One of the most salient messages from Obama’s State of the Union Address is that he is unwilling to take responsibility for any of his failures.  Instead, he took credit for successful policies that he opposed, and ascribed blame on others for failed policies that he supported.

Here is just a partial list of some of his most hypocritical moments:

Iraq

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”

Obama fought tooth and nail to oppose the surge of troops and force that helped defeat the insurgency in Iraq.  In fact, his entire political career and successful run for president was born out of his opposition to the surge.  Yet, he has the impertinence to take credit for the success of policies he tried to defeat.

War on Terror and Afghanistan

“For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

Obama has forced our troops to fight with egregious rules of engagement, zero intelligence from interrogations, inferior force, and looming cuts to our weapons and war craft.  While our troops are fighting valiantly, yet dying in scores because of the tepid war effort, Obama is negotiating with the Taliban.  Biden believes that the Taliban are not our enemy, and as such, the administration has released many of the most dangerous terrorists from captivity.  We are propping up a failed government that will make peace with the Taliban – the very threat that we sought to eradicate in the first place ten years ago.

Yet, Obama has the audacity to claim victory in the war on terror?

Read More →

One of the most salient messages from Obama’s State of the Union Address is that he is unwilling to take responsibility for any of his failures.  Instead, he took credit for successful policies that he opposed, and ascribed blame on others for failed policies that he supported.

Here is just a partial list of some of his most hypocritical moments:

Iraq

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”

Obama fought tooth and nail to oppose the surge of troops and force that helped defeat the insurgency in Iraq.  In fact, his entire political career and successful run for president was born out of his opposition to the surge.  Yet, he has the impertinence to take credit for the success of policies he tried to defeat.

War on Terror and Afghanistan

“For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

Obama has forced our troops to fight with egregious rules of engagement, zero intelligence from interrogations, inferior force, and looming cuts to our weapons and war craft.  While our troops are fighting valiantly, yet dying in scores because of the tepid war effort, Obama is negotiating with the Taliban.  Biden believes that the Taliban are not our enemy, and as such, the administration has released many of the most dangerous terrorists from captivity.  We are propping up a failed government that will make peace with the Taliban – the very threat that we sought to eradicate in the first place ten years ago.

Yet, Obama has the audacity to claim victory in the war on terror?

Read More →

The vowed inaction of a Ron Paul administration in which he allows those who yearn to destroy our very way of life is irresponsible and frankly, unacceptable. I wish we could all just get along and I would love to not ever have to involve ourselves into another foreign struggle, but that is just not the world we live in.

I would agree that in an ideal world, the United States would keep their noses out of others business and we likely should have never been in Iraq. But when you have a country such as Iran, that open preaches the merits of martyrdom coupled with an open hatred for western values (these guys have openly stated they would love to blow Israel right off the map), there is no room for educated debate on the subject and the threat of mutual destruction, as in the case of the arms race with the Soviet Union, does not work to deter the inevitable use of such weapons. Let’s face it, these people don’t care if they die so what is to stop them from erasing those they openly detest from existence. A world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon is a much more unsafe world.

I don’t advocate all out war but we have to be involved in covert efforts to prevent them from obtaining these weapons. Inaction is unacceptable. And as far as our economy being broken by getting involved imagine our what would happen to the markets if an Iran with nuclear weapons cut off the supply of oil to the world. Hmm

A president that does not actively seek to hinder our obvious and open enemies from obtaining weapons of mass destruction is doing all but ensuring destruction and inevitable mass murder of our friends and allies. I can’t accept that and neither should you. His positions on foreign policy are frankly naive at best and surely far left of Obama. I think that his fiscal policies are spot on and I think they would make him top choice to manage the federal reserve but utterly unelectable as commander in chief and president of the United States.

Kim Jong Il's Legacy (HT: Ace of Spades)

It’s a very bad think to speak evil of the dead. Yet in the case of Detestable North Korean Tyrant, Kim Jong IL, there is a factual limit to the non-derogatory things I can say. Just this weekend, he did the people of his long-suffering and benighted nation a serious favor. That’s it. I’m out of pleasantries for the funeral oration. Now it’s on to the fulsome and scurvy truth.

