual photo. Since only one man stands between the Bushes and the part the Times printed, it's obvious the cropping was deliberate.

In a speech that made headlines and accompanying interviews,President Obama announced that "We are the slaves that built the White House."

In a followup interview, the president made sure to include illegal migrants in the 'spirit of Selma' :

“The notion that some kid that was brought here when he was two or three years old might somehow be deported at the age of 20 or 25 even though they’ve grown up as American, that’s not who we are,” he reportedly said in an interview with Sirius XM’s Joe Madison, according to The Hill. “That’s not true to the spirit of what the march on Selma was about.”

How that applies to the surges of illegal aliens the president is currently letting cross our borders is an open question,let alone the effect of illegal migration on black unemployment and things like housing costs. But then again, what difference does it make? This is 'white guilt Day and a Democrat Party event. And President Obama's little inflammatory rhetoric to the blacks in attendance fits right in with the president's theme for his entire administration, the crimes of America. Which of course demand payback. I mean, he's right, isn't he?

But you know, I had to wonder. After all, if a man with a Harvard education could be wrong about how many states there were in the Union, whom liberated Auschwitz and what language Austrians speak as as well as a number of other things, could he be be wrong about it being slaves whom built the White House?

Well, as it turns out, since the White House was built on land ceded by Virginia and Maryland, where slavery was common, there definitely were some slaves involved, but half or more of the workers were free blacks, whites or Europeans. The sandstone walls were erected by Scottish immigrants, employed by Irish-American architect James Hoban. So while there were slaves that participated, the White House was a joint project constructed by all Americans. The superb biography of George Washington by Joseph Ellis mentions this as well.

Wait, it gets better.

The original White House was burned by the British in 1812, but once again, it was reconstructed by a broad mixture of Americans. One source says that there were illegal aliens among them, but since the only qualification at that time to be considered a citizen was claiming two years' residency, something no one paid much attention to back then, in effect there were no illegal aliens...so that bit of attempted political correctness is bogus as well.

The White House was essentially reconstructed from the ground up in 1873 and again during Truman's term in 1946. And whaddya know? No slaves were involved because America fought a bloody and brutal war to abolish slavery and to free them.


So making a talking point misrepresenting that the White House was entirely constructed by slave labor is factually wrong.And it is more than that.

Of course, this isn't the first time this president has lied about Selma for his own aggrandizement, claiming the march in Selma led to his conception...even though he was 3 years old when it occurred, at least according to the birth certificate he finally presented to the nation.

It would be one thing if this president merely made a factual error about the White House. But his entire speech was a deliberate attempt to fan racial hatred for political purposes, something this president has done a number of times already.

Even if he'd been technically correct, it was a despicable thing to say, especially coming from a man who claims to promote 'the spirit of Selma.'

The last time I checked, the Dr. King I learned about had nothing but a cold shoulder for men, white or black who used any excuse to fan up hatred for their own twisted agendas and promote discord.

This president not only misrepresents the spirit of Selma, he is a disgrace to it.

The entire theme of Dr, King and the Civil Rights movement was fairly simple. They stood for equality under the law, and for people to be treated based on their character, not their skin color. Dr. King persuaded Americans based on this moral argument. He worked to bring people together, not to widen the breach and what he struggled to achieve was to make his vision of white and black America healing the wounds and living together as brothers reality.Ultimately, it cost him his life.

President Obama and his cohorts abandoned that vision a long time ago, and his speech is all the evidence we need to see how far away we have gotten from the ideas of the man they are supposedly honoring.

Instead of equality, what we see is calls for racial payback, for artificial quotas based on 'diversity' for race based shakedowns, for division rather than unity. We see the promotion of illegal immigration promoted as a 'civil right' regardless of what it does to the rights of others, and laws designed to stop non-citizens from voting and diluting the voting rights of all Americans whatever their race identified as 'racism.'

In short, we see race used as a tool for political ends. And isn't that what the segregationists and the Klan were all about?


Res ipsa Loquiter

Strangling the Eagle - Barack Obama And Amnesty, Part I

President Obama  has now presented his amnesty by executive order to the country. Oddly enough, he appeared to want much of the country not to know exactly what he said. None of the alphabet networks covered this important speech, strange considering wall to wall coverage of the lame gibberish issuing out of this White House on other occasions.



The networks say that the White House never asked officially asked them for broadcast time for the speech. FOX wanted to broadcast it live according to one of my sources, but was told arrangements 'could not be made in time.'

The White House likely told their media allies they didn't want this one broadcast, which also explains why FOX was denied access.

But Spanish only networks Telemundo and Univision were certainly allowed to broadcast it. It's obvious which audience President Obama was targeting and whom he would rather wasn't paying too much attention.

Let's dissect what the President had to say and what it really means.

He started out, of course, by blaming the GOP dominated House for failing to pass a deeply flawed bill that managed to squeak by in the senate some time ago, thanks to the wily Chuck Schumer playing a naive Marco Rubio like Jimi Hendrix used to play a Stratocaster. The president of course neglected to mention that all the House wanted was to meet with the Senate to effect what's called reconciliation, where both houses of congress meet and hammer out a version of legislation they can both support. After that, the House and Senate vote on the changes and the bill goes to the president for his signature.

This is standard operating procedure in congress. Guess who stopped it? None other than Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who refused to have a reconciliation meeting with the House and demanded they pass the bill as is. When they wouldn't, it was Harry Reid who shelved it on the orders of President Obama. As usual, nothing is ever the president's fault He simply blamed other people for his failure, just like always.

The president also predictably failed to mention another reason legislation has consistently failed - because of his previous track record of ignoring laws he doesn't like, no one trusts him or his corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce any provision on border security. They haven't done so with present existing law and there's no doubt they would do the same thing with any new legislation.

That said, what does the president's new executive order actually consist of?

There are some throwaway paragraphs about border security, and about hiring a few more border patrol agents. Based on what they've been facing lately and what  border patrol agents are saying right now, I doubt few people want the job even if he attempts to follow through on it, which is doubtful.



The president also claims he will make it "easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs' to avoid deportation." In other words, the small percentage of illegal migrants who have tech skills will now be able to work legally for the likes of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for a fraction of what he has to pay legal citizens, thus keeping wages in that segment of the economy low as a payback for all those campaign contributions.



Of course the biggest impact of the president's executive order is the one that affects the vast amount of illegal migrants whom don't really fall into the skilled category , and he left those for for last.

