The inevitability of Hillary

There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2016.

This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her.

What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.

What is Hillary’s history? In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.

U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans.

Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country’s extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy.

In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies.

The famous “reset” in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks.

This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises.

Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves.

President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other secretaries of state, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama’s when they were both in the Senate.

Both opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there.

Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit Gen. Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it.

The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state.

What the administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.

There are no offsetting foreign policy triumphs under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks.

The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign policy disasters on her watch as secretary of state, raises painful questions about this country.

A president of the United States — any president — has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization.

If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could.

With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic. (Thomas Sowell)
But since it fulfills the Agenda and The Narrative the Left is perfectly ok with that, as matter of fact, they can’t conceive of anything else.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

Fore Score

Maureen Dowd: FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.

Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.

We are met on a great field of that battle, not Augusta, not Pebble Beach, not Bethpage Black, not Burning Tree, but Farm Neck Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard, which we can’t get enough of — me, Alonzo, Ray Allen and Marvin Nicholson, my trip director and favorite golfing partner who has played 134 rounds and counting with me.

We have to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for my presidency, if I keep swinging from behind.

Yet it is altogether fitting and proper that I should get to play as much golf as I want, despite all the lame jokes about how golf is turning into “a real handicap” for my presidency and how I have to “stay the course” with ISIL. I’ve heard all the carping that I should be in the Situation Room droning and plinking the bad folks. I know some people think I should go to Ferguson. Don’t they understand that I’ve delegated the Martin Luther King Jr. thing to Eric Holder? Plus, Valerie Jarrett and Al Sharpton have it under control.

I know it doesn’t look good to have pictures of me grinning in a golf cart juxtaposed with ones of James Foley’s parents crying, and a distraught David Cameron rushing back from his vacation after only one day, and the Pentagon news conference with Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey on the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Syria.

We’re stuck in the rough, going to war all over again in Iraq and maybe striking Syria, too. Every time Chuck says ISIL is “beyond anything we’ve ever seen,” I sprout seven more gray hairs. But my cool golf caps cover them. If only I could just play through the rest of my presidency.

ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.

So how can you blame me for wanting to unwind on the course or for five hours at dinner with my former assistant chef? He’s a great organic cook, and he’s got a gluten-free backyard putting green.

But, in a larger sense, we can dedicate, we can consecrate, we can hallow this ground where I can get away from my wife, my mother-in-law, Uncle Joe, Congress and all the other hazards in my life.

The brave foursomes, living and dead, who struggled here in the sand, in the trees, in the water, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract a few strokes to improve our score. Bill Clinton was Mr. Mulligan, and he is twice at popular as I am.

The world will little note, nor long remember, what we shot here, or why I haven’t invited a bunch of tiresome congressmen to tee it up. I’m trying to relax, guys. So I’d much rather stay in the bunker with my usual bros.

Why don’t you play 18 with Mitch McConnell? And John Boehner is a lot better than me, so I don’t want to play with him.

It is for us, the duffers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who played here have thus far so nobly advanced to get young folks to stop spurning a game they find slow and boring.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us of getting rid of our slice on the public’s dime — that from this honored green we take increased devotion to that cause for which Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy gave their last full measure of devotion — and divots.

We here highly resolve that these golfing greats shall not have competed in vain, especially poor Tiger, and that this nation, under par, shall have a new birth of freedom to play the game that I have become unnaturally obsessed with, and that golf of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

So help me Golf.

152655 600 Obama Ice Bucket Challenge cartoons

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Delusion of the The King

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday the Obama administration’s foreign policies in a number of areas have enhanced the world’s “tranquility” – a word that raised eyebrows as reporters pointed to situations in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine and the South China Sea.

More than one reporter during Monday’s press briefing referred to a front-page Wall Street Journal article highlighting some of those crises, and citing security strategists as saying “the breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn’t been seen since the late 1970s.”

“How does the White House react to the notion that the president is a bystander to all these crises?” asked Fox News’ Ed Henry, citing the widening gaps between the sides in the Iranian nuclear talks, the conflict in and around Gaza, and the Syrian civil war.

“I think that there have been a number of situations in which you’ve seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way, that has substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved the, uh, you know, the – the tranquility of the global community,” Earnest replied.

If I didn’t think they actually are that arrogant and out to lunch with reality I would laugh. But all I can do is cry.

