The President Who Hates His Country

[vector7]

The President Who Hates His Country

EmailJoan Swirsky Sunday, May 3, 2009

In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.

The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented.

Until now

Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:

• In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
• In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
• In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
• In Venezuela, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
• In Nicaragua, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
• In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
• And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.

Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.
Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”

And Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies

“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Of course apologists for Obama & Co. point to “progress” in our foreign policy, ignoring, as Caroline Glick points out, that “America’s betrayal of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies – enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease.” Glick lays out the cold hard facts:

• Obama abrogated America’s strategic commitment to the defense of our ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea’s ballistic missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if it targeted U.S. territory.
• Obama slapped our ally India when he refused to make ending Pakistan’s support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
• Obama failed to assure our ally Iraq that democracy and freedom will be secured before U.S. forces are withdrawn next year.
• Obama de facto abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe when he announced his intention to forge a new alliance with Russia. “The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments,” Glick says, “were quick to recognize that Obama’s strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.”
• Obama “is sacrificing the U.S.’s alliance with our ally Israel “in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran by supporting the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state,” which, Glick warns, “requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for `peace.’” Obama also made clear “that from the administration’s perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran.” In addition, Obama sent Hamas $900 million of foreign aid, “channeled through the UNRWA, a United Nations front filled with Hamas operatives”
• Obama slapped our ally England when he returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
• Obama slapped our ally Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe when he refused to submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate.

“What a great time to be our enemy!” Glick exclaims. “What a terrible time to be our friend!”

And speaking about appeasing Iran, the Obama administration recently asked a federal judge to throw out a $6.6-billion class-action lawsuit against Iran filed by 52 American diplomats and military officials held hostage for more than a year at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. Nothing like selling out Americans to make brownie points with a bloodthirsty dictator!

Barry Rubin explains: “Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased, applaud, but then add that they don’t have to give this guy anything because he is all apologies and no toughness. They like the fact that he is all carrots and no sticks. If, however, they are states more at risk…they worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and defend them. Enemies or potential rivals…say that this guy is weak and defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and promises concessions…they’ll eat the carrots and, if possible, their neighbors as well.”

NY Post writer Ralph Peters, a former military intelligence officer, sums up the hate-America core tenets of the “Obama Doctrine” as follows:
(1) We’re to blame,
(2) Problems can be negotiated away,
(3) Problems that can’t be talked out can be bought off,
(4) Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist,
(5) It’s all our fault,
(6) Israel’s the obstacle to Middle East peace,
(7) Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them,
(8) Our military is dangerous,
(9) Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military,
(10) It’s only torture if we do it, and
(11) Blame President George W. Bush.

Obama is clearly not satisfied with threatening the safety of our tried-and-true allies abroad. He is also determined to undermine the bedrock foundation of America’s security – our military and intelligence agencies. By disclosing interrogation memos – and planning to release photographs associated with military probes into prisoner abuse – he has betrayed every heroic person who risks his or her life for our country, and unforgivably given aid-and-comfort to enemies who seethe with virulent anti-Americanism and lust for our demise. And in the Department of Homeland Security’s infamous memo, he has called members of our military, among others, potential domestic terrorists!

“After September 1th, the general outcry was, ‘Why don’t we have better overseas capabilities?’” said Porter Goss, director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006. “I fear that in the years to come, this refrain will be heard again. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day ‘I have your back,’ only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.”

How horrifying to contemplate that it is the President of the United States himself who is wielding that back-stabbing knife!

Questioning Obama’s patriotism

Before the November election, legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer wrote – and scrupulously documented – a stunning indictment of Obama in which he stated that Obama’s repeatedly professed claim to be a patriot is “a fraud on the American people – and an insult to the countless true patriots who, for over two hundred years, have loved and loyally and zealously supported the United States of America.”

“Patriots,” Holzer concluded, “don’t associate with and derive sustenance from terrorists, America-haters and anti-Semites; they don’t countenance fixed elections; they don’t keep secrets from voters; they don’t intimidate their enemies; they don’t denigrate and degrade our military; they don’t gratuitously interfere with their government’s efforts to protect our country; and they don’t disdain the symbol of this great nation, which for over two centuries men and women have fought and died: the American flag. Whatever Barack Obama is, we can be certain that he is no patriot!”

The events that have followed Obama’s election, Holzer says, “have compounded the proof of the president’s lack of patriotism,” which he has recently spelled out in a follow-up article. A few of the many examples he provides of what “a patriotic American president does not do include:

• Bankrupt this country and court massive inflation in order to implement his vision of a fascist/socialist nation.
• Sit on his hands with a straight face while a South American thug insults his country.
• Appoint America-haters to his cabinet.
• Cozy up to a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iranian madman.
• Impotently watch the probably-already-nuclear-armed North Korean Stalinists lob a ballistic missile across the Pacific.
• Fail to stanch the flow of illegal aliens across the Mexican-United States border.
• Cut the defense budget.
• Strangle innovation during a serious recession by raising taxes.
• Close Guantanamo Bay without a clue of how to handle the enemy combatants incarcerated there.
• Publicly announce what measures military and CIA interrogators can use to extract information from terrorists.
• Apologize to the world for what has made America great and grovel to persons, nations. and institutions unfit to shine our shoes!
• Cede American sovereignty to the American-hating United Nations.
• Defy the Second Amendment and a Supreme Court decision by making an end run that substantially reduces the supply of certain ammunition.
• Repudiate the policy and practice of missile shield installation.”

Some dare call it treason

It is one thing to question a president’s patriotism, but even more serious to accuse him of treason. In an open letter to Obama on Treason, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (U.S. Naval Academy, Class of 1975) minces no words in accusing the president of sending Army forces to Samson, Alabama, and Boston in violation of the Constitution. Here are excerpts of his letter:

“I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years. Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, and deceit. Posing as an imposter president and commander in chief, you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment…

“We come now to the reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works….