And before we examine this in detail, let's remember... President Obama's intention here is not 'humanitarian' but purely political. This is the new class of government dependent Democrat voters he wishes to create, and his way of deliberately signaling to the new congress that he has no intention of cooperating with them on anything.

What he said is that if illegal migrants have been in America more than five years, if they have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If they register, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, they won't be deported.

Note the parts I emphasized.

First of all, it is going to be next to impossible to determine how long many illegal migrants has been in America assuming ICE even attempts to do so,  doubtful given this president's track record. As usual, this president and his minions think everyone's stupid except themselves. Any illegal migrant with the least bit of savvy can find someone in one of the numerous Mexican consulates willing to crank out a matricula consular card with any name and dates the applicant wants for cash under the table. The going rate right now is about $75 - $100..not to mention that the cards themselves are very easily forged.

And aside from that, does anyone really think that your average illegal migrant won't be able to find people willing to swear he or she has been in the country five years? Or that ICE won't accept that as 'proof' given the president's political interest in keeping all of them here?

The next criteria, freeing from deportation those who have children who are American citizens or those who have children who are illegal migrants is even more of a giveaway.  Anyone who’s at all aware of America's immigration policies knows that having a child who is an American citizen is a sure ticket to getting a green card and the accompanying social welfare benefits. Many potential illegal migrants know it, which is why many illegal migrants whom are pregnant strive to have the child born on American soil. The United States, remember, is one of the only countries that still has birthright citizenship and the newborn baby can in effect legalize the whole family. But the second category, 'those who have children who are illegal migrants' is the real stinger. What this president has done is to essentially extend blanket amnesty even to those who have children who didn't manage to get birthright citizenship by being born here.

After all, if they're legal citizens who happen to have a child who's an illegal migrant, there’s no worry about deportation and the child can get citizenship through normal legal channels. No, this little provision is designed to cover a lot more illegal migrants than the 5 million or so we're being told. And the president is also signalling that the recent rush of illegal migrants from Central America are going to be allowed to stay..and to import their parents and other family members.

That of course ranks the president's statement that "This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently" up with " If you like your health plan, you can keep it" as one of the more egregious lies he has ever told the American people. And that's a pretty high bar.

I think many American are already aware of the fact that a lot of illegal migrants whom have committed serious crimes are being allowed to stay, and that the Obama Administration lied about it. It's unlikely that they're going to be deported under the president's new executive order,which shows you how much you can believe the president when he talks about "focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families."

And taxes? Many illegal aliens already file tax returns. And why not? For many of them, it's quite profitable.

The president claimed this isn't amnesty, merely freedom from deportation. And that this isn't citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or access to the same benefits that citizens receive.

Aside from the benefits issue (anyone who knows anything about current law knows that illegal migrants will have full access to social welfare benefits, including ObamaCare), I give it a year at most before you hear the Democrats calling for a pathway to citizenship - and of course, voting rights - for the illegal migrants. That's the plan, guaranteed.

The president finished his remarks with his usual touch of cherry picking an example, appealing to America's natural generosity. He even attempted to quote Scripture, citing a passage in Exodus about oppressing a stranger. Of course, even that was bogus. The ancient Hebrews were invited to settle in Egypt as actual immigrants (Genesis 46-48) because of a famine in the land of Canaan, back when Joseph was the Pharaoh's Chief Minister. It was only after a new Pharaoh ascended 'who knew not Joseph' that the Hebrews were enslaved and oppressed (Exodus 1:8). And the actual passage in the Hebrew, of course, refers not to illegal migrants but to a ger, a convert to Judaism.


Here are a few things for those who think that President Obama did something wonderful here to ponder:

 If this was done 'out of compassion,' or because, as he claims,  the evil Republicans wouldn't give him what he wanted, why didn't he do it in the first two years of his term, when he had a veto-proof majority in the house and senate? Wasn't this important enough then ?

For years, this president has been telling Hispanics whom wanted this amnesty that he was simply unable to accommodate them, that he was not a king or a dictator, that he was unable to do what in fact he just did. How does it make you feel to have been cynically lied to all this time? Does it make you wonder what else President Obama has been lying to you about?

If you're black or Latino citizen making say, $40,000 or so as a delivery driver, a caregiver, a construction worker, a clerical or healthcare worker, are you aware that as this amnesty develops, you're now going to have to compete for your job with people willing to work for less, willing to take part time employment, willing to take less benefits and and poorer working conditions? Do you like the idea that it's going to be you dealing with rising rents for affordable housing, higher taxes, longer waits for medical care and other social services, and schools that become even more dysfunctional as they struggle to handle children whom aren't even literate in their own language?

If you'd like to see actual legislation dealing with immigration,do you think this president's disrespect for the incoming congress and the separation of powers makes that more likely or less likely? Do you like the idea of a president just disregarding laws like this? And if you do, are you at all worried about the precedent this sets if there's a different president in the White House?

The amnesty for illegal migrants the president has planned has nothing to do with 'compassion' nothing to dow ith the good of the country. Barack Hussein Obama is literally strangling the Eagle for what goes beyond even normal partisan political gain...his way of 'transforming' a country he secretly despises into something very different than the democratic republic our Founders envisioned and created.

Having failed to completely crush America's innate spirit and having had his persona andhis failed policies repudiated, he has simply decided to import enough people whom he feels he can manipulate... to transform the electorate to his liking.

Aside from the constitutional issues,what the president has done will encourage further illegal migration, cripple already struggling school districts, substantially raise the prices on affordable housing, raise taxes, depress wages increase unemployment and saddle America with huge social welfare costs in a stagnant economy.That cost, by the way is estimated at $2 trillion dollars by Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation's expert on these matters, which I think is conservative since Rector is only calculating on the basis of four million illegal migrants, seems to be discounting the effect of chain migration and the influx of new illegal migrants and is only calculating for Social Security and Medicare.


So can this be stopped? Of course it can.I'll tell you how in Part II.

Obama Soils Himself At The UN With Weakness, Appeasement And Israel Bashing

 

President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the UN General Assembly today. Even by Obama standards, an admittedly low bar, it was a turgid speech that lacked even elementary common sense, and threw out gratuitous insults that undercut its supposed goals. But it's worth analyzing as a clear indicator of how this president thinks and what he's planning as commander-in-chief.

The president, of course, sees the Ebola outbreak, Russian aggression and Islamist terrorism as all problems that have been caused by America not giving enough money and resources to the UN, or in ObamaSpeak, "the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world."

Of course, the president also includes Israel in those problems, but more on that shortly.