ABC News’ Jon Karl quoted Attorney General Eric Holder’s assessment in an interview aired Sunday that the terrorist potential arising from Westerners returning home after fighting in Syria was “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general.”

Karl then pointed to “what’s looking like an all-out war” between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Sunni jihadist successes in “taking over vast territory in Iraq and in Syria,” Russian aggression in Ukraine, and concerns about Chinese handling of territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

“It doesn’t seem like a time to be touting tranquility on the international scene,” he told Earnest. “Do you think the president’s foreign policy bears any responsibility for any of this, or is there anything he can do about any of this?”

Earnest said President Obama’s thinking about foreign policy was guided by one core principle – “the national security interests of the United States of America.”

Syria chamical weapons deal touted

He raised as examples of actions that advanced American interests the negotiated removal of the Assad regime’s “declared” chemical weapons (CW) stockpile, and mediation in recent days between “two competing presidential candidates in Afghanistan, who were prepared to sort of take that process off the rails.”

Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts in brokering of an agreement calling for a full audit of votes in an Afghan election marred by allegations of rigging have drawn praise, although it will be weeks yet before the deal’s success or otherwise will be seen.

The Syria chemical deal has brought fewer plaudits from outside the administration, however. The Assad regime slow-walked the process, missing multiple deadlines set by the international community in a clearly-defined program of action.

Questions also remain about the completeness of its declaration – there are suspicions it may have kept some CW back – and the regime is also accused of using chlorine gas in the fighting this year.

Moreover, one key part of the CW agreement that has not been achieved is the destruction of 12 Syrian CW production facilities, a process that was meant to have begun last December and been completed by March 15. Almost four months after that deadline the 12 facilities, five of them located underground, remain standing.

“Syria continues to drag its feet in complying with its obligation to destroy chemical weapons production facilities,” U.S. ambassador to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Robert Mikulak, told a meeting of the body’s executive council last week.

“The international community has questions that must be adequately answered by Syria regarding the declaration of its entire chemical weapons program,” he said.

Mikulak added that the U.S. “remains deeply concerned by the reports of systematic use of chlorine gas and other chemicals in opposition areas by Syrian government forces.”

Apart from questions about the agreement’s implementation, some critics also believe the deal overall left President Bashar Assad’s regime stronger, because it transformed him in the space of several days from a pariah who had been facing promised U.S. airstrikes for using chemical agents to kill more than 1,400 people, to a partner whose cooperation was needed to achieve the touted CW handover. (CNS)

Ministry of Truth: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is aptly named, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes a willful fooling of posterity using doctored historical archives to show a government-approved version of events.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual news.

Then there’s just the outright Delusion of The King, a hubris that say they are always right and nothing they do is ever wrong. How can they be wrong, they have only the purest, most saintly of intentions… They are the superior beings. Super Geniuses as it happens!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Real Issues

President Obama (yesterday) : Well, let’s see what I’ve done since I came into office. I said I’d end the war in Iraq. I did. I said that we’d go after al Qaeda. They’ve been decimated in the Fatah. That we’d go after bin Laden. He’s gone. So I’ve executed on my foreign policy. And it’s one that the American people largely agree with. So if Gov. Romney is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so.
Maybe it should be about the War he’s ignoring or is this just a War of Omission? 🙂
In all of the yelling and hoopla and recriminations about the terrorist attack and subsequent murders at the Libyan consulate at Benghazi, people are neglecting to understand the significance of some of the words coming out of the White House.
 
Words are important; it’s where people express their ideas and in many cases reflects their true feelings or how they express how they understand the universe. The White House is big on words; recently they taped Mitt Romney secretly in order to dastardly try and catch him in saying something recriminating. As a result, the American people seem to ignore some historically significant things that the White House is saying publicly which on the surface seem innocent, but are problematic on a much deeper level. The media is incorrectly is focusing on the minutiae of Romney’s truth while the looming iceberg of Obama’s words are ignored.
 
All along both Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and many other arms of government have been claiming that the video about the Islamic faith has been the cause of the events in Libya; that it was not a preplanned attack. Although there has been a small defense of the freedom of speech, the philosophical argument behind the accusation that a video created this mess, is that sometimes words can hurt and perhaps there should be a re-examination of the limits of our freedom of speech laws and rights.
 
