and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks,
planes and helicopter gunships."
"If you are cheering rather than praying for a man who has mutilated himself due to mental illness, you are part of the problem." - Ben Shapiro
Navy sailor Randall Smith and Marines Carson Holmquist, Thomas Sullivan, David Wyatt and Skip Wells were killed by Islamic terrorist gunman Mohammad Abdulazeez because they were the "satanic" infidel soldiers of the US, enemies of Allah and Islam.
< p style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #546673; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.55em; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 6px 0px 0px; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; background-color: #ffffff;">
Indeed, what Obama doesn’t want you to know is that when he says his agreement with Iran closes down all their pathways to a nuclear bomb he means only their domestic pathways, not the pathways open to them in North Korea. And if anyone doubts that the hard up, cash strapped Norks wouldn’t share their nuclear facilities with Iran (or sell them nukes off the shelf) then they need to be enlightened. They need to know that in 2007 the Norks were hard at work in building a secret, illegal nuclear weapons plant in Syria for mass murdering dictator Bashar al-Assad which (thank God) was destroyed by Israel. Indeed, that very project in Syria, which was making the Norks millions, made them the world’s worst and most dangerous nuclear proliferators.
On June 16th Trump announced his 2016 candidacy for the 45th presidency and made border security and illegal alien criminals the focus of his campaign. 16 days before on June 1st (as if paving the way for Trump) Ann Coulter's brilliant and controversial book (her best) on illegals "Adios, America" was published (see). Then on July 1st, 16 days after Trump's announcement, Francisco Sanchez, a 45 year old multiple deportee felon from Mexico, shot and killed 32* year old beautiful Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier as she was walking with her father and a friend (see). Oddly, Sanchez was 16 days into his 3rd month of his legal but wrongful release from a San Francisco jail because of the city's dangerous sanctuary laws (see). The date of his release April 15th, was the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon Bombing. This is just one of many ominius signs that Moslem terrorists like the bloodthirsty Tsarnaev boys, or ISIS agents, are crossing into our country from Mexico for the purpose of massively killing and wounding innocent Americans (see). The first and most compelling sign of a mass casualty terror attack originating from Mexico was the killing of 9/11 child Christina Taylor Green in the Tucson Massacre which I wrote about here.
Our great, good, post-racial, progressive, egalitarian president who has done so much to boost the economy, improve race relations and lick poverty, and is steadily changing us into the "more perfect [dependency] Union" that he promised seven years ago, wants to continue his good work of social transformation with a new housing diversity program for racist, mostly white suburbia. He wants to move poor, low-income slumdog losers with slumdog habits, values and mentalities (mostly mooching, crude, drug abusing, welfare trash who suffer from internalized poverty ) into high-end middle and upper class ritzy neighborhoods. What's his game? What does he hope to gain? Utopia, of course. He wants to take the slum out of slumdogs; to suburbanize and humanize them; to elevate their humanity and bring out the better angels deep within their nature. What could be wrong with that? You can't take the slum out of slumdogs when they're living in inner city ghetto filth. It's so unfair and counter productive to keep them there. Something must be done to make them better citizens as everything else (including $trillions in handouts) has failed. But our mastermind president has come up with the answer: class warfare by class blending in suburbia.
Bill Clinton tried this and failed. His compassionate Affordable Housing Program which gave millions of poor slumdog families big, unaffordable sub prime loans crashed and burned (nearly collapsing the economy) with most of them defaulting and losing their suburban dream homes (and returning to the slums no better than before). But now our brilliant, world-class, social engineering leader has dreamed up the solution that Clinton should have seen: forcing middle and upper class communities to build low-income (Section 8) housing that would keep the slumdogs permanently there-with generation after generation of welfare dependents benefiting from the finer more socially advanced atmosphere. What's wrong with mixing losers with winners? Raw sewage with wine? In answering this question think of liberal, progressive, Democrat Detroit coming to a community near you.
For those who might construe the above tirade as racist my defense is as follows:
It is inconceivable that any middle class family of any color or ethnicity would welcome Section 8 housing into their neighborhoods. Middle class blacks who have worked their butts off to free themselves from the hell of inner city life (so they can raise their kids in safety, decency and peace) would be just as opposed to Obama's program as any middle class white, Latino or Asian family. No hard working, law abiding family would want inner city slumdog scum moving anywhere near them. Like with Clinton's failed housing program Obama's is doomed to fail. For the poor and disadvantaged there are no shortcuts to the middle class.