Read More →

Kim Jong Il's Legacy (HT: Ace of Spades)

It’s a very bad think to speak evil of the dead. Yet in the case of Detestable North Korean Tyrant, Kim Jong IL, there is a factual limit to the non-derogatory things I can say. Just this weekend, he did the people of his long-suffering and benighted nation a serious favor. That’s it. I’m out of pleasantries for the funeral oration. Now it’s on to the fulsome and scurvy truth.

Read More →

This the 4th in a series of articles on the pearls of wisdom that come forth from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chairman of the DNC and the perm-challenged Congressman from Florida’s gerrymandered 20th Congressional District.  This could be called the Wacky World of Wasserman.  On June 5th, she had an editorial in the Sun-Sentinel regarding Obama’s Middle East speech at the State Department.  It starts off good enough: “Unwavering support for Israel…,” “As the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Florida…” blah blah blah.

She then states that under Obama’sleadership, Israel is more secure than they have ever been.  For example, it is Obama who has enacted the strongest sanctions against Iran which begs the question: to what ends?  Have they given up their nuclear aspirations?  Do they still possess missiles that can reach Israel?  Have they ceased support for terrorism?  Obama, she claims, has provided Israel withadvanced anti-missile technology which is kind of ironic considering he left the Czech Republic and Poland twisting in the wind by cancellation of a missile defense system to protect Europe based in those countries.  That was done to “reset” relations with Russia.  While allies twist in the wind, Russia laughs.  But, I digress.  And of course she touts Obama’s support of Israel in international forums.

But then she starts to get in trouble.  Regarding his proposals for a two-state solution, she states: “That is why it is so disappointing to see the deliberate distortions of President Obama’srecord on Israel in the wake of the president’s speech…  These comments are bothharmful to Israel and false.  False because they misrepresent, distort and even lie about the president’s strong pro-Israel conviction; harmful because in doing so, they undermine the very thing they claim to support, the strength and security of Israel.”  So, in Wasserman’sworld, if one disagrees with President Obama on Middle East policy, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and a possible solution, they are liars and they threaten Israel’s security.  Of course, being the “first Jewish woman” elected to Congress from Florida makes her words carry any greater moral or strategic weight.

Among the lies she attributes to the opponents of Obama’s stated solution, she stated, “The President reiterated longstanding American foreign policy that Israel will not return to the 1967 borders and that changes to the borders need to be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians taking into account Israel’s security requirements and the demographic changes of the past 44 years.”   Wasserman Schultz’s interpretation does not square with the exact words of Barack Obama at the State Department.  There, he stated: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders wit Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”  I don’t know what Wasserman is talking about, but Obama’s words are fairly specific here- that the borders of this new state would be based on the 1967 lines.  Also, in order to make this new sovereign state “contiguous,” as a look at any map will reveal, would  necessarily result in the 1967 borders which today would prove indefensible despite the presence of advanced missile technology or not.

And in classic WassermanSchultz style, she did not let me down and provided us with this over-the-top incendiary comment: “Whether it is for political gain or other motives, the distortion of President Obama’s record and position on Israel only plays into the hands of the enemies of Israel by falsely suggesting that there is a softening of U.S. policy.”  It may be only me, but “playing into the hands of the enemies of Israel” of whom we are a close ally militarily infers a certain sense of treason.  So according to WassermanSchultz, I, by virtue of being a Republican and opposing practically all of the Obama agenda- domestic and diplomatic- am “at war with women,” a racist, trying to re-establish Jim Crow laws because I support voter ID laws, AND NOW A TRAITOR.    Because I oppose, or anyone else opposes Barack Obama, the Democratic Messiah, we “play into the hands” of Israel’s enemies.  I submit that it is Barack Obama who is delivering Israelinto the hands of its enemies and it is people like Debbie WassermanSchultz who are equally guilty in their complicity.  She brings dishonor upon her faith and her ethnicity in her support of this suicidal plan.  Seeing how the United States has treated its allies under Barack Obama, when he isn’t bowing to foreign leaders, giving insulting gifts, flubbing toasts and kissing the backside of socialist two-bit South American dictators, Israel is correct in their summary dismissal of the Obama proposal.  Maybe they can learn from the Obama errors in realtionships with staunch allies like Poland, Australia, the Czech Republic and Great Britain.  The Democrats like to deride the foreign policy of George W. Bush, but given his and Wasserman’s alternative policy, it looks pretty damn good and certainly more principled than anything this President has done.  And it defies logic that after the black vote, the next group of lemming-like followers is the Jewish vote for the Democratic Party.