As always, President Obama substituted verbiage for real action. He took a few minutes to bash Russia over the situation with Ukraine, explicitly comparing them with Nazi Germany.

Now, here's something to consider. This president is already having problems building an 'international coalition' that means anything more than a little logistical support and a handful of Arab nations making token contributions to the air strikes against Islamic State.

Remember too, that Putin understood a long time before President Obama that the Syrian opposition were mostly Islamist jihadis, and that it was Russia's Putin that approached Obama about crafting a diplomatic solution for Syria - only to be double crossed by the president when Putin found out Obama was covertly arming and training what became ISIS and had secretly moved 1,800 troops to the Syria/Jordan border.You'd think that perhaps one of his advisers might have mentioned that Russia is an important actor in the region, that any UN action of the kind the president was talking about would require Russia's assent, and that the Ukraine was perhaps best dealt with in an actual private interaction between the U.S. and Russia. But of course, no one can tell this president anything, except maybe Valerie Jarret. So out came the nasty and counterproductive rhetoric.

It reminds me of nothing so much as a weak, obnoxious ten-year-old on the playground shouting out schoolboy insults at other kids, knowing he's safe because Teacher Is Watching.

And by the way...is anyone considering that the president is making air strikes on Syria and arming Islamist 'rebels' who want to overthrow Basher Assad, something not too much different than he's accusing Russia of doing in Ukraine? Certainly the Russians will see it that way.And react accordingly.

The president went on to mention his pursuit of 'a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue', urging Iran to "take this historic opportunity." Considering how America has appeased the Iranian regime and allowed the Iranians to play for time as Iran ramps up its enrichment and weapons development, I'm sure the Iranians would agree that they are definitely taking this historic opportunity they're being offered. Just not the one the president's talking about.

 

After some blather about climate change, the president went on to use almost one third of his speech to talk about what a peaceful religion Islam is, and how The Islamic State (AKA ISIS) have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. Oddly enough, at one point, after saying they have nothing to do with Islam, he referred to them as “religiously motivated fanatics” , even if they are universally Muslims, and even if their leader, al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies from Baghdad University!

In another part of the speech, he again retreated into Obama Fantasyland, talking about how he defeated al-Qaeda (he arguably strengthened it), is supporting a sovereign government in Iraq and chest thumped about how he "supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government" as 'triumphs'.

He then went on to assure those “religiously motivated fanatics” that the U.S. isn't ever going to put boots on the ground or invade their countries. Taking ground troops off the table and tipping off our enemies in the region in advance about our weakness and lack of a working strategy is pretty bad, although it certainly appeases his Leftist base. But here's something else that seems to not square at all with what he calls his 'successes' in Iraq and Afghanistan. What passes for 'sovereign governments' in those countries was only achieved after an American military occupation. Yet he's already telling the world (and our enemies) he's not going to use the tool that achieved whatthe president calls his 'successes' in this latest conflict!

After which he of course says, standing before the most corrupt and wasteful institution in the world, that the real solution to dealing with those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam is for the West to gift the UN a lot more money for development in an area that just happens to be exclusively Muslims, serially corrupt and governed by the Religion of Peace!

The most surreal part of the speech is where he talks about attacking all those “religiously motivated fanatics” who have nothing to do with Islam ideologically. Or, to quote this president directly, "That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down."

Well! I'm certainly relieved to hear that America is going to pull all of its forces out of Qatar, cancel that $11 billion arms deal that the president just approved with them and introduce sanctions on sales of Qatari oil and gas as well as banking sanctions that won't allow any financial institution dealing with Qatar to be involved in any financial transaction with American banks, just as President Bush did with al-Qaeda.

And also, that America is going to cut off the funds from overseas that finance all of the Muslim Brotherhood linked jihadi mosques and madrassahs here in America.

Oh, wait..that's just the president running his mouth again! We aren't actually going to do anything concrete that really involves "cutting off the funding that fuels this hate."

But wait, there's more:

"All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you."

"The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day. Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies – Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: “We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace.”

Hmmmm...

Now as it happens, I'm not unfamiliar with the Qu'ran,and while I don't recall much at all about 'do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you' unless we're talking about how Muslims are supposed to treat fellow Muslims, there's all sorts of things in there about fighting the unbelievers, being harsh with them, making them pay outrageous taxes in exchange for the right to life and generally taking their rights away altogether..particularly if they're women. In fact, the Qu'ran says specifically not to take unbelievers as friends, (Qu'ran 5:51), calling them Muslim's 'inveterate foe' (4:101), that 'those who reject Islam serve the cause of evil'(4:76). In fact, according to all the hadiths, Mohammed himself shortly before his death enjoined all Muslims to fight the unbelievers until they died, became Muslims, or paid the jirzya (the heavy monetary tribute literally, protection money) willingly and 'felt themselves subdued.'

Now while a lot of Muslims reject this, there are also quite a few who see it as authentic Islam and it's more than just a few “religiously motivated fanatics.”

So our president is either willfully and knowingly lying, hideously ignorant, has a very different idea than most people about what constitutes terrorism and fanaticism that most of the rest of us, or perhaps all three.

That he sought to rationalize what's going on in Islam by saying "All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point" (news to Buddhists, Jews and many Christian denominations!) and cites Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyah as his example of a 'peaceful, moderate Muslim leader' who can aid the West in combating jihad.

Really?

Sheik bin Bayyah is the principal deputy to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader who favors a second Holocaust against Jews performed by Muslims, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Israel, female circumcision and wife beating, and the establishment of the Caliphate under strict sharia law.

Sheik bin Bayyah works with Qaradawi as second in command of Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) which among other things strongly supports Hamas, an officially designated terrorist organization designated as such under American law. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Turkey’s Islamist anti-semitic president Tayyip Erdogan are both members of IUMS.

The group is violently anti-Israel, and bin Bayyh himself issued a fatwa in 2004 calling the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq 'a duty for all Muslims.'

The president has perhaps forgotten(or more likely,shrugged off) that when most Islamists use the term 'peace' they mean something very different than we do. They means Dar Islam, the 'peace' that will come when Muslims rule the world and all of Dar Harb (literally 'the house of war' the part of the world ruled by non-Muslims) has been conquered and subdued.

The Sheik has never formally broken with Qaradawi or Hamas, but merely claims he left the IUMS 'about a year ago.'. And this hardcore Islamist is the example of 'moderate Islam' being pushed by the president. For that matter, even Qaradawi himself isn't exactly considered off limits when it comes to the Obama regime.

