Finally somebody gets it.
Finally somebody gets it.
Using fraudulent budget math which landed Bernie Madoff in prison with a 150-year sentence, Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the cost of insurance [under Obamacare], their ability to keep the policies they liked, and the fact that middle income Americans were being bled dry in order to fund other people’s medical care.
When his politicized Internal Revenue Service was caught trying to destroy his political opposition, Obama stonewalled and used the “dog ate my homework” excuse. Thus, he argued, an Executive Branch which could suck up meta-data on every phone call in the world somehow couldn’t locate e-mails that, not coincidentally, would have incriminated it.
If Congress refused to pass his immigration legislation, he would enact it by executive fiat. If Congress frustrated his efforts to exploit a horrific tragedy in order to pass gun control, he would craft 23 “executive actions” to achieve the same thing. If the law barred him from demanding sales information from gun dealers or creating a national gun registry, he would do it anyway.
After all, wasn’t it Richard Nixon who said to David Frost: “If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” And nothing happened to him, right?
Perhaps, as Richard Nixon found out, the Constitution is a little more resilient than Obama imagines.
Tim Macy is the Chairman of Gun Owners of America, a gun lobby that represents more than one million members and activists.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunowners.org …
Yesterday Obama once again made good on his promise to “stand with the Muslims” when he responded to the latest ghastly atrocity by the Islamic State by absurdly blaming Christianity for slavery and denouncing the Crusades. On the previous day, he attended a religious meeting more to his liking:
President Obama met with American Muslim leaders [Wednesday] afternoon, according to the White House schedule, but so far the administration is unwilling to reveal who attended the meeting, which was closed to the press.
Considering the malevolent ultra-radicals he openly consults with (e.g., Al Sharpton) and even appoints to positions of great power (e.g., Eric Holder), the imagination balks at who must have attended this meeting for the Regime to want it kept secret. Members of the terror umbrella group the Muslim Brotherhood were likely present, given Obama’s record of support for it at the expense of Western interests (e.g., see here, here, and here).
In all probability the most innocuous attendee was left-wing Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah:
The White House won’t say who attended a meeting between Muslim leaders and President Obama at the White House on Wednesday, but comedian Dean Obeidallah says he was there. Writing in the Daily Beast, Obeidallah said discrimination was the main topic: “In fact, it was clearly the No. 1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America.” Obeiallah is well known for his flame-throwing attacks on Republicans, referencing “the GOP’s World Cup of bat[s**t] crazy” and a racial joke about the adopted grandchild of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. The comedian said he went to White House seeking help in encouraging Democrats to denounce Republicans’ comments on Islam. “My point was that while bigotry from certain Republicans is nothing new, I’m alarmed about the Democratic response to these comments. What is the Democrats’ response, you ask? Simple: silence.” He said Obama was very receptive: “While I can’t share the president’s exact response, I can tell you that he expressed his strong commitment to our community to fight anti-Muslim bigotry. I fully understand it’s not easy problem to remedy. But it was very heartening to hear the president’s passionate response.”
Try to picture FDR responding to the Blitzkrieg sweeping across Europe by meeting with Nazis to passionately strategize against anti-fascist bigotry. In light of the explosive rise of Islamic terrorism in general and the Islamic State in particular, that would be the equivalent.
President Jarrett is reportedly the driving force behind a campaign designed to turn Texas blue through illegal immigration, thereby ensuring that all presidential elections end up with a Democrat victor.
According to Capitol Hill sources, de facto president Valerie Jarrett wants Texas and its 38 electoral votes… badly. More troubling is she has apparently been working very hard to make the state turn blue in the very near future, a result that would finalize far left control of the United States in every national election to follow. Jarrett is doing so with a combination of hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants flooding the state, combined with billions of dollars in federal giveaways like Obamacare that will unofficially pledge those new votes to the increasingly far left/progressive/globalist Democratic Party…
… “She is invading Texas with the clear intent to take it over. Look at the public campaign w/La Casa Blanca. That’s her campaign. That is the more immediate primary purpose of his executive amnesty. They’ll have Texas and that means they’ll never lose another national election. Ever.”…The above tweet originated from the La Casa Blanca office, and was then re-tweeted from Jarrett’s own account as well. Within hours of the La Casa Blanca tweet, Jarrett was sharing her views on how wonderful Obamacare is for all Americans – including immigrants.
Here’s the other version of the postcard Jarrett didn’t show Americans. Texico, here we come!
Jarrett is hinting at 743,000 “more people” immediately coming into Texas via the president’s executive amnesty. Logic dictates that within just a few more years this number would easily surpass the one million mark (and likely already has) – a coordinated invasion via the federal government into the only state that gives voters a choice between Republican and Democrat in national elections. The only state that makes such a choice have any semblance of being competitive.
One million votes represents the difference between Texas giving a Republican its 38 electoral votes in a national election or those votes going Democrat. It is the difference between Texas being a blue state, or remaining a red state. Valerie Jarrett has been working very hard to permanently alter the Texas electoral landscape to ensure it forever after favors far left Democrats in future elections.
Barack Obama will fade into political obscurity after 2016, but Valerie Jarrett’s manipulations will continue to impact the country for many more years to follow, and taking Texas is a top priority in that long range plan…
You’ve been warned, Texas. Are you going to sit there and take this from the radical left? Or are you going to do something about it?
Just when you thought you’d heard it all…
The Obama White House insists they’re not indecisive or lazy-
They’re practicing “Strategic Patience” by leading from behind.
Via Ben Shapiro
Today Strategic Patience brought us news of the death of American ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller.
More BS from the Worst President Ever.
Foreign Policy reported:
This story has been updated with details from the White House strategy document.
Critics of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy have for years assailed his administration for responding too slowly to crises ranging from Syria to Russia. In a far-reaching blueprint released Friday that outlines the administration’s worldview, the White House insisted the United States is leading the global effort to confront challenges in a deliberate manner described as “strategic patience.”
The National Security Strategy, required by U.S. law, is intended to set the direction for the administration and communicate American intent to lawmakers, the public, and the world. It is Obama’s second such strategy, and likely last, before he leaves office in early 2017.
It aims to rebut criticism that he has consistently waited too long to respond to challenges like the rise of the Islamic State and Moscow’s military aggression in Ukraine, allowing the problems to worsen while his administration debated ways to act. And it represents a defiant defense of Obama’s leadership.
A White House summary of the strategy, released in tandem with the overall plan, repeatedly highlights the administration’s intent to lead — in partnerships, with military power, and “with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.” That is a clear pushback to lawmakers, policy experts, and prominent U.S. journalists who have lambasted the White House for “leading from behind” — a catchphrase that the administration itself once used to describe the U.S. role in a 2011 coalition bombing campaign in Libya, but has since become shorthand for being too passive in global crises.
Friday’s strategy essentially is the written product of what the White House has all along argued is in the U.S.’ best interests: Carefully constructed security plans that consider all options before getting ensnared in risky and potentially open-ended conflicts. It makes the case for Obama as a prudent president who was ever mindful of possible future risks rather than an overly cautious one unwilling to act aggressively in the nation’s defense.
Obama introduces the new strategy by arguing that although the United States remains the strongest global military and economic power its influence is not without limits.
The United States should not “attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world,” Obama wrote. “As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite.” Further, the president wrote, “the challenges we face require strategic patience and persistence.”
Obama just made Jimmy Carter’s famous Malaise Speech his official foreign policy.
By the time of the Crusades, Muslims had already captured 2/3 of the Christian world.
This piece, from 2002, after 9/11, notes Bill Clinton seemingly trying to justify Islamic terrorist behavior by reaching back to the Crusades, just as President Obama seemed to do yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast.
With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word “crusade” in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.