Category Archives: Middle East

Stop being nice to America-destroying Left

Conservatives, including me, like to blame Obama for everything that’s wrong with America.

But the truth is he wouldn’t be in the White House, ignoring and bypassing Congress by signing more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history:

  • without MILLIONS of Americans voting him into power, twice!
  • without the willful complicity of the establishment media
  • without the gutless spineless Republicans, and
  • without the approval of MILLIONS of Americans (50% of adults, according to Gallup Poll, still!), despite or because of everything he’s done.

To quote 18th century French diplomat Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821), “Every nation has the government it deserves.”

In the following op/ed by Michael Cummings for Clash Daily, he perfectly articulates my sentiments.

america_divided

Tired of Losing: No More ‘Benefit of the Doubt’, Decorum for America-Destroying Leftists

Ben Shapiro, attorney, author of Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America, and Brietbart.com editor-at-large, said in a recent column:

“If someone calls you a racist, and you respond by stating that they are a reasonable human being with policy differences, you grant their premise: A reasonable person has called you a racist, which means it is reasonable to call you racist. You lose.”

I am tired of losing.

I am tired of giving people on the Left the benefit of the doubt. Is it not clear they do not mean well? Is it not clear they don’t want the same things as we? Is it not clear they do not wish to arrive at the same destination via a different path? These people are not on our side, and were I in Congress I would not call any member of the opposition party “My honorable friend” or “esteemed colleague.” Decorum be damned.

In the last week we’ve seen former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani get criticized on every news show over his statement that he didn’t think Barack Obama loves America. True Americans cheered as Giuliani didn’t back down when challenged over the days that followed. Even Scott Walker, when asked about what Rudy said of Obama, essentially said, “Ask Obama.” Well done, both of you.

We need more of this, more of calling these people out.

And why shouldn’t we? Barack Obama has done more damage to this country than any president or elected official. We need to tell the truth.

  • He and his perpetually angry wife criticized our country during the 2008 campaign.
  • He began his administration with a trip around the world to apologize for every wrongdoing he believes America has committed.
  • He destroyed the best health care system in the world.
  • He pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving a gaping hole the Islamic State is only happy to fill with the blood and body parts of Jews, Christians, and not-the-right-kind-of-Muslims.
  • He traded five, high value terrorists for a proven Army deserter, some of whose fellow soldiers died looking for him.
  • He has spent more than all other presidents combined.
  • He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would allow the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline, bringing more energy independence and jobs to our nation.
  • He pushed the FCC to treat the Internet as a public utility, paving the way not just for speed but content restriction.
  • He granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and set processes in place to provide them tax credits and Social Security.

We know how long this list could get.

Note: Cummings left out Obama abandoning 4 Americans to die in Benghazi; the IRS singling out conservatives for extra scrutiny; the NSA spying on our every email, phonecall, and credit transaction; targeting right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists; promoting sodomy as U.S. foreign policy; imposing gun control via banning bullets by executive action; and much much more. See our “The Obama Chronicles” page.

In every facet of our lives, Barack Obama and people like him on the Left want to control us — never asking if we want to be controlled nor checking with the Constitution on the legality of their actions. Free enterprise, health care, freedom of religion, free Internet, strong military — they destroy everything they touch. In protecting America or our allies from danger, these people have made it clear they want chaos to reign.

I don’t know what else to say other than this: I hate Barack Obama. You can’t call me racist because I hate Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, too. You can’t call me sexist because I hate Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. You can’t call me anti-pervert because I hate Joe Biden.

Do I hate these people personally? No. How could I? I know none of them. But I hate anyone who becomes part of the 1% off the freedoms of the best country this world will ever know, but with every breath they take seek to fundamentally transform it.

Do I hate these people more than the Islamic State? No, but I hold them responsible for the bloodshed painting the entire Middle East.

My hatred is bipartisan. You would like to think that since, for the moment, we still have elections, we could vote these people out and put in place principled and courageous leaders who will keep their multiple and fervent promises to stop Obama. And in 2010 and 2014 we set decades old records in political power shifting by handing Republicans the keys to Congress. Since then, Republicans have taken impeachment and funding (shutdowns) off the table. Please tell me where our negotiating power resides other than at the bottom of the pit in the movie “300.” Save for a few, patriotic stalwarts, I hate the Republicans too.

But I love God, Jesus, and the American people, and with faith in all of these I remain optimistic that while we’re in a really dark part of history, we will see the light.

Armor of God I can do all things through Christ

See also:

~Éowyn

Why It’s Hard To Sleep

The heat is turning up

The enemy knows Obama has signaled defeat

badnews_02-27-2015

The screen grabs above are from today, February 27 2015, on Breitbart.com.
Sweet dreams, all of you who voted for Obama.