And oh yes, of course the president had something to say about Israel. According to the president, too many Israelis are "ready to abandon the hard work of peace" after having to live for years of being attacked, of genocidal terrorism and with having their very legitimacy as a nation with a right to defend themselves essentially ignored by most of the UN.

And that's Israel fault, or as President Obama said, departing from his printed remarks made available to reporters beforehand, "And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel."

It's not something Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority ought to think about, you see...just those pesky Israelis. It's their fault. After that, the president went back to the script:

"But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security."

Rockets have been being fired at Israelis all throughout the Obama presidency. Has he ever done anything about it? Nope. In fact, he's been funding Hamas through USAid and through the Palestinian Authority for quite some time.

Notice too how our Dear Leader equates Hamas's terrorist aggression with Israel defending itself. And of course, it's Israel that are the child killers..forget about Hamas using children for human shields or using schools, mosques, hospitals and UN facilities as rocket and mortar launching sites for their military.

Abbas and the PLO are allied with the genocidal Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is making no attempt whatsoever to disassociate themselves from Hamas - the reverse in fact. Yet President Obama has the unmitigated gall to tell Israel that they had better make even more concessions and work a lot harder at making peace with people who have sworn to kill them.

I doubt it's a coincidence that the president made this speech in front of the UN when he knew very well that Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is en route to address the UN in a day or so. It's the same thing he did the last time Netanyahu came to America, a blatant attempt to poison the water and undercut him.

Then again, think about this. If you were actually trying to work on a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians, would you signal your bias in this fashion? Would you signal a country that is supposedly your ally that you can't be trusted and reveal the same thing to its enemies?

In this speech to the UN, President Barack Hussein Obama gives us a classic rundown on why he is such an abysmal failure; his refusal to recognize reality, his ability to continue to lie to himself as well as to others, his weakness, his duplicity, his inability to admit mistakes or ever take responsibility for anything, his blatant hypocrisy and most of all his low moral character.

Such men can destroy if they attain power, but in the end they can build nothing at all.

This speech tells us why President Obama's place in history is assured. That at least is certain.

President Obama's Speech On ISIL: Shoveling It

For those of you who didn't catch the president's latest teleprompter fed offering, as always, I watch this stuff so you don't have to. The president's full remarks are here, if you're that much of a masochist.

This one wasn't as bad as some of his State of the Union outings, but it was obvious that the president was not really engaged in what he was saying..just an unpleasant chore to get through so he could check off the box and go back to his usual routine.

The president started off with some chest thumping (bin-Laden, yadda yadda) talked about how he had eliminated "much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan" (blatantly untrue) and again talked about all the troops he'd brought home and how we'll be retreating from AfPak and letting the Taliban take over at the end of this year.

He didn't mention fiascoes like Libya or his covert arming and training the rebels who became ISIS, or the fact that he's known about them for quite some time but avoiding doing anything about them, but I digress.

The president then began shoveling the stuff in earnest, and all of it reveals that his 'startegy' will ensure that the Islamic State not only isn't defeated but actually grows stronger.

First there was the expected part appeasing Islam, in which a non-Muslim Barack Obama informed the Muslims in ISIL that there nothing Islamic about what they're doing. That's not quite what the Qu'ran says. and many of ISIL's supporters would disagree with him, but he felt it necessary to make sure that no one would actually identify the ideology we're fighting, a necessary condition for victory.

The president then announced that he's going to rely on airstrikes to take out ISIL, but underlined that no American troops are going to be sent in..no boots on the ground. He plans to rely on the Shi'ite Iraqi army for that, except for a few hundred U.S. soldiers to actually do the dirty work. Think 'advisers' in South Vietnam circa 1962 or so. Of course, with no US boots on the ground, it isn't going to happen, especially given the performance of the Iraqi army against ISIL fighters. I only hope this president doesn't constantly expand the number of American advisers as this becomes evident.

The president also mentioned that he's going to arm and finance the Syrian rebels again. After all, look how well that worked out last time!

Meanwhile, President Obama talked a great deal about a 'coalition' he's assembling to fight ISIL, which of course includes Iran something the president saw fit not to emphasize, as well Iraq's Iran-supported Shi'ite militias and the Shi'ite Iraqi Army. How Iran is going to react to President Obama arming and training fighters to depose Iran's ally, Syria's Basher Assad is another little detail President Obama decided to gloss over.

He'll also throw money at the problem. Of course.

President Obama also mentioned humanitarian aid for Muslims and for Christians 'driven from their ancient homelands'. Those Christians have been being driven from their homes since Barack Obama became president and especially since we left Iraq. It's nice that he finally noticed, I suppose..although helping them is not going to sit well with many of the local Muslims in his 'coalition' especially in Iraq and Syria.

Details, mere details.

He then went on to tout the removal of Syria's chemical weapons (really untrue) and his providing rations for Christians and Yedizis trapped on a mountain top ( true, except a lot of the stuff was dropped from 15,000 feet up with no chutes and simply exploded on impact with the ground).

So what we have here is not some kind of forceful strategy so much as a political speech to massage his far left base while hopefully convincing average American he's involved.

As I pointed out earlier, there's nothing here that's going to destroy ISIL, but I'm sure President Obama is not particularly concerned with that...he's concerned about whether it looks like he's doing something and if it maybe improves his dismal approval ratings.

That's what tonight's shoveling job was all about And  no matter how it's polished or packaged by the president or his friends in the media it still smells the same...


 

The Kurd's Last Stand - And America's Shame

 

The Kurds are at their last extremity. Having been denied anything in the way of arms or help by the Obama Administration, outgunned by the jihadis of the Islamic State armed with American arms, tanks and artillery they obtained from the fleeing Iraqi army and from the Obama Administration, the Kurdish Pesh Merga have been pushed back to a defensive line at Kalak, about 25 miles northwest of Irbil, Kurdistan's capitol.

A refugee camp at Kalak that was packed with thousands of refugees who’d fled Mosul and the newly conquered Christian towns just two days ago when it fell to the Islamic State was emptied as Kalak became the new front line.

As this was happening, Kurdish officials continued to beg the Obama Administration for direct military support, arms and supplies.

 

Falah Bakir, the foreign minister for the Kurdistan Regional Government, told CNN that the Kurds needed immediate military help. “We are left alone in the front to fight the terrorists of ISIS,” he said, using the old acronym for the Islamic State, which used to call itself the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Syria).

“I believe the United States has a moral responsibility to support us, because this is a fight against terrorism, and we have proven to be pro-democracy, pro-West and pro-secularism,” Bakir said.