It has been equated to yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, which is also restricted speech based on the ideological and ethical model that if great damage is done by speech, then it should be restricted.
Fair enough—on the surface. But if you argue that a video causing people to riot is under those same guidelines, aren’t you in effect arguing that the rights of freedom of speech are subject to the whims of an angry mob rather than the more objective rules of common sense? Should such videos come under the ‘theatre fire’ rule? If so then any group of people could shut down your ideas, thought or freedom of expression simply by burning down the local candy store.
 
Clinton said that the attacks were due to a video which was ‘disgusting’ and ‘deplorable’. Yet, this is the very thing that the First Amendment was established for; to protect speech no matter who it offends and no matter the content. It’s easy to defend the rights of free speech when it comes to newspapers and media reporting the events of the day. Anyone can do that. It takes a patriot however, to defend that right in the face of bald faced hate speech or pornographic content. It takes someone who understands that by restricting offensive content you restrict human beings ability to promote content that is less offensive.
Clearly, our current crop of leaders does not get that. In a full blown attack on the First Amendment our government has arrested and interrogated and intimidated the makers of the film and pressured YouTube and Google to remove the content from the internet (they have since refused). They have contacted the owners of the film and asked for it to be removed; they have used the power, authority and influence of the White House to control and restrict freedom of speech.
 
Publicly they say America stands for the freedom of speech, but privately they throw it under the bus in an effort to score political points with our enemies; enemies who will just as soon murder us all as look at us.
Keep that in mind the significance of this tack- a President who stands together with your enemies to limit your freedoms while they kill your ambassadors and burn your embassies under the superficial argument that it might save lives.
 
To emblematically kneel before enemies that hold a knife to the throats of America and its freedoms is neither the leadership that we want nor need in the White House. To act with weakness and cowardice in the face of brutality and violence is exactly what is meant when those who stand against Team Obama claim we show weakness in our foreign policy. Tragically, it merely encourages our enemies to do worse and sacrifices the standards of our society and the role of a Constitutional government.
 
Do we really want a President that stands with our enemies in a moment of crisis during an act of war?
 

This is the failed foreign policy of Progressive politics and the legacy of Barack Obama. Heaven help us if he is given another four years in November. (Thomas Purcell)

OBAMA: “When it comes to our national security decisions– any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out– any noise that’s out there.”

Thomas Sowell: Former president Bill Clinton told the Democratic National Convention that Barack Obama has a plan to rescue the economy, and only the fact that the Republicans stood in his way has stopped him from getting the economy out of the doldrums.

From all this, and much else that is said in the media and on the campaign trail, you might think that the economy requires government intervention to revive and create jobs. It is Beltway dogma that the government has to “do something.”

History tells a different story. For the first 150 years of this country’s existence, the federal government felt no great need to “do something” when the economy turned down. Over that long span of time, the economic downturns were neither as deep nor as long lasting as they have been since the federal government decided that it had to “do something” in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929, which set a new precedent.

One of the last of the “do nothing” presidents was Warren G. Harding. In 1921, under President Harding, unemployment hit 11.7 percent — higher than it has been under President Obama. Harding did nothing to get the economy stimulated.

Far from spending more money to try to “jump start” the economy, President Harding actually reduced government spending, as the tax revenues declined during the economic downturn.

This was not a matter of absent-mindedly neglecting the economy. President Harding deliberately rejected the urging of his own Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to intervene.

The 11.7 percent unemployment rate in 1921 fell to 6.7 percent in 1922, and then to 2.4 percent in 1923. It is hard to think of any government intervention in the economy that produced such a sharp and swift reduction in unemployment as was produced by just staying out of the way and letting the economy rebound on its own.

Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed to the delegates to the Democratic National Convention that no president could have gotten us out of the recession in just one term.

But history shows that the economy rebounded out of a worse unemployment situation in just two years under Harding, who simply let the market revive on its own, as it had done before, time and time again for more than a century.

Something similar happened under Ronald Reagan. Unemployment peaked at 9.7 percent early in the Reagan administration. Like Harding and earlier presidents, Reagan did nothing, despite outraged outcries in the media.

The economy once again revived on its own. Three years later, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent — and it kept on falling, as the country experienced twenty years of economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.

The Obama party line is that all the bad things are due to what he inherited from Bush, and the few signs of recovery are due to Obama’s policies beginning to pay off. But, if the economy has been rebounding on its own for more than 150 years, the question is why it has been so slow to recover under the Obama administration.