Obama bypasses Congress, again, with new Special Envoy for Sodomites

Christians are being slaughtered across the world, especially in the Middle East — Christianity’s birthplace — where Christianity is on the verge of going extinct.

The Obama Administration has no envoy to Christians but the POS has seen fit to create out of thin air a new position in the State Department — a first-ever Special Envoy for Sodomites.

Just another of his middle-finger salutes to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. (See “Obama tells Congress he’ll decide what’s constitutional“)

Barack Obama

Robert R. Reilly writes for MercatorNet that on Monday, February 23, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed, “I could not be more proud to announce Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.

Randy Berry

Randy Berry

 

Until his new appointment, Berry was the U.S. consul general in the Netherlands.

Two Democrats, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif) had introduced legislation in the last Congress to create such a position, but the bill died. The bill was reintroduced in the new Congress, with zero chances of passage.

And so, true to his F-you declaration a year ago that “I’ll act with or without Congress,” Obama simply created the position by executive fiat. This has the added advantage of not requiring Congressional confirmation of the openly-gay Randy Berry in the new position. It simply becomes an executive branch appointment.

But what exactly is Special Envoy Randy Berry supposed to do “for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons” in foreign countries?

The State Department said Berry would push to end laws in dozens of countries around the world that criminalize same-sex relationships. As Kerry put it, “Too often, in too many countries, LGBT persons are threatened, jailed, and prosecuted because of who they are or who [sic] they love.”

Robert Reilly took a look at more than 40 of the laws that purportedly persecute people because of who they are or whom they love. Here is a sample.

  • Uzbekistan: “voluntary sexual intercourse between two male individuals”
  • Yemen: “Homosexuality between men is defined as penetration into the anus”
  • Sudan: “Any man who inserts his penis or its equivalent into a woman’s or a man’s anus or permitted another man to insert his penis or its equivalent in his anus is said to have committed Sodomy”
  • Brunei: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years…”
  • Myanmar: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished…”
  • Mauritius: “Any person who is guilty of the crime of sodomy or bestiality shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 5 years.”
  • Kuwait: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Kenya: “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Contrary to what John Kerry said, not one of the laws Reilly looked at punishes anyone because of who they are, but only because of what they do. A homosexual cannot be arrested because he is a homosexual, but only if he sodomizes someone – just as an alcoholic cannot be arrested for being an alcoholic, but only if he is drunk and disorderly in public, or is driving drunk. In other words, these laws reflect the rule of law, not the kind of tyrannies embodied in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The issue of whom they love is also irrelevant to these laws, but only, once again what they do together. It is a matter of whether the expression of “love” is appropriate to the nature of the relationship. These laws judge sodomy as inappropriate to any relationship. The principal issue here, then, is the act of sodomy itself, and whether or why the United States should be supporting it in its foreign policy.

John Kerry is very firm that it should, because:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally — the heart and conscience of our diplomacy. That’s why we’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”

In other words, the Obama Administration is proclaiming to the world that the United States of America “defends” and “promotes” SODOMY. Not just that, but the defense of SODOMY is the core — “the heart and conscience” — of U.S. diplomacy.

When did the American people decide that sodomy is up there with the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights?

As recently as 1986, only 29 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that:

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private in between consenting adults.”

Why did these laws exist for so long? Because our inalienable rights rest firmly upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and sodomy is clearly contrary to those Laws, as it violates the very ends of man’s sexual powers, which are unitive and procreative. Sodomy is an act unfit for either of those ends. Therefore, one cannot claim a natural right to do something that is unnatural. Or as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

Reilly explains that, as he stated in his book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:

But that, of course, is exactly what the rationalization for homosexual behaviour accomplishes…. It transforms wrong into right. For that rationalization to hold, however, everyone must share in it. The rationalization of sodomy requires its universalization. Everyone must agree that the unreal is the real [and evil is good]…. We are in the phase of its domestic enforcement now, and Secretary Kerry is preparing for its global enforcement in our foreign-policy, as proudly announced by the LGBT flags flying on the masts of our embassies overseas last June, just under the American flag. The State Department has become the instrument for the global universalization of the rationalization for sodomy.

The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of “gay” rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two are immiscible. One is founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else – not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

The Obama Administration, by its aggressive rationalization and promotion of sodomy across the world, is undermining the very notion of natural law on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded.

See also:

~Éowyn

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation

tired soldier

Washington Times: The U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only “marginally able” to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration’s national security strategy, says a new report by The Heritage Foundation Tuesday.

“The U.S. military itself is aging. It’s shrinking in size,” said Dakota Wood, a Heritage analyst. “And it’s quickly becoming problematic in terms of being able to address more than one major conflict.”

President Obama’s latest strategy to size the armed force pledged in 2014 that the four military branches have sufficient troops, ships, tanks and aircraft to win a large war, while simultaneously acting to “deny the objectives of––or impose unacceptable costs on––another aggressor in another region.”