“I now know that the towns of Qaraqosh, Tal Kayf, Bartella and Karamlesh have been emptied of their original population and are now under the control of the militants,” Joseph Thomas, the Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk and Sulaimaniyah, told the AFP news agency. These were the largest Christian communities in Iraq. They have now been ethnically cleansed, with the inhabitants either driven off, killed or in the case of females, forcibly converted and enslaved.

The Kurds are brave enough, but they have largely antiquated weaponry from the Saddam-era and limited ammunition to defend their homeland against the Islamic State forces armed with advanced American weaponry.The Maliki government and the U.S have consistently refused to give the Kurds any arms or military aid.

“The Americans keep saying they will help us,” Rosg Nuri Shawess, the Kurdish military commander who was overseeing the defensive preparations was quoted as saying. “Well, if they plan to help they had better do it now.”

Last night, President Obama finally addressed this situation, saying "Today, America is coming to help."

And what was that help? Food and water drops to the trapped refugees on Mount Sinjar, and 'targeted airstrikes, if necessary' to 'protect American personnel and facilities.' We have a consulate in Irbil, and a small number of American oil company personnel staying there.

The president then went on to make vague mention of 'urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces' and spent the rest of his time repeating the lie about how he ended the war in Iraq, apologizing to his base and assuring them that he would "not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq." Because, in the president's words, "there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.'

In other words, the president is saying that the U.S. is not committed to fighting Islamic State jihadis (what a surprise, coming from him!) but that we're just going to double down on the $25 billion we've already spent and throw good money after bad into the basically worthless Iraqi military. And the Obama team will continue to wait for the Shi'ite Maliki government to get its act together and reject tribalism, hoping for a 'reconciliation' that isn't going to happen.

So the Kurds aren't going to get so much as one bullet from this president or from Maliki. That in itself should tell you that President Obama's blather about 'reconciliation' is sheer horse manure designed to sound good and reassure his base that America's retreat will continue.

And the airstrikes? I suspected when the president mentioned them that they would be mostly cosmetic, and I wasn't mistaken.

A couple of targets were bombed last night around Makhmour, a town near Irbil. When asked about it, the Pentagon denied U.S. planes were involved, and Kurdish sources confirmed later that the strikes were made by Iraqi and Turkish planes.

According to one of my sources, the strikes last night were pretty much ineffectual and did little damage to the Islamic State's forces. This isn't surprising tome at all since it would suit the Maliki government and Erdoğan's Islamist Turkey just fine to see the Kurds overrun and weakened severely. And neither government has any particular interest in the safety of American personnel or facilities. The 'strikes' amounted to dropping a few bombs haphazardly and flying off.

 

The president had hoped he wouldn;t be forced into a decision, what withhis vacation at Martha;s Vineyard coming up, but the ineffectual nature of the Turkish and Iraqi strikes forced his hand, something that was evident in his televised speech. That's exactly why U.S. planes went into action today. A couple of F-18s off the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush took out what's described as 'a mobile artillery target' (a tank? a missile launcher?) that Islamic State was using to attack the Kurdish lines “near U.S. personnel,” according to a statement by Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary.

“As the president made clear, the United States military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel and facilities,” Admiral Kirby said, referring to the Islamic militants by another translation of their Arabic name.

In other words, as the Admiral stated, our commander-in-chief's orders are crystal clear. As long as the handful of Americans in Kurdistan aren't directly targeted, Islamic State can have free reign and kill as many Kurds as they want to. And if things get dicey, hey, we'll just fly our people out and let the Kurds be overrun. Does anyone get the feeling that this decision was pure politics, to avoid another group of dead Americans at a U.S. Embassy on President Obama's watch?

With that in mind, there will likely be a few airstrikes  here and there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were spaced out and irregular rather than coordinated and  decisive.

Just compare this to President Obama's aerial war against Khaddaffi to save the Islamist jihadis in Benghazi, or his strident lobbying for Hamas in Gaza. There's a pattern here.

Full scale air strikes on the Islamic State's positions would hand them a huge defeat,just as it did to Khaddafi's forces. But that's not what President Barack Hussein Obama wants, obviously.

And the Kurds?

These were the pro-American, pro-western, naturally democratic and prosperous people who should have been the model for former President George W. Bush's successful Muslim democracy.Al-Qaeda in Iraq never got the slightest foothold in Kurdistan and we could rely on the Pesh Merga to hold that territory. Unlike the Shi'ite bloc under Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr, they literally begged us to put our bases there. Former Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani once even suggested that America should make Kurdistan the 51st state because "we would defend you and provide you with oil."

Kurdistan could have been our loyal ally, a firm friend, a secure base in the region, helping us to protect the Persian Gulf and offset Iran. Instead we betrayed them to please the likes of Islamist fascist Tayipp Erdoğan and Iran's own man in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki.

And now, at this last extremity, the final, foul betrayal by President Barack Hussein Obama.I have never been more ashamed.

This entire disaster is the fault of President Obama and his team. It was only a short while  ago that Secretary Kerry was asking congress for half a billion of your tax dollars to arm and train 'the Syrian Rebels', which is exactly how ISIS got so strong in the first place..the covert arms and training  this president handed them via Qatar and Turkey without bothering to inform congress. That, plus the gently used American arms and equipment they inherited from the Iraqi army who dropped them and left them behind, the better to run away a little faster.

The Kurds are not stupid, and they have survived catastrophe before. Their first instinct will probably be to bow down and try to come to terms with Iran. As a matter of fact, there are indications this may have already begun. If this is correct, it marks a major change for the Kurds. After all, if the West and particularly America is retreating, why not try to come to terms with the Strong Horse who's staying in order to try to survive?

There will be an independent Kurdistan some day, but they may have very different feelings about partnering up with America.



UPDATE, 8/11/14: Things have changed since I wrote this. I'm pleased to announce that finally, the Kurds are reportedly getting arms and ammo directly from our CIA. This about face has a lot to do with the Obama Administration's deteriorating relationship with Iraqi PM Maliki on which more shortly.

But at any event, the Kurds are finally getting the arms they need. Thank G-d.

A Black Chicago Grassroots Response To Obama's SOTU

OK, so this isn't your typical south side or west side Chicago tavern. I've been in a number of them, and they don't look like this. And some of the dialogue seems a bit staged in places.

But I put this up because here, you see black voices saying what I'm amazed more black people aren't saying to a president whose policies have so disproportionally hurt black Americans, particularly the working class, the unemployed and the ones who, in the words of one of the people in this film 'aren't on the top rungs of the ladder.'