FORWARD EMAILS TO< p style="text-align: center;">email@example.com
The only compelling thing that came out of this presser is the reason why Barack Obama nauseates55% of the military and is approved by a pathetic 15%-making him the most loathed and disrespected Commander-in-Chief in US history. The men who shared the stage with him must have felt embarrassed to hell over his remarks about defeating ISIS with ideas.
WHERE DOES CARTER GET THE AUDACITY TO THINK
that he's a first-rate expert on the subject of declining superpowers?/sarc.
If George Soros and the radical progressive left were to follow-up on their on-line campaign to ban the Confederate flag (which collected 500,000 signatures, see) with banning and replacing the American flag-because to them it's a symbol of pure racist evil and white oppression just like the Confederate flag-how might they proceed? And what would they replace the flag with?
Indeed, if socialist billionaire Soros were to devote millions of his capitalist wealth to starting a national anti-flag movement that would have any chance of success with the they couldn't just scream like Black Muslim bigot Louis Farrakhan did last week that "We [black folk] have caught as much hell under that flag as under the Confederate flag... and it must come down!" And they couldn't have flag burning protests like a group of crazy radicals did in Brooklyn this week when they torched the Confederate and American flags because, as one protester said, they wanted to raise public awareness that "American society at the moment is still structurally racist and white supremacist... and that it is an illusion that we live in a post-racial society.”
Indeed, if the anti-American, "compassionate" left which seems incapable of forgiving this country for slavery and Jim Crow (but not communist atrocities throughout history) were to succeed they would need to have at least the veneer of rationality with a coherent and compelling argument first proving that the Stars and Stripes is no better than the Confederate Stars and Bars; and then suggesting a flag to replace it that the American people could accept and live with. But how might that happen?
To begin with the leaders of a national anti-flag movement might say it's not so much the 50 stars representing each of today's 50 states that offend their sensibilities and should concern all Americans of conscience pained by our slave and Jim Crow past. They might say that what makes the flag immoral and offensive like the Confederate flag is its 13 red and white stripes that have been there since the Stars and Stripes was first authorized in 1777 . Why would these stripes be offensive to them? Because they represent the 13 original states 6 of which were slave and stayed that way for nearly 88 years where scores of blacks lived and died in oppression and misery. In other words, for the anti-flagers 6 of the 13 stripes taint and befoul today's American flag with white supremacist southern slavery making it essentially indistinguishable from the damnable racist Confederate flag. And the continued national use of this flag, flying and displaying it everywhere and pledging allegiance to it, is intolerable and must end as it is unworthy of our 21st century country-which despite making much progress in curing itself of anti-black racism still has a long ways to go.
So what solutions could the anti-flagers propose to purge the flag clean of this stain and make it politically correct and wholesome? Simply trashing it and replacing it with something radically different and new would be impractical and meet with stiff public and political resistance; for the flag in its current form is popular with most Americans. So with the popularity of the Stars and Stripes in mind anti-flagers might pursue a more pragmatic course, a middle way of sorts between those Americans who love the flag and will defend it tooth and nail and those who want to trash it altogether because of our racist past and supposed racist present-with the left less racism is as bad as more racism. Indeed, what anti-flaggers might suggest is a compromise which keeps the Stars and Stripes but in such a way that would remove from it the stain and sin of slavery and other past wrongs done to blacks.
Indeed, to seem reasonable what the anti-flaggers could conceivably propose is redesigning the flag by subtracting 6 stripes from the 13 representing the 6 southern slave states and leaving 7 stripes representing the original free northern states. That would certainly stand a better chance of succeeding with the public than some newfangled flag.
However, this solution could pose a problem. For all we know the 18th century flag makers could have assigned certain stripes to certain states. Indeed, as 7 stripes are red and 6 stripes white how could anti-flaggers be sure that the flag makers didn't assign the 7 red stripes to the 7 free northern states, and the remaining 6 white stripes to the 6 southern slaves states? In other words, should a new, pure, pristine non-racist flag only bear the 7 red stripes separated by thin black lines and no white stripes? Or should the area where the stripes are be made solid red with no separate discernible stripes? But this too might be a problem. For if it's done this way how could anti-flagers be sure that none of the red stripes represent southern slave states? For all they know the flag makers could have had the alphabet in mind when arranging the stripes assigning the first stripe to northern free Connecticut and the 13th and last to southern slave Virginia.