The endless proliferation of anti-business interventions by government, and the sight of more of the same coming over the horizon from Barack Obama’s appointees in the federal bureaucracies, creates the one thing that has long stifled economic activity in countries around the world — uncertainty about what the rules of the game are, and the unpredictability of how specifically those rules will continue to change in a hostile political environment.

Both history and contemporary data show that countries prosper more when there are stable and dependable rules, under which people can make investments without having to fear unpredictable new government interventions before these investments can pay off.

A great myth has grown up that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the American economy with his interventions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. But a 2004 economic study concluded that government interventions had prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Obama is repeating policies that failed under FDR.

Despite demands that Mitt Romney spell out his plan for reviving the economy, we can only hope that Governor Romney plans to stop the government from intervening in the economy and gumming up the works, so that the economy can recover on its own.

OBAMA (this weekend): “Well, it’s a lot of rhetoric, but there aren’t a lot of facts supporting it. Taxes are lower on families than they’ve been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven’t raised taxes.  I’ve cut taxes for middle class families by an average of $3,600 per typical family.”

Everything else is a lie. (Bush’s/Republican’s Fault)  🙂

And it’s clearly, all Bush’s Fault!
The Left and Obama and are not to blame for any of it.
Almost every expert and pundit has it wrong about the people of the Middle East; most certainly the State Department does, and as a result our foreign policy under Team Obama is in shambles.  The recent uprising and attacks on American consulates in the Gulf region is not about a film, and it’s not even about religion – it’s about power and symbolism.
 
People are wondering why an American ambassador who wished nothing but good for the Libyan people was treated so brutally and murdered. The State Department believes that a brief film on YouTube caused it, but that is hardly the case.
 
It was because the ambassador, Chris Stevens, WAS doing so much good.
 
America represents freedom, education, technology and wealth to the people of Libya, as it does to most of the world. These are the very things that would free the Libyans from the grip of evil from groups like Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. By killing Stevens, who was thought of so highly by the local people, these groups are telling the locals: “We are in control, America cannot help you, do what we tell you”.(Thomas Purcell)
Sounds like Obama and his government is the solution to everything approach. He wants all the power. The Democrats want all the power.
The Power to control you completely. To make you completely dependent on them.
So is this different? Maybe its not.
And that maybe THAT”s the real problem.

The Ministry Tending to its Field

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Journalism: In just several days the dangerous ineptitude of U.S. foreign policy has been fully exposed. But instead of reporting this meltdown, the media use it to further hurt the candidate they oppose.

Gov Huckabee 2009: I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

In his weekly address to the nation last week commemorating the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama claimed that “we’ve strengthened our alliances while improving our security here at home.” He boasted that more than 3-1/2 years into his presidency, “our country is stronger, safer and more respected in the world.”

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. George Orwell

Those assertions would be fodder for the most blistering attacks from the mainstream media if this president were a conservative Republican instead of the furthest-to-the-left Democrat ever to sit in the Oval Office.

Less than a week after making such claims, the U.S. State Department had placed itself in an all-out crisis posture few Americans can ever remember happening before as mob attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and North Africa expanded. The alert includes Marine FAST teams being deployed to Libya and Yemen.

What could be more symbolic of the failures of the Obama foreign policy than the contrast of hearing the president and his surrogates repeatedly touting the killing of Osama bin Laden by a U.S. Seal team with pictures of the American flag replaced by al-Qaida’s menacing black standard at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis?

It’s the kind of stuff that’s made for TV news, and would certainly lead off the Big Three networks’ evening newscasts if it were a President McCain or Bush in office.

The photos of a U.S. ambassador dying in the streets would be declared the death knell of any GOP president running for re-election.

But our media, in a chilling threat to voters’ ability to choose a national leader based on accurate reporting of fact, used the Libyan disaster to attack … Mitt Romney.

Romney laudably condemned our Cairo embassy’s apology — issued before the Libyan carnage, then repeated afterward — sympathizing with the attackers.

The media immediately echoed Obama talking points and for days absurdly have made Romney’s statement the story, claiming that Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton aren’t responsible for what U.S. embassies say.

The truth is that the Middle East is now on fire, precisely because of a policy of appeasement toward Islamists exemplified by that embassy statement.

That’s the real issue here: The U.S. has taken a stance of provocative apologizing toward those who stand under that black al-Qaida flag.

“I’ve come here to Cairo,” Obama said three years ago, “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on … that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap.”