Most blacks still support President Obama on racial grounds, but there's a real groundswell of discontent when it comes to issues like dysfunctional and substandard education, amnesty for illegal aliens, rabid support for homosexual marriage and the job killing policies this president endorses.

It could be tapped and expanded if the GOP establishment actually treated American blacks as something other than a demographic to be pandered to. And the same goes for Latinos.

Here's a winning political philosophy in a nutshell, courtesy of one of my fave Black Uhuru tunes:

Obama's SOTU - A Hidden Opportunity Amid The Horse Manure

Another Obama State of the Union Address. Oh, joy.

As I've said before, I watch this garbage so you don't have to, but it's getting more difficult every year.I made a few remarks immediately afterwards while posting the Watcher's Council nominations this week, and that's really most of what you need to know:

"L'Estat is Moi! Apres Moi, le deluge!" Yes, we are officially back in the days of the French Bourbons and the ineffectual, narcissistic and parasitic pre-revolution days of Louis XVI.

He is, given his own words, a failure. The five years of inequality and economic stagnation he talked about belong to him, as much as he tries to put the blame elsewhere.

So now, he informs us that he plans to rule with a pen, to stop 'standing still' and rule even more than he already has by diktat, decree and executive order..even if he has to precipitate a constitutional crisis to do it.

Oh, and that bit of drama about 'forcing' Federal contractors to pay a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour? The contractors will do so gladly, with a cynical smirk or two, because they know they won't be picking up the bill, and neither will the president - the taxpayers will. It's a perfect example of this president's signature dishonesty and contempt for the rest of us.

It was embarrassing to listen to and even more embarrassing to reflect that this is whom we have leading our country.

Embarrassing isn't the word for it.

However, now that I've had the chance to recover a bit, there are a few more points of interest I could mention.

President Obama's speech reminded me of a used car pitchman, using the same script once again because that's all he knows and hey, it worked in the past didn't it? Even some of his more intelligent supporters are scratching their heads. If this is the year of action, what's been going on for the last five? if the economy's doing so great, why are so many people still on food stamps? Why are prices on staples and utilities skyrocketing? Where are all the jobs? Why did I lose my healthcare when I was supposed to be able to keep it, and why do I have to buy new coverage at five times the price for higher deductibles and a lot less coverage? OK, I love the part about rebuilding are infrastructure and creating all those new jobs, but wasn't that what that trillion dollar stimulus was supposed to be for? Those shovel ready jobs?

Yes the doubt is setting in.

Speaking of utilities, the president made an off hand mention of them that might be worth noticing.That shift to a 'cleaner energy economy' and those 'tough choices along the way' he was talking about? Guess who's going to be suffering the consequences of those 'tough choices'? I guarantee you, it won't be him.

Yes, what our president was saying, essentially, is that if you like your current appliances and the amount of energy you have available 24-7, you're going to be able to keep it. Just like your health insurance and your doctor. I just had someone from the local power company try to talk me into replacing my current meter with a brand spanking new 'smart-grid' model. Fortunately, I understand that the new meters allow the power company to shut off my power and appliances remotely at their whim or the government's, in the Holy Name of Global Warming, so I declined. President Obama and has EPA undoubtedly want to fix it so declining isn't an option anymore. Just like in the UK.

And the president touting for more green energy scams? I think we've seen how those work, haven't we? Can you say, Solyndra, half a billion dollars plundered? Sure you can.

Other stuff? Of course there was the shout out for amnesty. But I noticed that Republicans Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor were on their feet clapping like seals along with the Democrats. Something is in the works.

And of course, there was also a bit of outre' racism for the president's most loyal supporters..."I’m reaching out to some of America’s leading foundations and corporations on a new initiative to help more young men of color facing tough odds stay on track and reach their full potential."

'Reaching out' in President Obama's usual context means threats and arm twisting. Had he said 'disadvantaged' or something like that, it would have been something else. But what he wants is raced-based quotas, special set-asides and 'diversity' positions that specifically exclude whites and Asians, or else. I give him credit for being honest enough to say so.

His spiel on voting rights was also the same tired nonsense. President Obama favors voting rights all right, but only for those people that are likely to vote for him, even if it means enabling voter fraud. Anyone else needs to have their votes suppressed.

The most ludicrous part of the speech was towards the end, and contained a brief wrap up of the president's wonderful record on foreign policy.

He started out with some frankly insulting garbage about the military which you might have missed unless you actually are aware of what's going on. Check this out:

"And I know this chamber agrees that few Americans give more to their country than our diplomats and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure."

Yes, that's exactly why the president and his team slashed retirement and medical benefits to the tune of $6 billion on veterans and on no one else in that ridiculous new budget bill, especially not the numerous bureaucrats in his entourage. And oddly enough, there's another disgraceful decision Paul Ryan was instrumentally involved in.

It's why the president gutted Tri-Care, something millions of vets depended on so the White House could pay for ObamaCare. And his real feelings about the military were pretty clear a long time ago, when he tried to take away our wounded warrior's VA benefits as early as 2009, and why so many vets have been tossed out of the service just shy of receiving their pensions.

At this point, I'm going to censor myself. But Senator Ted Cruz had a few things to say that are worth looking at. So did Senator Rand Paul:



The president didn't go back to his old mantra of how 'al-Qaeda is on the run' (they're not, and in large part because of President Obama's actions). But he once again did some chest thumping about Iraq, and emphasized that yes, we're definitely pulling out of AfPak this year. I'm sure the Taliban were glad to hear that confirmed publicly once again.

He wants to close Club Gitmo, an odd notion for someone who mouths so many platitudes about fighting terrorists, since so many of them have gone right back to their old activities once they were kicked loose. And of course, he let the nation and the Ayatollahs know that he'll veto any attempts by Congress to try and actually stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But you knew that.

So what are we left with here, after all this recycled, deceptive and tedious horse manure?

First off, the disappointment and fatigue of the Left is palpable, no matter what they say. Many of these people, for the most part, are socialists and statists who expected that by now, taxes would be up to 75% like France, a lot of those evil banksters would be in jail, cap and trade and other global warming initiatives would be firmly in place, there would be nation-wide gay marriage, the country would be disarmed with draconian gun confiscation, we'd be totally disengaged foreign policy-wise, even more industries would be nationalized and everything would be going just great.