As you can see purging the flag of every last trace of slavery and racism by eliminating certain stripes is too problematic. If just one stripe is left representing an original evil racist slave state the new flag like the old one with 13 stripes would be no more son-free than the Confederate flag. What then would the anti-flaggers do? Would they give up in despair in trying to repair the flag and go the difficult if not impossible route of inventing a new flag out of thin air that wouldn't fly with the public ? No. Short of trashing the flag completely there is one last alternative that keeps some of the flag when redesigning it and could satisfy the public: do away with the problematic stripes and keep the unproblematic stars. In other words, an American flag completely purged of the blemishes of slavery and racism would be one large banner of 50 white stars on a blue background with no stripes whatsoever. That is what a politically correct flag redeemed of slavery and racism would most likely look like to George Soros and the flag hating left.
The Japanese Rising Sun flag has remained practically unchanged for 145 years and covers all of Japan's atrocities and war crimes of World War II.
On June 22nd, anticipating Rush Limbaugh by several days, I predicted in a debate with leftists on CNS that the left wouldn't stop with the trashing of the Confederate flag but would come after the American flag next. The debate is as follows.
The Confederate Battle Flag is a "symbol of an attempt to retain the evil institution of slavery."That's what secession was: an attempt to protect slavery. That's the heritage the flag celebrates: the willingness to take up arms against the US to protect the evil institution of slavery.
And seeing that the old slave South no longer exists the Confederate flag can have a contemporary meaning of a nation that went to war with itself over a moral principle where right and justice prevailed; and the South redeeming itself rejoined the Union in freedom. That is what happened and is the Confederate flag's contemporary meaning.
And, in that spirit of freedom, the South passed Jim Crow laws and did all it could to keep the former slaves and their descendants under its boot. Because of freedom.
COMPARED TO THE ANCIENTS TODAY'S GAYS ARE HISTORY'S BIGGEST ASS CLOWNS
"He sang. He wept. He cheered. And many say they finally saw the man who inspired them in '08."
Barack Obama sat in the pews of a radical racist church for 20 years listening to the rantings of a black supremacist preacher (steeped in the hateful teachings of Black Liberation Theology) who saw 9/11 and 3000 dead as divine punishment for slavery, Jim Crow and white America's nonexistent ongoing institutional oppression of blacks-millions of whom are trapped in poverty and degradation by the failed liberal welfare state. So I wasn't surprised to hear Obama this week libelling and stereotyping (less offensively than Wright) all white Americans as hopelessly, unredeemably, immutably racist.
But before I get into that perhaps you'll recall that candidate Obama in March 2008-foreshadowing the racially divisive president he'd make, as I predicted then (see)-in his speech on Reverend Wright and race (to save his election campaign) threw his old, sick white grandmother under the bus comparing her to Wright because of her racist sins: "She feared black men," said Obama...."and occasionally uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." (Did she God damn black America I wonder?)
Now after this despicable speech (which the liberal media laughably compared to Lincoln's historic "Cooper Union Speech") Obama elaborating on his grandmother's racism said that it was "TYPICAL OF WHITE PEOPLE." He said that racism was "bred into our experiences and doesn't go away..... and that's just the nature of race in our society." In other words, while candidate Obama was smiling and lying and pledging to be a post-racial uniter and healer as president (another Mandela or Dr. King) he seems to have believed that trying to unite black and white in a harmoniously racial society wasn't possible. Why? Because like his racist grandmother all white people by nature (no matter how liberal they seem), are hopelessly and helplessly racist to some degree, and could never accept blacks as equal human beings. In fact, Obama's Wright speech was an ominous sign that as president he'd wage war against white America on behalf of blacks just like he did for decades on the streets of Chicago as a race hustling community agitator-like pressuring banks to make risky subprime loans to blacks (see). And indeed, no sooner did Obama take office than he fired the first shoot in this war by having Eric Holder condemn white Americans as "cowards when it comes to race" despite all the progress and financial sacrifices that were made to help blacks over the decades.
In other words, as you will see below, it doesn't matter to extremists like Obama whether you're left or right, Republican or Democrat-or if you descended from immigrants who came to our shores from Ireland, Italy, Germany or France when the Civil War was decades past-if you're a white American of any ethnicity living anywhere in this land you're blood is poisoned (like Obama's grandmother) with anti-black racism.