In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) says the military can essential fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.

But Heritage’s “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” took a look, in detail, at units and weapons, region by region, and came to a different conclusion.

“The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war capable force,” said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. “So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up…But it is a far cry from being a two-war force.”

“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report concluded. “The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

The index report is part scorecard, part research tool. It grades the Army, which is shrinking from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 or lower, and the  Navy, which is failing to a achieve a 300-ship Navy, as only “marginal” in military power. The Air Force’s fleet of fighters and long-range bombers is judged “strong.”

Here is an example of why Heritage says the military cannot fight two wars at once:

The report said the Army historically commits 21 Brigade Combat Teams to one war. Several years ago, that left just 21 more brigades for a second war, and none for strategic reserve. But the problem is more acute. The Army announced in 2013 it may go as low as 33 brigades, far short of the 50 brigades Heritage says are needed.

The Army has been battered by automatic budget cuts known as “sequestration.” A bipartisan budget deal provided some relief last year, but the slashing could come back in 2016 without another agreement.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, has said that if the active force is squeezed down to 420,000 soldiers it could not carry out all global commitments.

The Navy would need 346 ships to carry out two large campaigns, Heritage said, but its fleet is only 284.

At the report’s unveiling,  Rep. Randy Forbes, Virginia Republican, talked of all the technological advancements that led to complete air superiority in the 1991 Desert Storm over Iraq.

Today, the Air Force, said the House Armed Services Committee member,  “would say we are dangerously close to no longer being able to guarantee that air dominance that we could guarantee in Kuwait.”

“If you listen to the Army,  they will give testimony they can no longer guarantee––you talk about two wars––they testified they can’t guarantee that we could win one war,” Mr. Forbes said. “The Navy will tell you if we get to 260 ships we cease to be a super power. We become a regional power.”

The Pentagon’s base budget, minus overseas war costs, has decreased under Mr. Obama, from $527 billion in 2010 to about $496 billion in each of the last three budgets. The president is asking for an increase in 2016 to $534 billion.

“The enemies that we have out there and competitors are making very smart investments accounting for their strategic objectives and interests,” Mr. Wood said.

hopeandchange4

See also:

DCG

Homeland Security chief says we should “give voice to the plight of Muslims” as Obama administration opens immigration floodgates to Muslims

heads in sand

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet-level department of the federal government which is charged with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States and its territories from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.

Like his boss, King Merde in the White House, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson also adamantly refuses to call the Islamic State “Islamic” or a “state.”

Even a Democratic member of Congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), openly disagrees with the Obama administration’s ostrich-like denial. Beginning at the 2:54 mark in the video below, Gabbard says:

“Unless you accurately identify who your enemy is, then you can’t come up with an offensive strategy, a winning strategy, to defeat that enemy.”

Worse than his denial, at the recent 3-day White House summit on violent extremism that began with an opening prayer by an imam, Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble of the Minneapolis’ World Peace [sic] Organization, Johnson actually said (00:10 mark in the CSPAN video that you can view here):

We in the administration, in government, should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face.

How come Obama isn’t giving voice to the plight of “right-wing” Americans, especially sovereign citizens, but instead identifies those Americans as “extremist terrorists”? (See “Obama downplays blood-thirsty ISIS but targets right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists“)

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is opening the floodgates to foreign Muslims.

Paul Sperry reports for Investor’s Business Daily, Feb. 19, 2015, that between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more (legal) immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.

Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there.

Now the State Department says it will quadruple the number of refugees brought here from Syria, where ISIS is headquartered. The U.S. will admit as many as 2,000 Syrian nationals by the end of fiscal year 2015, up from 525 since fiscal 2011.

This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security. But the threat Muslim immigrants pose to homeland security was not addressed during the White House summit on terrorism. Instead, VPOS Joe Biden assured Muslim groups gathered during one session of the summit that the “wave” of Muslim immigration is “not going to stop.”

H/t Clash Daily

~Éowyn

Obama downplays blood-thirsty ISIS but targets right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists

The jihadists who call themselves the Islamic State (formerly ISIS or ISIL) are Islamic fundamentalists who, convinced that the apocalypse is imminent and that they are its agents, are committed to purifying the world in the name of Allah by killing vast numbers of people. (See “Major U.S. magazine breaks with Obama admin by calling ISIS Islamic and apocalyptic“)

But Barack Obama simply refuses to call the Islamic State, who now controls a third of Syria, as either Islamic or a state. Instead, in his speech of Sept. 10, 2014 and since, he calls ISIS jihadists — who have been slaughtering Christians in Iraq, Syria, and most recently beheading 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya — generic “terrorists.”

Incredibly, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf recently proclaimed that America can’t win against the Islamic State “by killing them” and ought instead to focus on addressing their root problem of a poor economy and a lack of job opportunities.