Instead, they're left with a feeling of failure and disappointment. Five years in, things are definitely not going great. They had 4 years of total rule in Congress, two while Bush was president and two with Obama in the White House when they could do anything they wanted. And yes, they did a great deal of damage, damage that will take years to repair. But they didn't get most of what they wanted, simply because of our Dear Leader's incompetence and self-indulgence, something most of them will not dare admit, but enough have so that you can see it and smell it in the air. Oh, some of Obama's cronies and donors got to pillage the treasury, but this was definitely not the hope n' change they were sold. On election night, these people were  celebrating. Now, they're unhappy, with diminished expectations.

All they're left with, really, is a lot of words, a number of nasty scandals and the dysfunctional and unpopular ObamaCare.

And the rest of us? We're pretty disappointed as well.

In 2010, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint mobilized the Tea Party, took back the House and elected enough Republicans to the Senate that we figured they would at least stop the rot and curb the worst abuses. Instead, a number of 'conservatives' happily became part of the GOP establishment, especially the leadership. They betrayed the people who put them in office and mostly caved in and stood by while this president was committing his worst abuses, spending their energies instead on making war on the Tea Party and those Republicans unwilling to join them in going along to get along.

Our expectations are likewise diminished, and you could see that in the over 3 million Republicans who simply stayed home on election day in 2012.

So that's the real state of the union..depressed, tired and beaten down.

This is very dangerous, especially for our side. Because part of the Left's strategy, at least the ones in the top, is to make you shrug your shoulders and say, 'what's the use'? They're counting on another 4 years with Hillary to finish the job of wrecking our Republic.

Don't do it.Stay focused.

This is by no means a rah rah to get behind the current Republican party. They've been found wanting once too often and have proven to be unworthy of trust. After all of the nonsense that went down during the Bush Administration, the GOP, resurrected by Governor Palin and Senator DeMint was given one last chance to make things right in 2010. Instead, with a number of honorable exceptions, they embraced cowardice, self-interest and dysfunctional politics at their worst, and Palin and DeMint's reward for saving them was essentially to be run out of the party.

There is no basis to trust the GOP establishment any more. They would rather run a despicable RINO like Chris Christie, lose in 2016 and maintain their entrenched and entitled positions than run a conservative whom could energize the base and could win. . You can also expect them to make active war on conservative candidates rather than trying to defeat Democrats.

What needs to happen is a revolution..an electoral revolution like the one Ronald Reagan achieved in 1980.And this year, 2014, is where it starts.

For starters, it will be important to completely engage at the local level, realizing that this is going to be a two front war.

Since it's important not to get sucked into voting for Democrat funded Libertarian third party candidates and splitting the conservative vote, the idea is to force the party to accept the most conservative candidates out there who can get elected by getting actively involved in grass roots campaigning, primarying RINOs and creatures like John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. They need to pay a price for their treachery. Reagan's old and proven formula was to unite behind the most conservative and principled candidate available, and to make sure he or she knows that 2 years isn't that far away. It won't be perfect, but it will even put RINOs who survive on notice that times have changed.

The same thing goes in the senate. We need to unite and get solidly behind the most conservative Republican candidate available who's electable and force the GOP to move to where its base is.

At the same time, a message needs to be sent to the RNC and the RNSC that times have changed for them too. It's not enough merely to avoid giving them your money - they will always find a fat cat around somewhere, or the candidates will. But they do understand numbers. Massive phone calls, faxes and e-mails to these groups demanding that they cease being functionaries of the establishment and start paying attention to the base are going to have an effect, whether they like it or not. So will grass roots political victories.

It's either that, or somehow raise the money and take the time to create a brand new party. It can be done, but it means ceding the 2016 elections to the Clinton and another 4 years of destruction.

My way at least has a fighting chance of stopping them.

Think about it. Unwittingly, President Obama has given us an opportunity.

Special Sneak Preview Of Tonight's SOTU Speech!!

At least it's more amusing than the real thing....(shudder)

Cozying Up To Communist Dictators - Obama In South Africa

If you have a strong stomach, watch the above clip of our president pressing the flesh, bowing and sharing an intimate moment with Cuba's communist dictator Raul Castro, while CNN's Christiane Amanpour has an orgasm on live television.I'm certain the thousands of political prisoners in Raul's gulags on the Isle of Pines and elsewhere would have a different view of this if they were allowed to speak.



Our president (at a cost to the American taxpayer of a cool $5 million) wasn't done yet. Then came his speech eulogizing Mandela, whom he compared to Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and - wait for it - Abraham Lincoln.

For those of you interested in exactly why these comparisons are so ludicrous, I suggest you read this to get an honest look at Nelson Mandela's real legacy.

The short version, of course is that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were apostles of non-violence, while Nelson Mandela was definitely not. Nor were either of them communists or the leaders of terrorist groups. And the comparison to Lincoln is an outright insult to anyone who knows anything about his life and character. I suppose we can write that off as yet another expression of both our president's ignorance of history and his general feeling toward our country.

Chavez, Castro, Rouhani, Mahmoud Abbas, Mohammed Morsi...the list goes on, and you have to wonder about our president's dictator fetish.

If he were a private citizen, that of course would be his business, but as the representative of the American people, it's simply disgraceful.

The Great Divider

President Obama had a few things to say last Friday about the Zimmerman trial, about Trayvon Martin, and of course about race.

It amazes me that the full import of his remarks will pass unnoticed by the legacy press and indeed by most of America. Because what the president had to say was nothing less than astounding coming from a sitting presodent of the United States.

It's necessary to translate his remarks. As the president said, context is important.

President Obama started out after the pro forma remarks by upping the ante. Now, it's not just that if he had a son he would have looked like Trayvon, but that 35 years ago he was Trayvon:

 But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn’t go away.

The president said this while violent protests that amounted to riots were going on in many locales and random whites were being assaulted by blacks using 'justice for Trayvon' as their excuse.

This is quite similar to the logic terrorism groupies try to foist on the unwary to justify terrorist activities; 'well you know I certainly don't condone violence but you have to understand their rage.' Needless to say, that never works the other way around when objects of terrorism like the Israelis defend themselves. Any response is deemed 'disproportionate'. And make no mistake. President Obama's excusing the Trayvon riots on the basis of experiences and history is yet another important message, given that all important context. When he says "this experience and history doesn't go away" he is not only justifying that violence but letting America know that no matter what, our country is guilty and no matter how much money or good will we expend, it will never be enough. It will never end.

Which means of course that according to President Obama, blacks of necessity have to nourish grievance for eternity and are not responsible for their own actions, no matter what.