It has indeed been a new beginning, but one based on an increasingly obvious new American weakness in the Mideast that the media ignore out of their own political preferences. (IBD)

And now the Libyans are blaming Al-Qaeda because the Muslim Brotherhood is too close to home and they know it. But it’s not like the Ministry of Truth has a follow-up question for them. They still think it’s a movie.

Obama gets off from his massive failure because the media refuses to look and Romney played right into their hands.

But remember, the Media thinks they are not as grotesquely biased as they are.

But neither will they be more “fair” and “balanced”.

Their own self-deception is far greater than their own overt deceptions.

I’ll harp on this again: The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

The tragic events in Cairo and Benghazi should remove doubt that the foreign policy of the current administration is the most destructive since that of Jimmy Carter.

The only question at this point is whether that policy is, as with Carter, the result of incompetence and naivete — or something more disturbing.

In other words, it may be time to ask whether the setbacks in Arab North Africa and elsewhere have been so numerous and unremitting that, rather than failures, they may be seen as consistent with the view of a president who thinks America is too rich and strong for the world’s good.

How else do you explain the apologies issued to the fanatics who killed our ambassador and burned our embassy, apologies that evoke those offered in a 2009 speech in Cairo by a just-seated president who blamed the hatred some in the Mideast have for the West on “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims”?

How else do you to explain the forsaking of a 30-year ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, for a Muslim Brotherhood billed as moderate but now shown to be potentially as fanatical as any government in the region?

And how to explain the rejection of Israel, our only truly democratic ally in the region, which faces nuclear annihilation by Iran, but whose prime minister can’t get an audience with the president because he’s booked on the David Letterman show?

The list of policy failures in the Mideast over the past four years is a long one:

• Iran’s continued development of nuclear weapons capability, as detailed recently by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as we do nothing.

• Continued funding of Egypt to the tune of $1.5 billion in aid a year, along with generous support given to the terrorist-supporting Palestinian government on the West Bank and the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

• The retreats from still-unstable Afghanistan, pulling 23,000 troops out of the country even as its political situation deteriorates and despite saying in 2008 that Afghanistan “has to be … the central front on our battle against terrorism.”

• The open hostility of former ally Pakistan, where we can’t even get a supposedly “friendly” regime to release the doctor who helped us locate and take out Osama bin Laden.

• The sudden abandonment of Iraq, after all we’ve done there to stabilize it, leaving that country to the tender mercies of its menacing neighbor, Iran.

But the list doesn’t stop with U.S. failure in the Mideast. Americans can’t be blamed for also wondering why the president has:

• Pledged to “reset” relations with Russia, enabling Vladimir Putin to turn into a tyrant, jail his political foes, bully neighboring countries, aid Iran in getting a nuclear weapon, and provide support to Syrian bad guy Bashar Assad — at our expense.

• Stiffed both the Poles and the Czechs by backing out of a planned regional missile-defense system, putting these staunch allies once again at the mercy of a predatory Russia. This was done, supposedly, to enlist Russia’s help with Iran — help that never came.

• Assured Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev that he’ll have more “flexibility” in foreign affairs once the November election is out of the way.

• Proposed an 80% cut in nuclear weapons that would leave the U.S. vulnerable to less-scrupulous superpowers such as Russia and China while encouraging rogue nations like Iran and North Korea to go nuclear.

• Used across-the-board budget cuts to hollow out the military, diminishing our naval presence to levels not seen since the end of World War I.

• Stood by as China expands its military at double-digit rates, builds a blue-water navy and turns the Eastern Pacific into its own little lake.

• Started treating old friends such as Britain, Canada and Japan as unwanted in-laws and old adversaries such as Russia and China as friends.

VAllowed American guns to flow to cartels in Mexico without Mexico’s knowledge, at a high cost of human life.

Isn’t it time we stop and think and connect all the dots of a foreign policy that’s taking us in a direction we don’t want to go? (IBD)

Jimmy Carter 2.0

But don’t worry, there’s plenty of campaigning, golfing, and speeches about how much my opponent is an asshole that are vastly more important to me, The President, anyhow.

The Ministry of Truth will cover this up for me so I can go back to parading in front of sycophants and groupies.

No worries.