Indeed, Obama's radicalism was even more pronounced in his pod cast interview with Marc Maron this week where after shocking many by using the "N" word he demonized white America-going beyond what he said in 2008-as hopelessly, helplessly and ineradicably racist. Just listen to this crap and cringe:
Remember Apollo, this is the same French President that is trying to help Obama force a Palestinian State down the Israeli's throat. If anything, I take his move as a surreptitious way in preparation for the cous de gras they intend to deliver in the UN Security Council Chambers.The fur has not yet begun to fly. See my post above
“Palestine can never recognize Israel as a Jewish state......I have never and will never give up the right of return for Palestinian refugees”- Mahmoud Abbas
"The Israeli demand for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state as a condition in negotiations is a mistake and should be dropped." - Secretary of State John Kerry
WHY WOULD THE CLOSEST THING TO A TEENAGER
ever to sit in the White House want it known that he thinks he's the closest thing we've ever had to a Jewish president? Is it one last-ditch effort at public relations to repair his justified image with Israelis of being the most anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian US president in history? Is this Obama’s last desperate adolescent move at winning back the hearts and minds of Israelis and turning them against Bibi Netanyahu who he believes is depriving him and them of a peace deal with an implacably Jew-hating Arab people headed by Mahmoud Abbas: the anti-Zionist co-founder of the PLO who refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State and wants a return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel as the central condition for peace? Is that what Obama is trying to do?
Truth is Netanyahu and Israelis want peace-the same just peace Israel achieved with Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein when both courageously "betrayed" the evil Arab cause and recognized the legitimacy of Zionism and Israel as the national homeland for the Jewish people. But Abbas and the Palestinians are hell-bent on victory and believe it can be their's. Hating Sadat and King Hussein for their “traitorous” peace with Israel "peace" for Abbas means Jewish Israel's incremental political destruction. It means Israelis forgoing Zionism and allowing the return of every last Palestinian refugee and their descendents which would gradually undermine the Jewish character of Israel and turn it into an Arab-Moslem-Sharia run hell state with its Jewish minority living in oppression-just as the shrinking number of Christians now live in the Palestinian territories.
Indeed, when John Kerry said last year that for the sake of peace it would be best if Netanyahu "drop the Jewish state demand" it signaled that he and Obama (though not daring to say it publicly) were on board with Abbas's evil scheme for a one state solution by flooding Israel with millions of Arab refugees that was caused by a pan-Arab war of annihilation against Israel. Indeed, if this weren’t so then why didn’t Kerry, to be fair, also tell Abbas that for peace it would be best to “drop the right of refugee return?” But about this so-called right there wasn’t a peep. Instead, Obama and Kerry have taken leave of their senses claiming that Abbas (with his refugee scheme for destroying Israel) is a genuine and trustworthy “peace partner " as if he was another Sadat or King Hussein. But Netanyahu and Israel aren't deceived: Abbas is a "peace partner" from hell with a plan of peace for peacefully taking down the Jewish state piece by piece.
But Obama and Kerry’s actions and inactions should surprise no one familiar with the anti-Israel Zionist-hating left. For like many on the left Obama and Kerry believe that Jewish Israel's existence has been a disaster for US foreign policy, the peace and stability of the Middle East and the world; and that if Netanyahu and the Jews peacefully sacrificed their Zionism (and trying to maintain the Jewish character of Israel by controlled immigration) it would be for the greater good of the region and world and everyone would prosper. Indeed, if only Netanyahu (and the Jews), like Obama says, could overcome his security fears [of Jews living in a Palestinian state] and see the "best possibilities" of the Palestinians-meaning that they’re a good, noble, just and generous people; in other words, if only he and the Jews could learn to trust the Palestinians and agree to the return of millions of refugees as Abbas demands (and Arafat before him) as an absolute condition for peace (which Obama and Kerry tacitly endorse), then they'd see that their fears were unfounded; they'd see that living as a minority in a larger Arab-Palestinian-Moslem state would not be the nightmare of oppression and injustice they imagine. In a word, Israeli Jews would see that the good, just, noble Palestinians would treat them with kindness, respect and equality, and protect their ethnic, religious and human rights. And everyone would live happily evermore.
That Barack Obama from the start of his presidency has been anything but a honest broker in trying to negotiate a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians should be clear to the reader-as it is to the vast majority of Israelis who rightly despise him. Not once from his first day in office has Obama so much as criticized Mahmoud Abbas for making the massive return of refugees to Israel the main condition for peace. On the other hand, Bibi Netanyahu-Obama's scapegoat for failure-has relentlessly been criticized over border issues, expanding settlements, new home construction in East Jerusalem, Jewish state demand, and now for being blind to the "better possibilities" of Palestinians. In short, Obama like Abbas and the Palestinians, most Moslems worldwide, and the anti-Israel left won't be happy with Israel until it is willing to commit national suicide and agree to its own demise. And this deceptive anti-Zionist enemy of Israel has the audacity to say he's the closest thing this country ever had to a Jewish president? It's mind-boggling!
Where did Obama learn to be a pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist? From his pro-Hamas mentor Reverend Wright, where else?
On May 26TH junior socialist senator from Vermont Bernie "single payer, tax the rich to death" Sanders launched his radical 2016 presidential campaign challenging hypocritical, corrupt, scandal plagued frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since Sander's launch enthusiasm has been growing for his candidacy among hard left Democat voters (such as Elizabeth Warren supporters) who loath the super wealthy elitist Clintons and see them as too centrist to continue Barack Obama's unfinished agenda of political, social, economic and environmental transformation (see). Could the unthinkable happen again with Hillary losing in a close primary race to a candidate running to her left, or perceived as a more genuine and trustworthy progressive who will soak the rich, grow the welfare state, redistribute more wealth to the poor, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, keep us out of war and save the planet from climate change disaster? Instead of the Democrat Party having its first woman nominee for president will it get instead its first Jewish nominee-a son of Holocaust survivors? Nobody but God knows.
Bernie Sanders kicking off his 2016 presidential campaign promising supporters (among other things) that he will expand Medicare for some (which is going bankrupt) into "single payer Medicare for all."
But is providence dropping clues that Hillary is predestined for defeat, and is using Sanders' candidacy to wreck her electoral hopes? In other words, is Sanders a sign foretelling that end? If Sanders is too radical to become the nominee will the growing popularity of his candidacy with progressives nevertheless pull Hillary so far to the left (assuming she's the nominee) that she'll end up irreversibly alienating the moderates and independents she'd need for victory? For the signs (if signs they be) are looking rather grim for Hillary. Consider the following and judge for yourself.
Hillary announced her candidacy for the Democrat nomination to run for the 45th presidency on April 12th in an insipid two minute YouTube video (see). As I wrote here April 12th was the 70th anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's death-that year being the 45th of the 20th century, the most significant number in this presidential race. Now Roosevelt who was born and raised and achieved political success in New York State, where Hillary lives, was the last president to come from that state. Does Hillary therefore announcing her bid for the 45th presidency on the death date of America's last president from New York in some mysterious way signal that this race will kill for good her presidential aspirations? That the next president from New York (if there is one in our future) will be someone else? And that a strong Bernie Sanders' campaign is the stake that will be driven through Hillary's political heart?
Interestingly enough Sanders like FDR (and unlike Hillary) was born and raised in New York. In fact, Sanders was born in Brooklyn where Hillary, oddly, has her campaign headquarters (see). Moreover, unlike Hillary (born 1947) Sanders was born during FDR's presidency just 90 days short of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And amazingly, as Hillary announced her candidacy on the 70th anniversary of FDR's death in 1945 Sanders (a man in his early 70s) officially launched his campaign not 44 days later or 46 days later but exactly, precisely 45 days later (see). Could this too be an ominius sign for Hillary that though she were to win her party's nomination that radical left fired up Bernie will so damage her with moderates and independents as to ruin her chances of becoming 45th president? Or will some new criminal corruption scandal finally destroy her campaign?
Whatever, both candidates will be claiming to truly represent the New Deal liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt when in reality they'll both be running to FDR's far left. Sanders has been warning (and Hillary would agree) that "our nation [Barack Obama's America] is facing more serious crises than we've faced since the Great Depression." But will Sanders convince a majority in his party that he not Hillary is the more credible New Dealer and true heir to FDR's (failed) economic legacy? And that he can and will do more than Hillary to punish corporate greed, Wall Street banksters and the super rich to benefit their helpless "victims"- the poor and struggling middle class families?
But not to be outdone by Sanders or any challenger Hillary will officially launch her campaign on June 13th in Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island (named after FDR, see) to signify her committment to FDR's misguided belief that bold government action and experimentation is the answer to economic distress, income inequality, unfairness and most every other crisis real or imagined; and that she more than Sanders (or any other candidate) is the true 21st century FDR (or Eleanor Roosevelt) running in this race; and that she knows better than her less capable rivals how to expand and use the power of the federal government to fix everything that's unfair, wrong and broken in our country. In fact, to signal to the nation that she intends to be, or is destined to be (what Barack Obama failed to be) the second FDR with a new New Deal for saving America Hillary by design it seems picked the highly significant date of June 13th to hold her first major campaign rally. For June 13th is the 82nd anniversary of the very last momentous day of FDR's First 100 Days of Action* where he signed into law a dozen bills to end the Great Depression-which dismally failed causing instead a prolonging of the crisis until the militarization of the US economy put America back to work during World War II.
* From FDR's March 6th Presidential proclamation closing the nations banks to his June 13th "Home Owners Loan Act" is exactly 100 days (see).
The race for FDR's obsolete New Deal legacy is on among regressive, reactionary, government supremacist Democrats. A legacy that in reality has no answers for America's current crises under the most reckless spending (New Dealer on steroids) president in history. With $18 trillion in debt and growing, and $100 trillion in unfunded Social Security, Medicare and pension liabilities, America is on an unsustainable course that can't continue without devastating domestic and global consequences. Government spending, intervention and regulation are out of control and killing this nation driving it toward bankruptcy and ruin; and the Democrat solution is a "new New Deal II" after Obama's has failed. Now more than ever what Bill Clinton said in his 1996 State of the Union is true: "The era of big government is over."
In doing God's justice
And making His enemies pay.
Will stop shedding blood
When all of the world obeys.
Will you be the next one slain?
MOSLEM DUMPING GROUND? Australia pays Cambodia to take Muslim illegal aliens off its hands | BARE NAKED ISLAM
80% OF MOSLEMS SUPPORT ISLAMIC STATE ACCORDING TO ALJAZEERA
If Bush and Cheney "lied" us into the Iraq War as Chris Matthews charges (which they did not) God bless them. Lies or no lies they saved the world from the horror of a nuclear armed Saddam.
It was anguishing for me last week watching crazy, cracked leftist Chris Matthews go berserk on former deputy director of the CIA Mike Morrel in trying to bully him into saying that Dick Cheney lied us into invading Iraq by claiming that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb. From George Bush on down no one in the administration ever said, or intended to say, that Saddam was armed with nukes-with the exception of Cheney misspeaking on one occasion (which Matthews gleefully played for Morell out of context*) that "Saddam had a reconstituted nuclear bomb." What Cheney meant to say based on the faulty intel Mike Morell and the CIA provided to the administration was that "Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program" not that he had a "reconstituted nuclear bomb" when Saddam never had a nuke that could be reconstituted.
*Later in that same interveiw with Tim Russert (3-16-2003) Cheney correcting himself said "it’s only a matter of time until he [Saddam] acquires nuclear weapons." And he was right.
CIA'S INTEL ON SADDAM NOT FAR WRONG
The CIA's intel in the early 2000s that Saddam was "reconstituting his nuclear weapons program," that put the fear of God in Bush (as it should have after 9/11), was wrong-but not far wrong. Saddam retained the services of his nuclear scientists and technicians keeping them on the government payroll while in possession of 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium (see), with every intention of "reconstituting" his nuclear program when conditions warranted. In fact, we have it straight from the horse's mouth as Saddam himself came clean and admitted as much in 2004. For while a prisoner at Camp Cropper prison in Baghdad awaiting trial Saddam told George Piro, an FBI interrogator, that he was planning "to develop a nuclear capability in an incremental fashion (see)." In other words, Saddam would have eventually used his nuclear scientists and techs to turn his yellow cake uranium into fissile nuclear material for the bomb. And what prevented that frightful possibility thank God was George Bush's right decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam-which his father should have done 12 years earlier.
But there is more justifying Bush's war. Assuming for argument's sake that Bush chose not to use the authority granted him by Congress to invade Iraq and remove Saddam, and the dictator continuing in power went forward with his plans to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program by building a secret underground enrichment facility like Iran has at Fordow. And assuming that the US or Israelis discovered the secret plant and destroyed it in air attacks-like Israel did to Saddam's Osirik plant in 1981, or mass murderer Assad's plant at Deir-ez-Zor, Syria in 2007 (see). Assuming that America and Israel would have made it impossible for Saddam to build a nuclear arms facility what then? Would that have finally discouraged the dictator and ended his quest for the bomb making an invasion unnecessary? The answer is NO.
With enemy Shia radical Iran next door enriching uranium for nuclear bomb making Saddam would never have-could not have-abandoned his nuclear ambitions. Giving up wasn't in Saddam's nature-12 years of defying the international community on practically everything proves as much. Unable to develop the bomb in Iraq Saddam would have no choice but to go offshore to build it. With his billions in petro dollars from rising oil prices Saddam would have went to the worst nuclear proliferator on the planet for the bomb: "Axis of Evil" ally North Korea. It would have been nothing for Saddam to dispatch his nuclear scientists and techs to the hard up, cash strapped Norks to lease one of their nuclear facilities to develop nuclear weapons (like Iran could do today); or to buy nukes off the shelf from the Norks like Saudi Arabia can do from Sunni ally Pakistan. Just like Saddam purchased undelivered (because of his imminent downfall) intermediary range ballistic missiles from the Norks before the war so could he have easily purchased North Korean made nukes once the hard up cash strapped Norks went nuclear. None of this should seem far-fetched to anyone. For no sooner did the Norks detonate their first nuclear device in 2006 than they were hard at work in Syria building an illegal nuke plant for Assad.
George Bush and Dick Cheney deserve credit and our lasting thanks for taking down Iraq's intransigent, unreformable, power crazed strong man who never relinquished his impossible dream of becoming the Joseph Stalin of the Middle East heading a unified, region-wide, nuclear armed pan-Arab state. Operation Iraqi Freedom saved us from a nuclear Saddam followed by a nuclear Uday, his sadistic insane murderous son.
Indeed, Republican presidential hopefuls instead of beating a retreat and joining the left in declaring the Iraq War a mistake should come out swinging and defend Bush and Cheney for saving mankind from the menace of a nuclear to be Saddam.
< p style="text-align: center;">WITHOUT REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN IT WILL ABSOLUTELY BECOME A NUCLEAR ARMED STATE
Obama tries to be many things to many people: a Moslem to Moslems who celebrates Ramadan with imams in the White House; a Christian to Christians lighting up the National Christmas Tree in DC; an Iranian to Iranians celebrating Nowruz the Persian New Year; and an irreligious secularist to those without God who worship power and the state.
But Friday at a synagogue in downtown DC Obama offered proof to Jewish Americans that he's also one of them by citing his seven White House seders and two Jewish chiefs of staff. But what he didn't say (and his wife well knows) is that twice he's been circumcised by Israel's Prime Minister making him look like the world's biggest schmuck: the smack down in the White House on Israel's secure borders, and the speech before Congress on Iranian nukes.
Now that Bibi Netanyahu has circumcised Obama into the tribe he can proudly and truthfully say that he's a Black American Jew along with such notables as Little Richard and Sammy Davis Junior.
Homosexual man from Nablus, living in Tel Aviv, pleads for asylum on the grounds of ‘well-founded fear of persecution’
"Most Republicans now admit the Iraq war should not have been done so can it, you don’t need to be a leftist to admit the obvious about the biggest foreign policy blunder of the 21st century. If you’re saying the Iraqi government would have allowed troops to stay then you’re going to need proof for such a baseless claim because all the evidence shows otherwise, even Bush couldn’t do better than the 2008 status of forces agreement and he was lucky to even get that."
Turkey and United States condemn death sentences for former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi and 105 of his Muslim Brotherhood - BARE NAKED ISLAM
THE RELEASE OF HOSNI MUBARAK AND HIS SONS FROM PRISON,
the coming execution of Morsi and 105 Moslem Brethren, the closing of 27,000 radical mosques, the call for an Islamic reformation to halt the spread of jihad and Islamism, celebrating Christmas Mass in a Coptic Church, pounding ISIS targets in Libya in the wake of mass murdering Christians, President al-Sisi is a hero for our time. A magnificent man and leader up there with Bibi Netanyahu as one of the two brightest lights of the Middle East.
and all Sufis were like the Persian poet Rumi (a radically interior self-realized mystic without a violent bone in his body) Islam would be a true religion of peace as far removed from the violent jihad of Mohammed (who was no Sufi) as the Morning Star from this Earth. But most Moslems are not Sufis. And most Sufis are not Rumis.
Click http://www.apollospeaks.com/?p=5413 for my article “Islam, Sufism and the Ground Zero Mosque.”
The bloodthirsty, race-obsessed, lynch mob left in Baltimore and across the land wanted badly and were denied their pound of innocent white man's flesh first from George Zimmerman, a white/hispanic community watchman for killing unarmed Trayvon Martin in self-defense; then from Darren Wilson, a white Ferguson, Missouri policeman for shooting Michael Brown to death in self-defense; and then from Dan Panteleo, a white New York City cop for accidentally killing sick, obese Eric Garner who stupidly resisted arrest for selling illegal cigarettes. Though Martin, Brown and Garner were law breaking, good for nothing black men, ultimately responsible for their own deaths, the insane lynch mob left couldn't care less. Marching angrily through city streets (with rioting, looting, burning down stores and injuring and killing police) they demanded "No Justice No Peace" if either Zimmerman, Wilson or Panteleo weren't hung for killing three worthless pieces of scum-as if they were saints because their skin color.
And now in Baltimore the violent cop-hating left came back with a roar looting, destroying property and injuring police and warning again they'd be "No Justice No Peace" if they're not served up their pound of flesh from six Baltimore police for the mysterious death of Freddie Gray: a worthless, drug dealing doper and thief who after being arrested for allegedly carrying an illegal knife (and possibly for dope dealing) strangely died while in police custody.
To the delight of the out of control Baltimore mob amateur, inexperienced, juvenile kid prosecutor Marilyn Mosby claimed that Gray's arrest was unlawful because, contradicting police, his knife wasn't illegal (see). As the public hasn't seen the knife (and won't until the trial) no one knows for certain who is right.
However, there appear to be SIGNS that the cop hating, criminal loving, lynch mob left is on its way to defeat again. That like Zimmerman, Wilson and Panteleo the Baltimore Six will be cleared of any crimes in Freddie Gray's death. Indeed, just ten days after Marilyn Mosby filed charges against The Six (ranging from illegal arrest to murder two) hated "racist killer" George Zimmerman came out of the blue and made news again; this time as the victim of an alleged violent crime where he could have wound up dead. Amazingly, Zimmerman, who no longer lives in Florida where he killed Trayvon Martin and was wrongly tried for murder-was briefly back in the Sunshine State visiting his mom for Mother's Day when, according to police, a motorist who he knew, one Matthew Apperson, shot a bullet into his van shattering a window and just missing his head. Around the web I saw comment after comment by Zimerman hating leftists mourning that the shooter didn't hit and kill Zimmerman who deserved to die... for defending his life against a violent gangsta emulating thug who was trying to ground and pound him to death*. The left was"cheated" by providence as Zimmerman unhurt escaped with minor cuts from flying glass. The incident is being investigated with the shooter not arrested yet (see).
*One such comment read: "Too bad Mr. Apperson didn't spend more time at the target range."
But the question remains: does Zimmerman's sudden reappearance foreshadow what happened to his case? And that "Justice for Freddie" will go the way of "Justice for Trayvon" with all six cops acquitted? Maybe, maybe not. But this amazing coincidence, significant as it seems, isn't the end of it. For just as startling was another Zimmerman-Gray related "sign" that occurred thirty days earlier on April 12th-the day when doper Freddie Gray was arrested for the 22nd time, and put in the police van that somehow caused fatal injuries to his neck and spine. For April 12th was just one day past the third anniversary of Florida prosecutor Angela Corey (a name that rhymes with Marilyn Mosby) caving to the lynch mob and filing the unwarranted charge of second degree murder against Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's death. And on the following day, April 12th, Florida Judge Mark Herr (see) found Corey's politicized affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause-when there was none as Alan Dershowitz said (see). Now Dershowitz is back criticizing Mosby (Corey on steroids) for her inept handling of the Gray case; and predicting (as he did with Zimmerman) that the defendants will be exonerated (see).
Indeed, it looks like George Zimmerman (a racially mixed man) is a sign that the racially mixed Baltimore Six (half white, half black) will be found not guilty when they go to trial. And the insane lynch mob left won't be getting its pound of flesh (a murder conviction)-which suits me fine.
Obama says: You know, if I had a second wife she'd look like
Then again, she could pass for my third daughter.