That was President Obama's central message. As I pointed out earlier, President Obama's entire stance on this is political in nature . Trayvon Martin was a  useful  smokescreen to divert attention from his own failures, the scandals permeating his administration and a tool  to get black voters to the polls in record numbers in 2014 to support his agenda. It's worth remembering that it was Obama's Department of Justice that actually played a significant part in orchestrating, funding and organizing the violent protests that made the Trayvon Martin shooting a national issue. Because there's money and power to be had by nourishing that black sense of grievance.

Roll that over in your mind a moment. Here we have a president whose Department of Justice deliberately assisted in fanning the flames that turned an obscure local incident into a national racial firestorm led, coordinated  and abetted by President Obama's intimate associate Al Sharpton. We havethe president's own willingness  to exacerbate things  further by making a national statement inserting himself  into the matter and by.putting political pressure on local authorities to prosecute someone who had already been cleared of any wrongdoing after a through investigation by police with a case so shoddily put together that the special prosecutor had to bypass the grand jury mechanism standard in such cases to even have George Zimmerman charged and brought to trial.

Yes, President Obama's quite right that the sense of racial grievance doesn't go away. Especially when you deliberately pour gasoline on it .

The president's attempt to embellish this message by whining about the indignities he supposedly suffered as a young black male..being watched when he went shopping in a store, walking across the street and hearing door locks on cars click, having women in an elevator clutch their purses tighter..' was even more ridiculous coming from someone who has lived a life of privilege and ease his entire life and has known nothing but the best America has to offer.

 

Yes, this picture of the racist hell the president endured 35 years ago while going to the ultra elite Punahou Prep School in Hawaii tells it all, doesn't it?

I suppose Jesse Jackson was racist too when he said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Talk about profiling!

African Americans are 12.5% of the U.S. population but are overwhelmingly represented when it comes to to perpetrating crimes, and the first people that will admit it are blacks themselves who comprise the majority of victims. Blacks commit almost half of the homicides, and according to the 2010 census comprise 40.2 percent of all prison inmates. According to the FBI's own statistics, blacks are 39% more likely to commit interracial crime than to be victims of it.Yet even with those numbers,  this president and his Department of Justice have never once seen fit to intervene or publicly insert themselves in any matter where a white person was the victim. In fact, if we believe J. Christian Adams who used to work there, this is a deliberate policy, especially in the DOJ's civil rights division.

While President Obama briefly acknowledged the dysfunction in much of black American culture, that was, of course, someone else's fault. He blamed the violence that occurs in poor black neighborhoods around the country on 'a very violent past in this country' and the poverty and social disorder on 'a very difficult history'.

This is merely a sophisticated version of the nonsense peddled by race pimps like the president's pal Al Sharpton, shaking down the rubes for another donation.

I'm tired of hearing it, frankly

Lots of people have come to America from many different backgrounds and races, in many cases not by choice but because it was one of the few place that would let them in or that they could scrape up the funds to get to. The Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews, the Armenians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Cubans, the Vietnamese, blacks from the Caribbean and many others all came here in impoverished circumstances. Many of them arrived with literally nothing, did not speak English and faced severe prejudice from the Americans already established here. Some of them had faced horrors in their home countries that make the black experience in America look tame by comparison.

Yet they persevered and prospered. They worked at whatever menial jobs were available, educated themselves and their children, and sometimes they managed to scrimp and save a little and risked their scanty capital on small businesses where they often worked long hours just to survive and prosper. They acknowledged the bigotry they were confronted with but they largely ignored it - because this was America, where they could see with their own eyes that with hard work and a little luck anything was possible, if not for themselves, then for their children. If they were barred from the elite schools, employment in certain fields and from other institutions by bigotry and quotas, they found another way.They refused to embrace the politics of grievance, because they instinctively realized innately how degrading it was to the freedom they came to America to find and to their own human dignity, even if they might not have phrased it quite that way themselves.

They 're living proof that anyone who lets racism or anti-semitism or bigotry keep him or her from achieving to the limits of their ability is a moral coward looking for an alibi. This is as true as it ever was, it has no color line and in spite of President Obama's best efforts to spin this basic truth, people of all races and backgrounds still prove it every day.

You know what the real tragedy is? As America's first black president Barack Obama was in a unique position to build bridges and heal much of what remained of America's racial divide. He enjoyed popularity and trust from both whites and blacks, and had actually led the American people to believe that we were on the way to realizing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Had he made that his criteria, had he kept the promise he made in 2008 to be the president of all the people, things would be very different now.

Instead, he cynically chose to widen those divides and nourish the industry of grievance for his own political purposes. He chose to become the Great Divider. And that will ultimately be his legacy, and ultimately his shame. No justice, no peace indeed.

 

President Obama Insults Christian Parachial Schools

 

This is one of those stories that is huge overseas but is not being reported here at all.

Our president, true to form has gone road trip, ducking  out of Washington when there's real work to be done. He's left  things like the Amnesty bill to capable minions like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. After hitting the European continent with Michelle and the entourage at the taxpayer's expense, he stopped in at the G8 summit in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

And made a speech at Belfast's Waterfront Hall, where he called Christian parochial schools 'segregated schools' and said:

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

Needless to say, Catholics and Protestants through out the UK are outraged.

First, the Buffoon-in-chief is obviously ignorant of the major role parochial schools and yes, religious figures played in bringing a degree of peace to Northern Ireland.

And second, riddle me this: most Muslim madrassahs openly teach Islamist superiority, hatred of unbelievers,the suppression of women and death for apostates and homosexuals (it's in the Qur'an). Islamic anti-semitism is so common in mosque sermons both in America and in every Muslim country the president has ever visited as to be a non-story.

Has our president even once referred to mosques or madrassahs as institutions that 'encourage division and discourage cooperation'? Not to mention the sort of rhetoric regularly issuing out of Reverend Wrights' church in Chicago that he was a member of for two decades?

It's bad enough he's attempting to violate the First Amendment rights of religious institutions here in America.Now he has to thoughtlessly insult them overseas.And selectively. He'd never say anything remotely critical of Muslim institutions at home or abroad.

In terms of academic achievement and producing moral and well educated citizens, America's Jewish and Christian parochial schools eclipse the much better funded public schools in America to an alarming degree, at far less cost per pupil.

It would be refreshing if just maybe, President Obama spent some serious time thinking about why parochial schools do such a stellar job instead of gratuitously insulting them.

But I wouldn't hold my breath.

My apologies to Catholics and Protestants in the UK. We unfortunately have a clueless president who doesn't know how to behave when he's in someone else's neighborhood.