So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. (Mark Steyn)

And no one in the Ministry bats an eye. After all, it’s not about them! It’s all about a movie…

No, no, says the Broadway director; that’s too crude, too ham-fisted. How about the crowd is cheering and distracted, but he’s the president, he understands the gravity of the hour, and he’s the greatest orator of his generation, so he’s thought about what he’s going to say, and it takes a few moments but his words are so moving that they still the cheers of the fanbois, and at the end there’s complete silence and a few muffled sobs, and even in party-town they understand the sacrifice and loss of their compatriots on the other side of the world.

But no, that would be an utterly fantastical America. In the real America, the president is too busy to attend the security briefing on the morning after a national debacle, but he does have time to do Letterman and appear on a hip-hop radio show hosted by “The Pimp With A Limp.” (MS)

They are just beyond themselves with their own greatness that reality is just that interesting. Certainly not a reality were THEY ARE WRONG and the mighty Obama has fallen. That is a reality that bites.

A reality they will deny and deny you from it. And thus so must you.

The State Department told reporters Friday afternoon that it won’t answer any more questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans until the investigation into the incident is complete.  “I’m going to frustrate all of you, infinitely, by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a position to talk at all about what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how any of this this happened — not who they were, not how it happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it — until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation that’s its got,” State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland told reporters late Friday afternoon. “So I’m going to send to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to talk to you about it,” she said. All aspects of the attack, including what led up to it, its causes, the identity of the perpetrators, and the circumstances surrounding the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and the other three Americans, are off limits for reporters. (Townhall)

The Ministry must remain strong.

For Big Brother must always be.

So say we all.  🙂

The Leader or The Boss

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Obama, who prefers posturing and meaningless sanctions, has repeatedly snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who knows Obama has Israel’s back the way Brutus had Caesar’s.

On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the Obama White House snubbed a requested meeting by Netanyahu, accepted an invitation from the more important David Letterman and apologized to Islamists upset over a film that mocks Islam and Mohammed — something “artists” in America do to Christianity with our tax dollars on a fairly regular basis.

Typically, the administration’s first response was not directed at the apology-spawned attacks that left one U.S. ambassador and two U.S. Marines dead. Rather, it took umbrage with the GOP presidential candidate’s justified condemnation of the embassy apology.

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said in a spot-on response. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Gov. Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt said in a response as disgraceful as the initial apology.

Save your shock and disapproval for the murderers of American ambassadors and Marines.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt are more evidence that Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement and apology leaves us with friends that don’t trust or respect us and enemies that do not fear us. Obama has led from behind on Libya, Syria and Iran. Rather than an “Arab Spring,” we face a region dominated by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and governed by Shariah law — while Iran patiently builds its Islamic nuclear bomb. (IBD)

So what happened after the latest apology…they attacked other American Embassies in the Middle East. Gee, what a shock that was.

He not only shows weakness, he then attacks anyone who questions it. That’s the mark of a very immature person who doesn’t lead.

Chef Robert Irvine on last night’s “Restaurant Impossible” (yes, I am a foodie and find Food Network better TV than most things) read the usual riot act to a single mother who’s restaurant was failing because she was treating her employees like “her friends” so they were running over her like a freight train.

They took complete advantage of her. And when asked what was wrong with the Restaurant they said a lack of leadership! She WAS the problem and they just took advantage of the vacuum.

But what he said to her that I thought was the most damning was that she wanted to be the Boss not the Leader.

She just wanted to be the Head of “the family” and not a Leader. She wanted to rule, not lead. And that’s Obama. He wants to be your boss, rule over you, to tell you what to do. For you to fear him.

But Leadership. Nope, sorry, he checks out every time it comes up. Look at ObamaCare, his signature piece, he lead from the back and let Pelosi and Reid run amok and have a food fight in front of the customers (the american people) and then when it was going down pulled out every dirty trick and every Boss-laden trick he could to get his way or the highway.

This is why he is so poor at Foreign Policy because it requires leadership.

Let’s see, The Prime Minister of your only Middle Eastern Ally or David Letterman?

One is important for a Leader, the other is just important to Me, The Boss. :0

He chose Letterman.

“My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” Obama said at the Democratic convention last week. “But from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.”

Better an era in which we won the Cold War than one full of whining and whimpering, where our embassies are stormed and diplomats murdered with impunity.

A little more than four years ago, Hillary Clinton suggested then-Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama was so naive on the world stage he’d need a “foreign policy instruction manual” should he win.

She produced the now-famous “3 a.m. phone call ad” that questioned his expertise and readiness for the top job. History has proved her right.