While treating the jihadists with denial and kid gloves, Obama doesn’t hesitate to identify millions of “right wing” Americans as “extremist terrorists,” the latest example being an intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Evan Perez and Wes Bruer report for CNN, Feb. 20, 2015, that a new intelligence assessment, circulated by the DHS this month, focuses on the “domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists,” who reject government authority, carry out sporadic terror attacks on police, and threaten to attack other government buildings.

Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS.​

Note: The sovereign citizen movement is a loosely affiliated group of Americans who believe they are free people and reject many elements of federal, state and local governance, including, but not limited to, taxation. According to Colorado Prowers County Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge, he was told at a Colorado State Police training session on April 1, 2013, that sovereign citizen groups include Americans who believe the United States was founded on godly principles and “fundamentalist” Christians who take the Bible literally. (See Trail Dust’s “Have you ever heard of a ‘Sovereign Citizen’?“)

The DHS report, produced in coordination with the FBI, defines sovereign citizens as “extremists” who believe they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order. The report counts 24 “violent” sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010, including:

  • In 2012, a father and son allegedly engaged in a shootout with police in Louisiana in which two officers were killed and several others wounded. The confrontation began with an officer pulling them over for a traffic violation. The men were sovereign citizen “extremists” who claimed police had no authority over them.
  • In 2013, a man who held anti-government views carried out a shooting attack on three Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees at Los Angeles International Airport, killing one TSA officer.
  • In 2014, a couple killed two police officers and a bystander at a Las Vegas Walmart store.

Other findings in the DHS intelligence assessment include:

  • An expectation that sovereign citizen “violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect’s home, during enforcement stops and at government offices.”
  • “Law enforcement officers will remain the primary target of (sovereign citizen) violence over the next year due to their role in physically enforcing laws and regulations.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, said that by some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 people involved in some way with sovereign citizen extremism, with a core of perhaps 100,000. Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.

While groups like ISIS and al Qaeda garner the most attention, for many local cops, the danger is closer to home. A survey last year of state and local law enforcement officers listed “sovereign citizen terrorists” as the top domestic terror threat, ahead of foreign Islamists and domestic militia groups. The survey was part of a study produced by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Sheikh Sa'ad Musse Roble at WH summit2nd and 3rd from left: Imam Abdisalam Adam of the Islamic Civil Society of America and Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble

The DHS intelligence assessment coincides with the Obama administration’s convening of a White House summit on fighting “violent extremism” last week.

Penny Starr reports for CNS News, Feb. 19, 2015, that the second day of the summit had opened with a Muslim prayer by an imam, Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble of the Minneapolis’ World Peace [sic] Organization, following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democratic members of Congress. No other faiths were represented.

This is not the first time that the DHS identifies “right wing” Americans as “domestic terrorists.

In 2012, a DHS-funded study, Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 — by the same University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism that conducted the 2014 survey of state and local police officers — characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

In fact, University of Maryland’s National Consortium was launched with the aid of DHS, that is, taxpayers’, funding to the tune of $12 million.

See also:

H/t ZeroHedge and FOTM’s dee

~Éowyn

Major U.S. magazine breaks with Obama admin by calling ISIS Islamic and apocalyptic

Dr. Eowyn:

This is VERY IMPORTANT, sobering, and downright frightening, so please make time to read it. The West has become so secular and post-modern relativists, we are incredulous about people who genuinely, truly are ideological/religious fanatics. Our politicians and opinion leaders made that mistake with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and they are doing it again with ISIS or the Islamic State.

Read and listen to what ISIS says! Put simply, ISIS is bat sh*t crazy. Not only are they Islamic, they are fundamentalist in their beliefs. Not only are they fundamentalist Muslims, determined to return the world to the medieval ages and committed to the grotesque barbarism wielded by Mohammad (beheadings, crucifixions, slavery), ISIS is apocalyptic in their beliefs. They are convinced the end times are near, and that the Islamic State is an instrument to bring on the apocalypse.

Please read and forward/disseminate via email & social media. Do it for your lives and those of your loved ones.

God help us.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

In his bestseller book, People of the Lie, the late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., wrote that just as physicians must first properly diagnose and name a disease in order to cure it, we must first name a problem in order to combat it.

Although ISIS/ISIL calls itself the Islamic State, President Barack Obama refuses to identify the group that now controls a third of Syria as either Islamic or a state. Instead, in his speech of Sept. 10, 2014 and since, he calls the Muslim jihadists — who have been slaughtering Christians in Iraq, Syria, and most recently beheading 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya — generic “terrorists.”

Taking their cue from Obama, U.S. media like NBC News also call ISIS “terrorists,” absent any qualifying adjective. And although he denounced the beheading of the Coptic Christians and called them “martyrs,” Pope Francis similarly refuses to identify their killers as…

View original 5,095 more words