“I identify you as a foreign-born domestic enemy. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

Fitzpatrick is not alone. John Smith – a blogger on Townhall.com, titled a recent article “Obama Is a Traitor.” Commenting on the president’s release of the “torture” memos, Smith says:

“Given the actions of Barack Obama in recent days, one has to wonder how many soon-to-be released State secrets have been gathered by radical left-wing traitors and hidden in the dark recesses of Washington, awaiting the Manchurian Candidate’s command to publish them…

“The motivation for Obama’s recent intentional disclosure of Top Secret CIA memoranda…was an act committed solely to increase his own political power through appeasement of the radical left…or was it …guided by the twisted moral imperative uniquely embraced by the Left, which dictates that only those actions that serve to limit individual liberty, punish patriotism, and destroy the traditions and culture of the United States of America are good?…

“Were Obama’s actions motivated by a deeply rooted desire to harm this Nation?…

“Article III of the Constitution defines Treason against the United States as “… levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”.

“Top Secret information is the highest level of classification that we have on a national level. By definition, such material, if made public, will cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security…

“The willful disclosure of Top Secret information is an act of Treason against the United States….A sitting President of The United States of America has committed Treason.”

Fitzpatrick and Smith are among a rising tide of voices – in and outside of the military – who have observed with growing horror Obama’s proclivity to destroy our capitalist economic system, subvert the U.S. Constitution, endanger our military and intelligence services, and obsequiously embrace America’s sworn enemies.

Dr. Jack Wheeler, a consummate Washington insider, goes one step further. “The evidence that the President of the United States is a traitor is mounting. The evidence that the President of the United states is a mortal danger to America’s national security is mounting. The evidence that the President of the United States will not defend America from threats and insults from every two-bit fascist dictator in the world …is not only mounting, it is overwhelming.”

Writer Amy L. Geiger-Hammer states: “I do wonder if Obama should be called a traitor or just incompetent…does he ever talk about what a great country America is?”

And UK journalist Gerald Warner echoes that rising tide: “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter. Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. “

Is America Lost?

Multiple lawsuits to find proof that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be president are ongoing and will ultimately determine if he is an American or Kenyan or Indonesian or UK “natural-born” citizen. To this date, he has spent over a million dollars blocking the suits about his still-missing birth certificate, and there is increasing evidence that the birth certificate attested to by FactCheck.org, FightTheSmears.org, and DailyKos.com are forgeries. And of course we still have not seen Obama’s Selective Service record, medical records, multiple visas, college transcripts, et al.

If Obama is proven to be the fraud and interloper many suspect, every one of his edicts, bills, laws, dictates, Supreme Court selections, et al, will be overturned , leaving America to cope with serious problems – under the leadership of the incomprehensible Joe Biden – but nothing approaching this hate-America president’s far-left socialist domestic programs and appease-our-enemies foreign policy.

The huge national turnouts at the Tea Parties of April 15 were only the beginning of a movement that was spurred by ordinary Americans waking up to Obama’s destruction of our economy, his attempts to reshape America into a banana republic, the grave damage he’s inflicted on our military and intelligence services, and his unsavory predilection for embracing our enemies and apologizing non-stop for the most magnificent nation on earth.

In short, they are waking up to the president who hates his country.

Editor Charlotte Baker predicts that “the Tea Parties and other, more aggressive, protests will grow exponentially, and that the Obama juggernaut can and will be stopped.” It’s crucial, she says, “for all Americans to recall the history they learned in school – at least before the Left hijacked what used to be known as `education.’ The Europeans, Japanese and Russians were all taken over by one form or another of totalitarianism because their combined history was one of absolute rulers – kings, czars and `divine’ emperors. They were totally conditioned to tyranny.

“But the monstrous anti-American gang that rigged the voting system on November 4, 2008– as they do routinely in Obama’s Chicago Machine politics – to push Obama into We-the-People’s White House, have shown – even before his inauguration – the kind of overreaching that arrogant tyrants always demonstrate. Hitler, Mao, Tojo and Stalin all got away with overreaching, but they weren’t brutalizing Americans.

“Tolerating totalitarianism is simply not in the genetic code – the DNA – of Americans!” Baker adds. “Freedom and Liberty run in our blood!”

Indeed!

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• The President of Resentment
• The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
• Communists for Obama
• Is Barack Obama a real Manchurian candidate?
• Something Wicked This Way Comes
• The Commies Are Coming!

KNIGHT: Our Trojan Horse President

Good fiction must ring true to life - this narrative is incredible

By Robert Knight
-
The Washington Times
Thursday, December 22, 2011

I was thinking about writing a novel about what might happen if a man who hates America and wants to bring it down is somehow elected president.

What would he do?

I sketched out a few plot elements, and you can decide whether this will fly.

First, the Trojan Horse president would initiate unprecedented spending, driving the debt up by more than $4 trillion just in the first three years. Much of the money would go into the pockets of political supporters and people who donate heavily to his campaigns.

He would ram through an unreadable law allowing the federal government to seize the health care system, which would transform citizens into beholden subjects.

He would cut out private lenders and federalize student loans.

He would go on a world apology tour, letting America’s friends and foes know that he is doing whatever he can to make sure America becomes a third-rate power and is brought to heel under a growing world government headed by the United Nations. While on the tour, he would praise Islam and denigrate America’s Christian heritage.

He would cripple America’s ability to be energy-independent by halting new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska - even projects that already had undergone years of research and approval. While promoting oil drilling by Brazil and other foreign countries, he would halt a pipeline from Canada’s oil tar sands that could create 20,000 U.S. jobs and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

He would waste billions on “new” sources of energy that don’t have a prayer of sustaining America’s vast industrial and service industries. This means windmills, solar farms and acres of cages full of hamsters on wheels that generate electricity.

He would appoint a totalitarian-minded director of the Environmental Protection Agency to use global-warming hysteria to create carbon rules to shut down or bankrupt coal-burning electric plants and shackle manufacturers with hundreds of new regulations.

He essentially would end the space program, a main driver of America’s computer and other high-tech industries. First he would order NASA to “reach out” to Muslim nations.

He would hollow out the military by killing new weapons, reducing forces and letting our foes know exactly when America is leaving the field of battle, regardless of conditions.

To complete the job of destroying morale, he would orchestrate, with leaks and stacked surveys, an end to the military’s moral code, which has been in existence since the nation’s founding. He would brook no commander who held strong moral views and would appoint spineless bureaucrats to facilitate the new sexually androgynous armed forces.

He would alienate European allies such as Poland by yanking away a missile-defense system after the Poles already had committed to it and risked the wrath of neighboring Russia.
He would send his secretary of state around the world to promote abortion, homosexuality and anti-blasphemy dictums that stifle criticism of Shariah law.

He would use the Justice Department to undermine the rule of law. Here are some ways he could do that:

c Attempt to close down the Guantanamo Bay military prison and bring terrorist suspects into U.S. civil courts, where they could claim constitutional immunities.

c Reignite racial animosity by dropping voter-intimidation charges against radicals such as the New Black Panther Party thugs outside a Philadelphia polling place.

c Order his attorney general to flout the Constitution’s requirement to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” by announcing that the administration will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While doing this, he would play coy with the media about his “evolving” views on same-sex “marriage” and facilitate homosexual activists’ other key goals, such as a federal hate-crimes law.

c Have the civil rights enforcement staff ignore voter-fraud allegations by citizens who happen to be white.

c Ignore blatant violations of immigration law by “sanctuary cities” while suing Arizona and threatening other states that dare to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

c Threaten states that tighten laws against voter fraud, such as requiring a photo ID. Without evidence, accuse them of trying to “suppress” the minority vote.

c Ship hundreds of taxpayer-purchased firearms to Mexican drug gangs in order to frame law-abiding gun sellers in Texas. When the Fast and Furious weapons are used to kill U.S. and Mexican lawmen, the attorney general will pretend he didn’t know about the program until very recently and is shocked, shocked! The attorney general will claim that critics of this criminally insane policy are motivated by racial animus against him and the president. After all, this worked when anyone questioned why the president’s college and medical records were sealed or why he attended a Marxist minister’s church for 20 years and hung out with known terrorists.

He would appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a “living Constitution,” which means they can ignore its plain meaning when it interferes with their ideological agenda.

He would stack the National Labor Relations Board with union hacks who would do unspeakable things such as order a major company (Boeing) not to open a new factory in a right-to-work state (South Carolina) in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. If he got away with that, he would go ahead and strengthen a crony socialist system reminiscent of Mussolini’s Italy or Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela that subsidizes “winners” such as Solyndra.

Finally, throughout his tenure, he would employ the Marxist rhetoric of class warfare, blame “the wealthy” and make more Americans dependent on government checks. He would sucker Republican leaders into secret meetings and emerge to accuse them of wanting to raise taxes on all but the rich.

As I began to flesh out this novel, I decided it was a waste of time. Good fiction has to ring true to life, and the hamster part just won’t wash.

[American Patriot]

Wait a minute. WHAT Trojan Horse President?

What the FUCK are people fucking STUPID? Blind? IGNORANT? Or do they have their heads so fucking far up their asses, they simply couldn't READ the shit we wrote before the man was President??????????????????

There was NOTHING TROJAN HORSE about Obama! NOTHING. We knew what he was before he was elected, and WE POINTED IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phil Fiord]

It is true we knew all about O. There actually had been more data out there than there is now. He was no Trojan horse. The way I see it, his campaign used psychological manipulation in messages. Keywords and phrases to elicit certain responses as well as how things were stated. O the eloquent speaker.... Please. They were speeches written for him to read.

[vector7]

Obama's Fundamental Transformation of a Nation He Despises

July 3, 2013
By Jeffrey Folks



Is it just incompetence, or is there something else going on here?

Obama's only real competence, it seems, lies in spying on Americans and imposing new restrictions on their liberty. This fact may be the key to understanding this president. He has shown himself sympathetic toward every anti-American dictator on the planet, warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, lifting travel restrictions to Castro's Cuba, and (when he thought no one could hear him) promising a cozy second term with President Putin.

Obama's love affair with Marxist tyrants has not earned him any favors -- not even the return of one globe-trotting traitor. The best he can do is issue a weak protest and direct his new secretary of state to remark that Hong Kong's and Russia's actions in regard to Snowden are really "disappointing." That kind of swagger should make the Chinese and Russian leadership wet their britches.

For his part, Obama has done nothing, perhaps because he is still in thrall of anyone who calls himself a Marxist. The only people he really distrusts are Americans, especially those patriotic Tea Party members who care about their country's future.

Does President Obama really hate the American people that much?

I think he does. He hates America as it is and as it has been, and, as he openly admits, he wants nothing less than to "fundamentally transform America." One does not completely transform a nation into the opposite of what it is unless one hates that nation as it is. That fact explains why Obama has done so little to protect America while doing so much to spy on, disparage, and attack ordinary Americans.

Obama seized on the financial crisis of 2008 as the pretext for passing a sweeping stimulus bill, the Dodd-Frank financial services regulation, and the seriously mislabeled "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Now, with the help of "extreme weather" coverage on every mainstream news service, he has been ginning up another crisis as the pretext for sweeping regulation of the entire economy. And just last week, in a speech at Georgetown University, he has announced what that regulation will cover.

It will cover just about everything. Every activity that uses energy, or that used energy in its manufacture or requires energy for its maintenance, will be regulated -- not by Congress but by the president directly.

That is the strategy behind Obama's new pronouncements on the "social cost" of carbon emissions. As Obama put it in his Georgetown speech, "the costs of these [climate] events can be measured." Nothing could justify the actual cost of Obama's new emissions push, which will raise the cost of electricity along with everything else from cars to refrigerators to new homes. But if the "social cost" of carbon emissions is factored in, suddenly the new guidelines are made to seem affordable.

But what is the "social cost" of carbon? It is the cost of future climate events that "might result" from increased carbon emissions. In fact, no one knows whether there actually will be more extreme weather events -- or even what constitutes such an event. Is a cold winter such an event? An abnormally wet spring? An average year, with its share of tornados and wildfires? The truth is that the president is engaging in pure speculation as the basis for policies that will cost hundreds of billions in spending and millions of new jobs.

As Obama himself pointed out at Georgetown, America's carbon emissions are "at the lowest levels in nearly 20 years." Yet, according to the president, it is in precisely in this period ("the last 15 years") that scientists have recorded rising temperatures. The president's science seems a bit confused.

It is all too much like Stalin's fascination with the pseudo-science of Trofim Lysenko. Stalin's faith in Lysenkoism set Soviet agriculture back decades. Yet Lysenko's theories of the heritability of acquired traits became the basis of Soviet agricultural policy -- just as the unproven science of global warming has become the basis of American energy policy under Obama.

Lysenkoism ended in disaster for the Soviet Union, and the science of global warming is leading the U.S. and western Europe toward a similar economic disaster. This year, California's Central Valley, which supplies much of America's fresh fruits and vegetables, will receive only 20% of its normal water allocation for fear of harming the Delta smelt. A president with real leadership qualities would suspend the efforts to save the smelt and save the humans instead. But this president is terrified of offending the environmental lobby. In fact, he wants to go farther. Why should farmers have any water at all if the smelt's future is at stake?

It's not difficult to see where the pseudo-science of global warming is taking us. Obama has already declared that, in effect, there shall be no new coal-fired power plants and that at least one third of existing coal-fired plants are to be shuttered in the near future, and all of them eventually in the carbon-free future he dreams of. He is preparing regulations that will make it impossible to produce efficient and economical full-size trucks in the numbers now needed to run our economy. His next step will likely be an assault on our nation's ability to produce shale gas through the safe technology of hydraulic fracturing.

And that's just the beginning of the total makeover that Obama has in mind for America. Did I mention persecution of journalists? Forced unionization of workplaces? Abortion on demand, funded by every employer? Racial discrimination in perpetuity against non-minorities? And environmental regulations as far as the eye can see, affecting every aspect of life?

From the flow per second of your morning shower to the temperature at which you set your thermometer at night, from the car you drive to what you eat, from where and how your children are educated to how you fund your retirement, Obama wants government to control every moment of your existence. Long ago, in a glorious revolution, Americans rejected this sort of tyranny when it was imposed on them by the British Crown. Our only chance now is at the ballot box in 2014 and 2016.

[vector7]

Did Obama whine ‘Jesus’ after laying wreath at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Did Obama get so frustrated that having to lay a wreath at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier that he whined ‘Jesus’ afterwards?

It’s a hot topic tonight, and I just can’t tell. Both Gateway Pundit and Free Republic have lively discussions about this from people who believe the voice is Obama and from those who don’t. And Weasel Zippers

Others claim this is fake but I heard it myself while watching Fox News earlier today, so it’s not fake.

The only real question here is whether that was Obama or someone else. Here are two different versions of the video:






Flashback:
Michelle Obama's All this for a damn flag shown at three different speeds

[vector7]

Obama refuses to attend Gettysburg event

Snubs 150th anniversary of Lincoln speech

WashPost Plays Up Gettysburg Address Anniversary, But Completely Skips Obama's Refusal to Attend

By Tim Graham | November 19, 2013 | 08:57



On the front of Tuesday's Style section of The Washington Post is an article titled "Hallowed ground, restored to its roots." The Post assigned gardening writer Adrian Higgins, who wrote of an "elaborate celebration of the 150th anniversary of the president's original remarks" at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1863. But nowhere in the 25-paragraph story about clearing the landscape is there any notion that Barack Obama, who has routinely compared himself to Lincoln, refused to attend.

George Condon of National Journal was the latest to report on the snub: "Instead of going to Gettysburg, he will go to the Four Seasons Hotel to address The Wall Street Journal CEO Council's annual meeting and talk about the economy. In his place, he has dispatched little-known Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell to the ceremonies." Spokesman Jay Carney offered nothing to reporters:

Asked Monday about the president's absence, press secretary Jay Carney said simply, "I don't have any scheduling updates to provide to you." He added, "Obviously, that address and that moment in time is seminal in our history. I think that all Americans across the country will have the opportunity to think about those words and that address." But as to why the president is staying away? "I don't have anything more for you."

...The York Daily Record called his decision "unacceptable." The paper's editorial board wrote that the nation's first African-American president should be there on Tuesday. "President Obama could have used this occasion to offer words of healing and reconciliation--as his Illinois forefather once did." Conservative author Steven F. Hayward was more biting in an article in Forbes, contending that the president is showing "diffidence or disdain for American icons."

Condon noted that other presidents had to be talked into speaking at Gettysburg anniversary events – Woodrow Wilson in 1913, Franklin Roosevelt in 1938, and Lyndon Johnson in 1963. But unlike the others, Obama refused to budge.

The first TV person to notice should be "historian" Chris Matthews, who proclaimed that Obama's "race speech" in 2008 was "A speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln....I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract." The first radio person to notice ought to be NPR morning anchor Steve Inskeep, who blatantly compared Obama to Lincoln in a 2012 interview with Obama strategist David Axelrod.

[vector7]

Companion Thread:

• The Muslim World Hates the U.S. under Obama More Than Ever

Dangerous Times: Obama the Betrayer

July 5, 2014

By James Lewis

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Which of those solemn promises has Barack H. Obama not betrayed?

I can’t think of a single one.

If Obama is different from other presidents, it’s not for the color of his skin, which is just a PR hustle to blackmail suckers into proving they aren’t racists. No: Obama will be historic for his fanatical leftism, which has no precedent in American history. The biggest headline is Obama’s ideology, not his race.

The left is a revolutionary cult, one that has no compunctions about violations of laws or human rights – for what they imagine to be a utopian cause, of course. But every single power cult in history is all for love and peace – once it takes over. Head-chopping Muslims sing the song of love and peace just as well as the left.

Just consider two quotes.

Karl Marx, 1848: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism."

Vladimir Lenin, 1918: “the fundamental feature of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.”

Terrorist killings of innocent civilians are exactly the same as deliberate murder under domestic criminal law. But the left has legitimized terrorism when it is directed against bourgeois society. That is the key to their moral perversion. That is also why Obama does not object to terrorism “as such.” If he cared about Islamist terrorism in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all the rest, he would also have to reject the Mau Mau terrorism that brought his dreamed-of father to power in Kenya. (Jomo Kenyatta quickly kicked him out of the post-colonial government.) In any case, Obama and the indoctrinated network that now controls the United States government consider terrorism “in a good cause” justifiable – which is why they do not mind 9/11/01 and the whole rise of jihad terrorism in the last forty years. If anything, the hard left wing of our foreign policy establishment is full of excuses for clear crimes against humanity.

So far, Obama has shown utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, for our military, and for the crucial duties of the Department of Justice, the Border Patrol, and the IRS. The hard left at the core of the Democratic Party is essentially Obamanist, as expressed by Rep. Joe Garcia.

The real problem is therefore not a single human being called Obama, but an entire political apparatus that turns out Obamas like robots. Hillary is an Alinsky acolyte, and Alinsky was simply another revolutionary agitator – now called “community organizer” by our party-line press. Alinsky’s biggest innovation was to make common cause with organized crime in Chicago.

Starting with the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, radical Muslims joined the Alinsky axis to make the toxic triangle of revolution, criminal mafias, and reactionary Islamism.

The historian Bat Ye’or wrote in her book, Eurabia:

[Beginning in 1973,] the combination of a powerful Eurabian lobby with ... European political, media, and educational systems produced throughout the EU that uniform political thinking known as “political correctness”... Dissenters were harshly censured in universities, books, and the media.

Exactly the same media-political fear regime was implemented in the United States. These events were not coincidental. In many cases, we know exactly which politicians and media empires were bought by Gulf oil dollars. Starting with the Clintons, we have seen state mafias gain national power – first the Dixie Mafia, and now the Chicago Machine. Obama is simply the logical outcome of forty years of indoctrination in our politics, education, and media.

We can now see these toxic forces converging in the purposeful sabotage of our southern border. The Sinaloa cartel is the biggest drug cartel in Chicago, and it received weapons from our DOJ during the “Fast and Furious” smuggling program. Valerie Jarrett met with “immigration activists” (like La Raza) in the weeks before the assault on our border. Iran’s terrorist arm Hezb'allah has agents colluding with drug mafias and people smuggling all over South America. Breaking down our southern borders serves all three.

It’s impossible to know where Obama has done the most damage – at home or abroad. The Middle East is now breaking down into that much-feared regional war, with Russia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Iraq converging on the Saudi- and Qatar-supported murder gangs of ISIS and ISIL, which now number in the tens of thousands. To add to the turmoil, the United States has helped to supply and train AQ barbarians in Jordan and Turkey, to join their bloodstained brothers wherever they decide to strike next.

All these bloody disasters can be attributed to U.S. and European policies in support of Islamofascist radicals. Jimmy Carter allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran, which is now within weeks of possessing a nuclear bomb. Western politicians like Jacques Chirac enabled Saddam Hussein in Europe and the U.N., leading directly to suicidal immigration flows of millions of Muslims from the badlands of Pakistan to all the capitals of Europe. The EU supported the Turkish Islamofascist party of Recip Erdoğan, now fighting the Turkish Salafist party. The Clintons failed to pursue Osama bin Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing in New York in 1993. Major money flows have been going from the ultra-radical Muslim Brotherhood to the Carter and Clinton centers.

But it took Obama to betray Egypt’s Mubarak, the single greatest pillar of peace in the Middle East for four decades. It was Obama who overthrew Gaddafi, and dissolved Libya into a bloody civil war that still continues. It was Obama who directed Ambassador Stevens to smuggle vast quantities of Libyan arms to the Syrian rebels, including the worst of the worst, the Al Nusrah gang, which killed children in the Christian village of Ma’aloula. It was Obama who supported the rise of the MBs in Egypt – the very people who assassinated Anwar Sadat forty years ago for making peace with Israel. Today, it is Obama who is preparing to surrender Afghanistan to the woman-hating Taliban, and who is refusing to help our U.S.-promoted Baghdad government to ward off the latest assault by primitive savages.

(Baghdad is now getting jet planes from Russia and an invading army from Iran and Syria, whose loyalties nobody knows. But they sure don’t like us.)

In sum, Obama has presided over the most malignant foreign policy in U.S. history.

This is not an accident. This policy was planned and executed by radical leftists like Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, corrupt media barons like the New York Times, and Islamofascists like John Brennan. They include the same Big Media corporations that control our “mainstream” media. They also include famous Silicon Valley high-tech companies like Apple and Google, who support Obama’s Progressive Policy Institute, and George Soros, who supports the anti-Israel front group J Street. Google’s vice president for North African sales was indeed directly involved in agitating for the Arab Spring, which our media simultaneously discovered and headlined, only to lead to Muslim Brotherhood despotism in Egypt.

It is very hard to know if we will come out of this mad state of affairs intact. America has teetered on the edge of Marxist disaster once before in its history, during the FDR and Truman years, when the fruits of the Manhattan Project were instantly transmitted to Stalin in Moscow, who was able to explode his own copycat bomb as early as 1949. Leftist betrayal is not new, nor is it unusual.

If you believe delusionally that the “bourgeois” nation-state is the enemy of all that is good and decent, and that destroying it will bring about utopia, smuggling nuclear secrets to Jozef Stalin becomes a great gift to humanity. Once you accept delusional cult beliefs, the end simply justifies the means. And delusional cults are a dime a dozen in human history.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this week:

The American image has been tarnished by the progressives who took control of the U.S. government in 2009. They set about to expand the state's power, which was exactly what had destroyed the productive drive and creative skills of the post-World War II Russians and Chinese. They made a hash of health insurance, grossly distorted finance and destroyed personal savings by manipulation of the credit markets. They conducted a war on fossil fuels, handing a victory to Russia, which uses its hydrocarbon exports to exercise political influence in Europe. They weakened the dollar by running up huge national debts and wasted the nation's substance on silly projects like "fighting global warming."

Obama’s mentors shared a bitter hatred for middle-class values, starting with his mother and father, followed by his Muslim madrassa teachers in Jakarta, then Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, on and on, culminating in Jerry Wright, who calls our culture of freedom and productive work “middleclassness” – a direct translation of Marx’s “bourgeoisie,” the enemy that must be destroyed.

What is different about the Obama left is not the basic doctrine of revolutionary destruction. What’s different is the new alliance between the radical left and jihadist Islam. According to Bat Ye’or, that alliance goes back to the 1970s, after the Arab oil embargo, when Wahhabi and Khomeinist Muslims started to buy politicians by the barrel in Europe and America. Obama is the culmination of decades of Muslim influence-buying, which now controls much of our media, politics, and educational system.

Today, we are seeing that alliance emerge in the Muslim world, where the Western left has consistently supported murderous jihadist movements and regimes.

Obama has supported mass-killing regimes in the Middle East against more moderate, stabilizing rulers: Mubarak, Gaddafi (much better than today’s civil war in Libya), Maliki (ditto for Iraq), Karzai (ditto for Afghanistan). Instead, Obama consistently favors al-Qaeda-linked killer gangs in Syria and the biggest sponsor of terrorism, Iran. His treatment of our longtime allies has been atrocious. Betrayal is his middle name.

The hokey “spontaneous” immigrant wave of children and criminals is just another example of hard-left agitprop – in this case culminating in massive, deliberate child endangerment and probable abuse.

Obama’s self-appointed mission in life is to destroy the most productive and beneficial culture in history. Obama personally taught Alinsky’s Rules to his ACORN followers, and Alinsky called us “the enemy.” That word is used in war, and radicals like Obama and Malcolm X are bitter warlike agitators. (The old word for “community organizer” was “communist agitator”). Radicals like Obama read their revolutionary heroes literally, just like any Bible-quoting fundamentalist preacher.

The civilized world has a great ability to recover from disaster, as it showed three times in the last century. But each time the resistance has had to be led by those who tell the truth. Sane and sensible people today cannot rely on our twisted media, and we cannot believe our broken politicians. We have new web technologies at our fingertips that allow us to throw out the bums – be they RINOs, leftist radicals, or Islamofascists. Eventually our confused voters will figure it out – but don’t expect other people to make it happen.

Everything depends on telling the truth, and you and I must take full responsibility for doing so. Nobody else will do it for us.

[vector7]

Obama Wants to Defeat America, Not ISIS

Posted by Daniel Greenfield

Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. "You can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women," he said.



Instead he argued, "The goal has to be to dismantle them."

Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.

Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.

ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.

Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.

Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.

And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.

The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.

Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.

Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)

There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.

The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.

Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.

In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

Just like in Afghanistan.

Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity so horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.

[vector7]

Montage: 18 Times Obama Trashed America in Asia

‘We’re a nation that was founded on the belief in the dignity of every human being; sometimes we’ve struggled to stay true to that belief’


Sep 9, 2016



What is it about traveling abroad that seems to encourage President Obama to unload all manner of grievances on the United States? For whatever reason, traveling abroad appears to help crystallize everything wrong he sees in America. During his recent trip to Cuba and Argentina, for example, we counted 18 separate times he talked down his employer, the United States of America.


His just-concluded trip to Asia was no different.

Here are 18 separate attacks he unloaded while in China and Laos:

1. There are still too many poor children in the United States
2. Too many children in America are not getting enough to eat
3. Despite America's wealth, we’re not providing sufficient educational resources in poor communities
4. America lacks the “political will” to help poor inner cities that have suffered discrimination.
5. Americans are “lazy” in thinking we don’t need to learn about foreign nations.
6. Colin Kapernack is justified protesting the National Anthem, as the NFL star is raising “real, legitimate issues” about things America needs to be talked about.
7. America suffers from racism, conflicts between ethnic groups, and discrimination against immigrants.
8. Criticisms of America being imperfect and having problems with racism discrimination are accurate.
9. America still has “situations where women are not treated equally.”
10. America “didn't think through” our policy in Vietnam War, as dropping cluster bombs proved counterproductive to "winning hearts and minds."
11. America’s treatment of Native Americans was “tragic.”
12. America “struggled to stay true” to our founding ideal that all men are created equal.
13. When the environment is destroyed in America, it’s because the private sector is being “lazy."
14. The United States is still to this day learning how to develop industry without destroying the environment.
15. Due to industrialization, America “used to have terrible pollution … everywhere.”
16. America’s role in the Vietnam war led to mass displacement of people from their homes.
17. America dropped more bombs on Laos than on Germany and Japan during World War II … more than 2 million bombs … “the bombs fell like rain.” More bombs, he said on several occasions, were dropped on Laos per capita than anywhere else in the world.
18. We bombed the “simple homes” of civilians in Laos. “Villages and entire allies were obliterated.” The ancient Plain of Jars “was devastated.” Countless civilians were killed.

https://news.grabien.com/story-monta...d-america-asia

[vector7]

Companion Thread: CBS’ Hawaii Five-O cast and crew disrespect World War II survivors

Obama's White House: ‘embittered’ World War II veterans should get over Pearl Harbor


December 6, 2016 | BPR Wire | Print Article

Blake Neff, DCNF

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press conference Monday it was natural for World War II veterans to be “embittered” about Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor, but they should get over it for the sake of America.



It was announced Monday that Abe will be the first Japanese leader to visit Pearl Harbor since it was hit by a surprise attack that killed 2,403 Americans and brought the U.S. into World War II. The visit reciprocates President Barack Obama’s visit to Hiroshima earlier this year for the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on the city.

Abe said in a short statement he would pray for those who died in the war, but gave no indication he would express regret for Japan’s surprise attack.

During a White House press briefing Monday, Earnest was asked whether veterans may be offended by Abe’s visit if he expressed no regret over the attack.

Earnest responded by saying veterans may very well feel “embittered,” especially if they personally fought in World War II.

“If I were a World War II veteran who was drafted by the United States military to go and fight for our country overseas in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, I might feel quite embittered, and I think it would be a perfectly natural and understandable human reaction to not be particularly satisfied with the words of the Japanese Prime Minister,” Earnest said.

But Earnest followed up by saying those veterans should overcome those feelings for the good of the country.

“Yes, there may be some who feel personally embittered,” he said. “But I’m confident that many will set aside their own personal bitterness, not because they’re personally satisfied by the words of the Prime Minister, but because they recognize how important this moment is for the United States.”

Follow Blake on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

[Malsua]

I suppose he'd say the same thing if Al-Sawahiri came to give a talk at the 9/11 memorial?

[Ryan Ruck]

He's just embittered that once he leaves office Jimmy Carter will no longer be the worst President in modern times.

[vector7]

Commuter-In-Chief: Obama Sets Single-Day Clemency Record; More Than Previous 11 Presidents

Earlier today President Obama commuted the sentences of another 153
federal prisoners bringing his total to 1,176, more than the previous
11 presidents combined.
by Tyler Durden
Dec 19, 2016 10:15 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...-11-presidents

The president also pardoned another 78 individuals, bringing his total
pardons over the course of his eight years in office to 148.
Combined, these 231 acts of clemency sets a record for
the most ever granted by a president in a single day in history.

This latest move is just further evidence of his stated intention to ramp up
commutations throughout the remainder of his presidency.

And, while the President often claims publicly that his commutations
are only for "low-level" and "non-violent" criminals, 395 of the 1,176
commutations were offered to people serving life sentences...
which typically aren't given to "low-level" criminals caught with
a couple ounces of drugs on them.

Of course, in typical fashion, the President took to Twitter to brag about
his latest "accomplishment."

The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse
BREAKING: @POTUS has now commuted the sentences of 1,176
deserving people—more than the past 11 presidents combined.
http://go.wh.gov/t6xujx
2:12 PM - 19 Dec 2016

And here is the full statement from the President's White House blog released
earlier today.

As usual, the post ends with a vow to grant even more pardons over the coming
weeks as Obama approaches the end of his time in the White House.

Today, President Obama granted clemency to 231 deserving
individuals — the most individual acts of clemency granted
in a single day by any president in this nation’s history.
With today’s 153 commutations, the President has now commuted
the sentences of 1,176 individuals, including 395 life sentences.
The President also granted pardons to 78 individuals, bringing
his total number of pardons to 148. Today’s acts of clemency
— and the mercy the President has shown his 1,324 clemency
recipients — exemplify his belief that America is a nation
of second chances.

The 231 individuals granted clemency today have all
demonstrated that they are ready to make use — or
have already made use — of a second chance.

While each clemency recipient’s story is unique, the common
thread of rehabilitation underlies all of them. For the pardon recipient,
it is the story of an individual who has led a productive and law-abiding
post-conviction life, including by contributing to the community
in a meaningful way. For the commutation recipient, it is the story
of an individual who has made the most of his or her time in prison,
by participating in educational courses, vocational training, and drug
treatment. These are the stories that demonstrate the successes
that can be achieved — by both individuals and society — in a nation
of second chances.

Today’s grants signify the President’s continued commitment
to exercising his clemency authority through the remainder
of his time in office.

In 2016 alone, the President has granted clemency to more than 1,000
deserving individuals. The President continues to review clemency
applications on an individualized basis to determine whether a particular
applicant has demonstrated a readiness to make use of his or her second
chance, and I expect that the President will issue more grants of both
commutations and pardons before he leaves office.

The mercy that the President has shown his 1,324 clemency recipients
is remarkable, but we must remember that clemency is a tool of last
resort and that only Congress can achieve the broader reforms needed
to ensure over the long run that our criminal justice system operates
more fairly and effectively in the service of public safety.

Generally a full list of the drug dealers that will be released back on to the streets
in the near future can be viewed on the Department of Justice website.

That said, Obama seems to be releasing criminals faster than the DOJ can update
their site, so you'll have to check back later for the official list.

1,324 extra democrat voters and counting...

[vector7]

‘Legacy’: 10 Ways Barack Obama Broke the American System

by Joel B. Pollak 21 Dec 2016

Much ink has been spilled, and much bandwidth spent, on describing Donald Trump’s 2016 victory as a populist revolt. Less attention has been paid to what voters were rebelling against.

There were economic grievances — in the Upper Midwest in particular — but the economy as a whole is slowly recovering. (As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, revolutions tend to occur in times of rising expectations.)


But at its core, the revolution of 2016 was an attempt at restoration — at fixing a broken system.


What broke it? Both parties acquiesced in bank liberalization, open-borders immigration, and Wall Street bailouts.


But the most acute challenge was Barack Obama’s direct attack on the constitutional framework itself. Obama sought to transform America, and believed that the ends would justify the means.


Republicans, hypnotized by race and cowed by the media, put up little fight. So voters took matters into their own hands.


Here are ten of the most serious ways Obama broke the system.


1. The stimulus. On the campaign trail, Obama promised a $50 billion stimulus and criticized George W. Bush for building up the national debt. In office, Obama passed a nearly $1 trillion stimulus, over Republican objections, that failed to keep unemployment from below 8% (as promised), and went largely to pet projects and state and local governments. The profligate spending shocked voters who feared that the country was now on an irreversible path to fiscal ruin. The Tea Party was born.


2. Fast and Furious. The Obama administration smuggled guns across the Mexican border, ostensibly to trace them to drug cartels. Unlike the Bush administration’s Wide Receiver, Obama’s Operation Fast and Furious happened without the Mexican government’s knowledge. The likely goal was to create a pretext for reducing gun ownership in the U.S. It led to the murders of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans. Afterwards, Obama used “executive privilege” to cover it up.


3. Betraying allies. Obama picked public fights with Israel in a deliberate effort to establish “distance” between the allies. He also broke agreements with the Czechs and the Poles on missile defense, infamously informing the Polish prime minister on the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre. He snubbed the British in ways small (returning a Churchill bust) and big (using the Argentinian term “Malvinas” for the Falklands). And he spied on foreign allies, including Germany’s Angela Merkel.


4. Obamacare. The sweeping plan for “universal” health insurance sought, fundamentally, to make individuals dependent on the state, the better to open the door to even more sweeping changes. But it was the process of passing the bill that caused the real damage. To pass Obamacare, Obama bent and broke procedural rules; lied, repeatedly, about the policy; disguised a tax as a fee; and bullied the Supreme Court into compliance. It was the first major entitlement passed without bipartisan support.


5. Debt ceiling. Few of the Republicans who rode the Tea Party wave in 2010 made an issue out of the debt ceiling. But the Obama administration believed that a confrontation would help it regain full control of Congress. So it picked a fight over the debt, and forced a confrontation in the summer of 2011 that brought the country to the brink of default. Obama scuttled a “grand bargain” with Republicans by demanding higher taxes. The result: a hated budget “sequester” and a credit downgrade.


6. Benghazi. Presidents had lied to the country before about national security incidents: the Iran-Contra scandal, for example, left a stain on Ronald Reagan’s legacy. But no previous American president had abandoned Americans to die abroad without putting up a fight or making a serious effort to punish the perpetrators. In fact, in the heat of battle, Obama went to sleep and flew to a political fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day. It was an unprecedented abdication of his commander-in-chief role.


7. IRS scandal. Encouraged by Obama’s attacks on “dark money” and conservative political donors, the Internal Revenue Service began singling out conservative non-profit organizations for excessive scrutiny, denying them the ability to operate during the crucial 2012 elections, and trying to pry loose private information on their donors, their meetings, and even the content of their prayers. To this day, no Obama administration official has been punished for that horrific abuse of power.


8. AP scandal. Despite the media’s ongoing love affair with Obama, the administration targeted journalists for harassment, surveillance and prosecution. In one case, the Department of Justice seized phone records from the Associated Press; in another, the DOJ searched the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen and his family. Congress later found Attorney General Eric Holder misled it when he told them in May 2013 he had not been involved in potential prosecution of the media.


9. Iran deal. After resisting sanctions on Iran, and holding off on any real action against the Iranian regime when it faced mass protests in 2009, Obama made a deal with Iran in 2015 that removed most sanctions in exchange for a mere temporary slowdown in the Iranian nuclear program. Worse, he refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification in accordance with the Constitution’s Treaty Clause, and Democrats blocked a weaker effort to submit the deal to an overall congressional vote.


10. Executive action on immigration. Obama abused prosecutorial discretion in 2012 in announcing “Deferred Action for Children of Americans” (DACA) in 2012, even after Congress declined to pass legislation on “Dreamers.” But the real offense came after the 2014 elections, when Obama defied the electorate and announced an “executive amnesty” — “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans” (DAPA) — that he himself said dozens of times was unconstitutional (he lost in the courts).

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...erican-system/

[vector7]

The Obamas’ parting shots diminish them

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
First posted: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 06:50 PM EST | Updated: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 08:38 PM EST

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, arrive for an event to thank service members and their families at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
In his final days in the White House, President Barack Obama wants us to know he could have been a contender.

That he could have defeated Donald Trump if he had been able to violate the 22nd amendment of the U.S. constitution, which limits a president to two terms.

Obama revealed his belief in a podcast with his former senior political adviser David Axelrod.

In other words, a friendly audience.

Imagine Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, years from now, conducting an exit interview with Gerald Butts, his friend and current principal secretary, and you’ll have the sense of it.

In an interview with the New York Times, Axelrod said he thinks his former boss is “frustrated” to be leaving the presidency with the Republicans in charge because: “He believes the momentum is still on his side in the long term. He’s always been a guy who thinks long term and has an amazing ability to do that.”

Whatever his former boss’ “amazing” ability, the reality is Obama is leaving politics with the Republicans in control of not only the White House, but the Senate and the House of Representatives.


Despite Obama’s high approval rating with Americans at the end of his presidency — 56% according to the latest Gallup poll — his coat tails have always been short.
Obama’s popularity never translated into huge gains for the Democrats, his party having lost more than 1,000 federal and state election races since he assumed the presidency.
To be sure, many factors impact the outcome of U.S. elections aside from who the president is.

But it’s also true Obama campaigned heavily for Hillary Clinton, so her failure to achieve the presidency is part of his legacy.

To those still arguing Clinton won the popular vote, that’s not how American elections are decided.

It would be the equivalent of the Ontario Tories arguing they “won” the 1985 provincial election, which ended their 42-year political dynasty, because they won the most seats.

Just as the American president is chosen by Electoral College votes, not the popular vote, so Canadian elections are decided by who has the confidence of Parliament or the Legislature, not by who won the most seats, or for that matter, the popular vote.

The logical explanation for Obama offering the gratuitous opinion that he could have defeated Trump if he had been allowed to run, is that he’s sensitive and defensive about his political legacy at the end of his presidency.

Michelle Obama, who also campaigned heavily for Clinton, displayed a similar sensitivity in a post-election interview with her friend, Oprah Winfrey, when she suggested Trump’s victory represented the end of “hope” in America.

Asked by Winfrey whether she thought Obama had delivered on the “hope” he promised Americans when he first ran for president, Michelle Obama responded: “Yes, I do. Because we feel the difference now. See, now we are feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It is a necessary concept. What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope?”

There’s nothing usual about this. Politicians (and their spouses) often think of themselves as more consequential to the historical record than they actually are.
Obama’s legacy is that he was America’s first black president, a remarkable accomplishment.

Given that, the Obamas would have been better advised to thank Americans for giving them the honour of serving eight years in the White House, and left it at that.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/27...-diminish-them

[Ryan Ruck]

3. Betraying allies. Obama picked public fights with Israel in a deliberate effort to establish “distance” between the allies. He also broke agreements with the Czechs and the Poles on missile defense, infamously informing the Polish prime minister on the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre. He snubbed the British in ways small (returning a Churchill bust) and big (using the Argentinian term “Malvinas” for the Falklands). And he spied on foreign allies, including Germany’s Angela Merkel.

Donald Trump Has Asked For Bust Of Winston Churchill To Be Put Back In The Oval Office After Obama Replaced It With Martin Luther King

The request was put to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson three days ago

January 10, 2016



Donald Trump has asked Britain to send Winston Churchill’s bust back to the White House so he can return it to the Oval Office, The Sun can reveal.

The request was put to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson by the President Elect’s senior advisers during talks in New York three days ago.

Last night, Downing Street confirmed that Theresa May has agreed to a loan of the famous sculpture again.

The gesture marks a diplomatic coup for the PM in her bid to win influence over the unpredictable new US leader.

A bitter row over the bust’s location has raged for seven years since outgoing President Barack Obama replaced the wartime leader’s image with one of Martin Luther King in 2009.

Since then, it has been kept at the British Embassy in Washington DC.

Trump’s closest advisers Jared Kushner and Steven Bannon relayed the request for the bust’s return after revealing their boss was a big fan of the legendary Tory, and had even read Boris’s biography of him.

A No10 spokesman told The Sun last night: “The Prime Minister is happy to loan the Churchill bust to the White House and will be delighted to view it on display when she visits this Spring”.

The bust – by British artist Sir Jacob Epstein – was originally presented to George W. Bush in July 2001 and stayed in his office through out his presidency.

The idea of returning it to the Oval Office was first suggested to the property billionaire by ex-UKIP boss Nigel Farage in November last year, when he became the first British politician to visit him after the US election.

Boris renewed the controversy during the EU referendum campaign with a stinging attack on Mr Obama.

Hitting back at the US leader’s backing for the Remain campaign, Mr Johnson said the bust’s removal was evidence of his “ancestral dislike of the British Empire”.

But the controversy deepened when Mr Obama then insisted he kept a second identical sculpture of Churchill in his White House private quarters, declaring “I love the guy”.

Churchill, who had an American mother, is the only person ever to be granted an honorary US passport.

Mr Trump enters the White House in 10 days time when he is formally inaugurated on January 20.

Reporting on his US trip to the Commons, Boris told MPs yesterday he had been “frank” over major policy disagreements such as Russia and Iran.

Quizzed on what effect that will have, he replied: “Wait and see”.

But he also insisted his conversations with Trump’s aides had been “extremely productive”, adding: “They want a deal and they want it fast”.