At the convention, Obama and his supporters reminded us that “Osama is dead, and GM is alive.” Well, now Amb. J. Christopher Adams and two U.S. Marines are dead too, and that phone is still ringing. (IBD)

Oh, and there’s more to come.

AP: Chanting “death to America,” hundreds of protesters angered by an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen’s capital and burned the American flag on Thursday, the latest in a series of attacks on American diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

American missions have been attacked in three Arab nations – Yemen, Egypt and Libya – that have faced persistent unrest and are struggling to restore law and order after last year’s revolts deposed their authoritarian regimes.

Protesters smashed windows as they breached the embassy perimeter and reached the compound grounds, although they did not enter the main building housing the offices. Angry young men brought down the U.S. flag in the courtyard, burned it and replaced it with a black banner bearing Islam’s declaration of faith – “There is no God but Allah.”

Then  you have this: Foreign Policy Crisis Vs. Campaign Rally (where sycophants tell me how great I am)…

President Barack Obama’s Wednesday afternoon speech in Las Vegas is being delayed by about 45 minutes, according to the White House. Obama had been scheduled to speak at 5:25 p.m. at a campaign rally at the Cashman Center in downtown Las Vegas. He will now deliver his speech at 6:10 p.m., according to an updated schedule released Wednesday morning. The president was forced to alter his schedule to comment on a Tuesday attack on the American Embassy in Libya that killed four people, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the White House Press Office said. No other event details have changed, and doors will still open to the public at 3 p.m., according to an Obama campaign official. Wednesday’s visit will be Obama’s eighth trip to Nevada this year.

A 45 minute speech delay.  That’s it.  Carry on, Mr. President! a mINOR INCONVENIENCE!

Now that’s Leadership for you!

What’s the Boss going to do with Libyans who kill Americans? Talk to them sternly,discipline them (sanctions), fire them?

They aren’t his employees.

Then Acclaimed Restauranteur Willie Degle (“Restaurant Stakeout”)  was called into a Restaurant where the Leader had turned into a lazy Boss.
They had a food fight in the kitchen that spilled over into the dining room and one server actually served customers with chocolate sauce on her face!

Seriously!

But both of these Boss are shown the hard truth and they become Leaders again and business get better, more efficient, more profitable.

Marina (the owner of the restaurant in Michigan where Robert Irvine visited) is happy to report that since the transformation, sales at Paliani’s have increased. In June and July, the restaurant saw year-over-year growth of 46 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

But they had to recognize where they went wrong, admit it, and then do something about it. Obama is far too arrogant for that. Far too narcissistic.

Leadership is much harder than being a Boss.

The Chicago Way is being a Boss and a Thug. Leadership is something else entirely and Obama lacks that quality.

And still does. So expect more of this to come; the attacks by Muslims and him attacking Romney because of it- not that he wouldn’t attack anyhow because that’s all he knows.

Weak Leadership breeds it.

He took credit for the Arab Spring, now it’s sprung back in his face and the best he can do is blame the “old ways”. That’s it?! That’s all you got?

I’m certain the president is mortified by what happened — but I am holding a mirror up to the press.  If they’re experiencing fainting spells over Mitt Romney’s response to the first round of last night’s dreadful news, they might show some interest in the behavior, decisions, and policies of the person currently presiding over the United States government.  Just a thought. (Guy Benson).

Nah, the Press is too busy sucking up to the Boss or running around having their own food fights to care about doing their job in a professional and responsible manner.

Americans are murdered by Islamists, and sovereign American soil is violated, on the anniversary of September 11, and the first word from the administration to reach the world is an apology. So naturally, the mainstream media are focusing on what they in their considered wisdom have determined is Mitt Romney’s crass and ill-timed response to the crisis, even as the Obama campaign found itself in a foot race with the Obama administration to see whether the former could condemn Romney before the latter condemned the terrorists.

But Romney was right to call the Cairo embassy’s obsequiousness “disgraceful,” which is why the White House eventually followed Romney’s lead in disavowing it. Romney was also right to defend his statement against charges that he had “jumped the gun,” saying it is “never too early . . . to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.” Although the press acted as if Romney’s performance at the press conference was laughably unpresidential, what he said was appropriate and true: “It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom and justice and honor,” and “the attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place, and that American leadership is still sorely needed.” (NRO)

Leadership or Partisan Food Fight!

Your Choice.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler