In two recent articles (here and here) I advanced the novel idea that the proximity of Barack Obama's unpopular, legacy-driven, Munich-like appeasement deal with nuclear Iran in mid-July to two news making events involving Jimmy Carter-his declaring in late June that US power, influence and prestige in the world were "irreversibly declining;" and the report in mid-August that his cancer was lethally spreading throughout his body-were two unmistakably ominous signs that the Carterization of Barack Obama is now tragically complete; and that 2015 is his 1979 disaster. 

 But that wasn't the end of it. Last week (as if symbolically anticipating the terrible consequences of Obama's nuke deal and feckless foreign policy) even worse news came from the unfortunate Mr. Carter. For on Thursday, August 20th we learned from the 90 year old ex-president that his metastasizing  cancer had invaded his brain. "Discovered were four small spots of melanoma about two millimeters in size" said Carter, who received the first of four chemo treatments that very day with a new drug that would temper its enervating side effects. 
 My prayers are with Carter who I sincerely and very much want to recover and live. Hopefully the chemo will work and the cancer going into remission Carter will live to see how wrong he is about our "irreversible decline" just as the left was wrong about it in the late 70s before Reagan reversed it. If Carter survives I'm certain he will see that his pessimism was unwarranted and a projection of his mind. That it was his wish and preference for this country (as it is for Obama and the left) based on the radical belief that America has been a bad actor on the world stage (the very worst of nations) doing humanity more harm than good. And that a greatly diminished and weaker America is better for us and everyone else (see). 
 But that things are quickly going to hell and will get dramatically worse before they get better (under a new president) was I believe prophetically signified by the timing of Carter's tragic news. For precisely on August 20th when Carter made his brain cancer known the fully Carterized and feckless Barack Obama entered the 79th month of his dismal presidency. That's "79" as in 1979 (see).
Indeed, it appears that Carter's brain cancer is emblematic of Obama's intransigent leftwing presidency: that it's a destructive cancer on the brain of the body politic that is worsening by the day as he stays his disastrous course to the end of his last term. Oddly, Obama's Carter-like fate in foreign affairs, especially with regard to implacably, anti-US Iran, started early in his administration precisely, in fact, on April 8, 2009. For on that ill-starred day (which I wrote about here) Obama made his first fatal mistake with Iran by reversing the sensible policy of his predecessor of refusing to talk to the mullahs unless they stopped enriching uranium.  It doesn't seem that mere chance was at work that day. For as a sign to Obama that he was making a costly Carter-like blunder with Iran April 8, 2009 was the 79th day of his presidency-again, that's "79" as in the inauspicious year (see). As Jimmy Carter in 1979 midwifed the Iranian Revolution when he made the fatal mistake of deserting the Shah for Khomeini now Obama has outdone Carter in becoming this evil regime's greatest useful idiot and enabler.
Map of Missouri highlighting Carter County
 Carter County in red. One of Missouri's 114 counties.
 Nor, for that matter, do I think it was happenstance that two days earlier on April 6th, when Obama was in Ankara, Turkey assuring Moslems in a speech that the US wasn't at war with them, that a Turkish Canadian stole a small single engine training plane from a Canadian flight school in Ontario and flew it across the US border. What is incredible and seems providential (as I wrote here) is that when two F-16s forced the stolen plane to land it did so unplanned in Carter County, Missouri. That's "Carter" as in Jimmy*.  And look what's happened since to US foreign policy and to the hapless Jimmy Carter who is now fighting for his life as the disease of Obama's malignant leadership spreads and makes the world a more chaotic, violent and dangerous place.

*BTW, the Turkish born pilot was born in the late 1970s when Carter was president.



Based on 36 years of experience (beginning with the Iran Hostage Crisis) any person who distrusts the lying, cheating, deceiving "Death to America" mullahs: those radical theocratic Shia murderers who loving religious martyrdom invented suicide bombing (which inspired the 9/11 hijackers),  who killed hundreds of American soldiers and civilians in two Beirut bombings, who killed over 500 US soldiers in Iraq with IEDs, who are funding, training and arming the Taliban (al-Qaida allies) to kill our troops in Afghanistan, who are keeping four innocent Americans prisoners after unfreezing $150 billion, who won't allow a US embassy in Tehran after letting the Brits open one, and who show no real seriousness in ending their nuclear ambitions (see below)-these reasonable, sensible, understandably distrustful Americans Obama calls "crazy"? That's only understandable if you're certifiably insane.




If Islamic supremacist fascist Iran were serious about giving up its nuclear ambitions and weapons program , normalizing relations  with the US and West, and becoming a responsible, constructive, peace-loving member of the international community it would do the following:


1. Destroy all its centrifuges so it can't enrich uranium-the IAEA's original demand.

2. Destroy its plutonium reactor so it can't develop the crudest of nuclear weapons with a light water plant-one third the size of Hiroshima bomb.

3. Terminate its relationship with "Axis of Evil," science and technology partner, nuclear North Korea. This must be done to calm fears of Iran covertly outsourcing its nuclear weapons program to the Norks, which it can easily do.


Obama who is comfortable with Iran doing none of these things, and claiming that his Iranian deal partners are"moderates" calls opponents of this deal "crazy hardliners?"  As I recall weren't the same things said about the US opponents of the Ayatollah Khomeini who warned  President Carter not to abandon the  truly moderate, peace-loving, pro-US, Israel friendly Shah?


And meanwhile across the pond in the mother country (where 49% of its Moslem population supports hate preachers see) comes this bit of diplomatic insanity:


UK Foreign Secretary says: “Perfectly normal” Iran seeks to “turn a page” with West




is in the high and holy Koran seeking guidance from Almighty Allah on the next step they should take in His divine plan of victory over Israel, the West and the US.

 How long, I wonder, will it be before England goes Islam and their national anthem "Rule, Britania!" is replaced  by the following song:


When Mohammed first, at heaven's command,
Arose from burning desert sands
This was a sign to every land
That Islam is their Fate.
And the holy jinn ecstatically 
Sang this triumphant strain:

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever 
Be his slaves.

Britons not so blest as He
Must in their turn
Fall on their knees.
To Allah and his Prophet fall
While Islam triumphs eternally
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.

Still mightier shall Mohammed rise
More dreadful from each enemy blow
More deadly, deadly than before.
His sword shall tear apart the sky
And reign down hell upon his foes,
His victory assured. 

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.  

Haughty infidels shall never tame,
And fail to bring the Prophet down,
And will but rouse God's wrathful flame
As they work their woe to His renown. 

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.  

Our jihadis with perfect freedom found, 
Shall to God's happy realm repair. 
Blest with 72 pure virgins crowned, 
Now that Islam's conquered the world down here.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All men shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.




like Pam Geller and Robert Spencer have run afoul of Obama and his losing battle to replace the global war on Islamic terror (fighting a real, deadly, determined enemy who wants to kill and subjugate us) with a global war on fossil fuels based on the fiction of catastrophic, man-made global warming. For our insane president (and the left) the real, evil, politically correct enemy is "carbon pollution," not Islamic supremacism inspired by the anti-infidel hatred polluting the Koran.





To understand what underlies Barack Obama's worthless, ill-fated, unverifiable, Munich-like nuclear "limitation" deal with implacable, Islamist, anti-US Iran we have to go back to the 1980s and his days as a hysterical anti-American, Reagan-hating peace activist in the failed and wrong-headed Nuclear Freeze Movement (NFM). Wrongly blaming US foreign policy (the Truman Containment Doctrine) for the Cold War and escalating nuclear arms race Obama and the left believed that a unilateral halt by the US on nuclear weapons development and defensive missile systems deployed in Europe would start a healing  process of appeasing legitimate Soviet "containment" grievances, win their trust and end the dangerous thirty year conflict-that Reagan was mistakenly seen as aggravating. Joining forces with the Soviets Obama and the leftist Freezers demonized Reagan as a dangerous confrontational, anti-Soviet extremist (a right-wing "nuclear cowboy") blindly leading the world into a thermonuclear holocaust where millions would perish, and "the living [slowly dying of radiation poisoning] would envy the dead," as Jonathan Schell said. In short, Reagan, for Obama and the left, was the real enemy and menace to mankind, not the militant Soviet Union and its utopian vision of a one world socialist state triumphing at the end of history.
*Click here for Ted Kennedy's collusion with Moscow to defeat Reagan in the 1984 election.
The left saw Reagan's anti-Soviet "peace through strength" and "roll back" policies as leading to a world ending nuclear war when in fact he was ending the Cold War
But try as they may Obama and the useful idiots of the NFM couldn't stop the intrepid Reagan who knew the Soviet enemy and their economic weaknesses and wouldn't desist exploiting them. Indeed, despite a massive, unprecedented million man Freeze rally in New York in 1982, State referendums on a Freeze (passed by overwhelming majorities), a UN vote favoring a Freeze, and huge protests throughout Europe opposing the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles Ronald Reagan stayed his anticommunist "peace through strength" course until he brought the Soviets to their knees, ended the Cold War and transformed the world.
Indeed, it was Mikhail Gorbachev who credited Reagan's walkout at the Reykjavík Summit in 1986 as the pivotal moment and turning point for ending the conflict (see). When Gorbachev came to power in 1985 as Russia's Secretary General he was a true believing atheistic Marxist-Leninist committed to the Soviet revolutionary agenda of defeating America and the capitalist West and achieving communist world domination as the final, comprehensive answer to all of humanity's social and economic problems. But Reagan's shocking walkout at Reykjavík over SDI (his idea for a land and space based missile defense system), and a booming US economy (while Russia's was stagnating) put Gorbachev through a profound moral and intellectual change-his Damascus moment. Seeing that Communism couldn't compete with Capitalism  Gorbachev said "I then realized that a new world was possible." By "new world" Gorbachev meant a new world order of peace without the East-West Conflict and Cold War.
Indeed, as the driving force of the Cold War was Marxism-Leninism (the governing socialist, anti-Capitalist philosophy or ideology of the Soviet Union) Reagan's Reykjavík walkout shattered what was left of Gorbachev's ideological illusions. He came to realize that after 70 years of failure at trying to create the ideal classless social and economic order Marxism-Leninism was a philosophical fraud, hoax and lie*-as bankrupt as the Soviet State with no answers to Russia's worsening domestic problems-and it lost its hold on him. Indeed, disappearing with the collapse of Marxism-Leninism in Gorbachev's mind was the reason to continue the ideological, military and geopolitical struggle with America and the West making "a new world [of peace] possible."
But that's not how Obama and most of the left see that period. Revising the history of the Reagan era they credit the NFM and anti-Cold War/peace movement with playing the crucial role not only in averting a global nuclear holocaust but with ending the Cold War (see). What is funny here is that  the NFM would not have existed without Ronald Reagan as it was principally an anti-Reagan movement aimed at destroying Reagan "the most dangerous man on earth."The freaked out Freezers believed It was Reagan's implacable anticommunism that was driving the world to Armageddon and he had to be stopped; and that the huge domestic and international peace movement against his policies (which included his daughter Patti Davis) softened Reagan and made him more amenable to appeasing Soviet grievances. Indeed, as proof that the anti-Cold War (blame America first) crowd prevailed over Reagan and moderated him leftists cite leading neo-cons like Norman Podhoretz and  Irving Krystal who turned against Reagan thinking he'd betrayed the anti-Soviet cause and grown soft.  
But ignored by Obama and the left is the fact that it was Margret Thatcher (Reagan's ideological soul mate) who "softened" Ronald Reagan. Believing from her conversations with Gorbachev that he was more flexible and reform minded than his predecessors  the Iron Lady assured Reagan that "we could do business with him." But while Reagan appeared to "soften" he remained tough as nails and would not rescue the collapsing Soviet Union  by unilaterally freezing US military spending, or scuttling plans for SDI. For Reagan it was "peace through strength" all the way until the Soviet Union, under George H. W. Bush (who continued Reagan's tough policies) completely collapsed.
 As a Nuclear Freeze activist in the 80s Obama likened Reagan's foreign policy  to Nazism (see).
So Barack Obama foolishly  believing the lie of  leftist revisionist history that US foreign policy was the primary cause of the Cold War and dangerous nuclear arms race, and that the anti-Cold War/Nuclear Freeze movement prevailed over and moderated the hardline Reagan and ended the Cold War, he comes into office hell-bent and confident on appeasing his way to resetting US relations with Islam, Russia and Iran all of whom, one way or another, had been wronged by America. Needless to say Obama has predictably failed at appeasing all three.
If Obama is a cryptic Moslem, as some believe, he is a very ignorant Moslem 
Indeed, six years after delivering his fawning, historic "New Beginning," Moslem out reach speech from Cairo-where he vowed to defend Islam against bigotry and fight Islamic extremism-the Middle East is in worsening, deteriorating sectarian and ethnic turmoil with Islamic extremism surging like never before. Indeed, as Obama's inaction in Syria and premature withdrawal from Iraq created a power vaccum filled by ISIS  the vast majority of Moslems (80% according to Al Jazeera seedisagreeing with Obama see the violent, cruel, mass murdering Islamic State as truly, traditionally and authentically Islamic-i.e. practicing the "religion of peace" like Islam's prophet or war did ages ago. Nothing better illustrates than this mind-blowing survey the great  mental and moral divide between Obama and most Moslems, and how ignorant he is of Islam despite his Moslem family roots and doing Ramadan dinners at the White House.
After ignoring Putin's invasion of Georgia, and his undisguised neo-imperialism to restore as much of the Soviet Empire as possible, Obama bent over backwards to appease Putin and predictably got no further than Chamberlain with Hitler. On September  17, 2010 (the 70th anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland), Obama, out of butt kissing deference to Putin's wishes, killed the deployment of the missile defense shield for Poland and Eastern Europe pissing off our allies (see). Then six months later in Prague Obama signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the cheating, untrustworthy Russians. This deal cuts lopsidedly our nuclear arsenal by a third while the Russians cut nothing and are allowed to modernize theirs. Moreover, while we're bound by this treaty to limit the number of our nukes adversaries like China and North Korea have no such limits. The treaty also has a poor verification regime and leaves Russia with a ten to advantage in tactical nuclear weapons (see).
obama twerking putin
And after all the bowing and scraping and capitulation to Putin what does Obama have to show for it? High tech traitor Edward Snowden given asylum in Russia; the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea; and Putin plotting and scheming to undermine NATO's credibility (see).
After catastrophically failing to appease Putin and learning nothing from the experience Obama is hard at work trying to appease Putin's  implacable, evil, totalitarian ally, anti-US  Iran out of developing the ultimate weapons of terror and death and stop their jihad against us. How? By unfreezing billions in funds, lifting more sanctions, allowing the enrichment of uranium, letting them keep their plutonium reactor and self-inspect their own nuke sites for reported violations; and last but not least, tolerating their relationship with "Axis of Evil," science and technology partner, nuclear North Korea who is able to covertly enrich uranium for them, or sell them nukes from their stockpile. And what does Obama have to show for all he's done for Iran? They won't even let us open an embassy in Tehran after the Brits opened theirs several days ago.  And to top off this unprecedented diplomatic insanity Obama  after repeatedly being kicked in the groin by Putin publicly thanked him for making this dangerous, doomed to fail, God awful nuke deal possible. In other words,  for years Obama patiently endured Putin's abuse just to get this worthless deal with the mullahs and endless ridicule and abuse from them.
From the hysterical nuclear doomsday Freeze movement to the unfreezing of billions in Iranian terrorist funds Barack Obama has journeyed from insanity to insanity on his radically delusional leftist descent into historical infamy and total appeasement hell. And sad to say for our nation he hasn't reached bottom yet.




It's Official, July Was Earth's Hottest Month On Record

Scientists predict 2015 will be the hottest year ever. 



Yesterday the AP reported the earth shattering news (anxiously awaited by cheering warmunists) from NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency (making climate change deniers like myself seem like fools) that the month of July-when Barack Obama signed a phony, historic nuke deal with Islamofascist Iran-was the hottest month on record. 

"The average [global] temperature in July," says the report, "was 61.86 degrees Fahrenheit [ouch! that’s really hot], beating the previous global record set in 1998 and again in 2010 [I didn’t see this listed in Guinness] by about one-seventh of a degree [I feel feverish just reading about it].” “That's a large margin for weather records" we are assured. But it gets worse. "The first seven months of 2015 were the hottest January-to-July span on record [despite record US snow, ice and cold causing first quarter negative GDP growth]).” Alarmingly, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientist Jake Crouch told The Associated Press “it's quite likely that 2015 will end up the hottest year on record, beating last year." 

Now if that doesn't send shock waves up your spine that we're turning Earth into a fire-ball that will in time consume all life in a climate change conflagration it can only mean one thing:  you're an inhumane, right-wing, Fox brainwashed, science-hating, Republican dolt who wants to see California wither and die from endless drought, and humanity vanish in a 100 years-and not just from melting glaciers causing water world. If catastrophic climate change doesn’t kill our rogue species  “biological extinction”-the mass extinction of animals-will; or a thousand other human caused crises (see).

 But speaking of peace-loving, nonnuclear, normalizing Iran climate change apparently has hit that country very hard. For the sizzling month of July (when Obama gave the mullahs $150 billion to supercharge their red-hot blazing terrorist murder machine) the heat index hit an astonishing, unbearable, sweltering 163F (temp =115F, dew pt=90F see). In fact, according to Iran’s meteorological service (as reported last February), “with the exception of just three years, Iran has experienced 23 consecutive years of reduced rainfall and increases in temperature.” This has put a severe strain on Iran's water supply “causing a crisis in 14 cities including Tehran.” "If this crisis continues," says former Agriculture Minister Issa Kalantari, "Iran could become an uninhabitable ghost town in 30 years (see)." Actually, I know a lot of people inside and outside of Israel (myself included) who are praying that this happens. Catastrophic, man-made global warming can't be all that bad if it wipes out radical, terrorist, genocidal Iran-the worst of all bad actors in the Middle East, and one of the evilest regimes on earth.

Kidding aside. This report that has warminusts telling us deniers “we told you so” is only a half truth. These record-breaking temperatures are indeed occurring, but only on the ground not up in the air. They are SURFACE not ATMOSPHERIC temperatures. This isn’t a distinction without a difference as warmunists would have us believe. The difference, in fact, is huge.

 Contrary to global warming theory the billions upon billions of tons of heat trapping CO2 and other green house gases that “heedless,”  “polluting,” fossil fuel burning humanity is emitting into the air isn’t catastrophically heating the lower atmosphere. Defying UN computer models and apocalyptic warmunist predictions global atmospheric temperatures have been flat as a pancake for 19 plus years (see). Instead of increasing by the predicted three or four degrees fahrenheit or more, atmospheric temperatures are where they were in 1996. What this means is that this “record breaking” rise in surface temperatures is unrelated to anything we humans are putting into the atmosphere. There’s absolutely no causal link between the two. The heat trapping capabilities of CO2, methane and other GHGs gases have been greatly, greatly unscientifically  politically exaggerated by leftwing climate zealots who see themselves on a mission to save the world by cutting emissions no matter the cost to the global economy and people's lives. What’s causing surface temperatures to rise is most likely the Sun ignored by warmunists because its colossal heat and energy output can’t be controlled.

For those unfamiliar with warmunist theory, lies and apocalyptic delusions about CO2 emissions imperiling mankind’s future the following will, I'm sure, prove helpful:


The atmosphere of Mars which has surface temperatures ranging from -225 degrees F to 95 degrees F is composed of 96% carbon dioxide, 2% nitrogen and 0.146% oxygen. The atmosphere of Earth which has surface temperatures ranging from -138 degrees F to 135 degrees F is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and a mere 0.039% carbon dioxide. Now if carbon dioxide traps so much reflected heat from the Sun then why is Mars with an atmosphere of 96% CO2 far colder than Earth which has  less than 1% CO2? After all, carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide; its capabilities on Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are no different from that on Earth. The answer of course is that factors other than CO2 are heavily controlling the climate and impacting the surface temperature of both planets. Indeed, though despite the wealth of scientific evidence  that CO2 plays a very tiny, insignificant role in climate change, it is hugely for political reasons grossly exaggerated by warminists. Now what those other factors are that warmuists completely ignore (and will curse you for) are Earth’s closer proximity to the Sun by 49 million miles; and SURFACE PRESSURE which you can read about HERE.

In sum, what warminists are praising as good news for their declining movement of lies and falsehoods is actually bad news for them. Without a catastrophic heating of the atmosphere (which isn't happening) rising surface temperatures are further proof that they are wrong; and puts another nail in the coffin of their absurd, hysterical, "world saving" cause.






< p style="text-align: center;">reninvest2013@aol.com      




No religion bleaker

No religion furthest removed from the Light and Grace of God than Islam."


Could it be that Islam is ATHEISM disguised as Jewish Monotheism, and the perfection of Christianity? That it's a godless quest for absolute political power and mastery over men under the guise of World Peace, Providence and the election of Almighty God? Could it be that Islam's near universal hatred and war against the Jewish State are Moslems struggling against the truth about their faith? The truth that Israel's ongoing existence in defiance of Islam-and against all odds-is a refutation of Islamic truth? And a revelation from the One True God that Islam's Prophet was a fake? That Mohammed's God-the deity he worshipped-was political power and the omnipotent, tyrannical Islamic state? Dostoesvky said: "If God is dead then everything is permitted." As Islam is lawlessness and immorality in quest of absolute power, as Moslems are permitted every kind of evil, crime, atrocity and sin to conquer the world and subjugate men, then God must be absent from Islam, and Moslems dead to Him.







< p style="text-align: center;">WHY ISLAM WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL


Last week I wrote  here  that because of Barack Obama's doomed to fail "comprehensive" appeasement agreement with implacable, anti-US, jihadist Iran on nuclear weapons that 2015 is his 1979 disaster. Indeed, this was the year  that Jimmy Carter (caving to the rabid, anti-American, post-Vietnam left) deserted the moderate, peace-loving, progressive, pro-American Shah for the savage, toxic,  fanatical, Shiite radical Ayatollah Khomenie-thinking he was a democratic revolutionary who'd bring freedom and peace to Iran. Well,  on August 3rd (less than 24 hours from Obama's 54th birthday, and three weeks from his "Munich Moment" of  weakness, naïvety and folly in Vienna, 90 year old Jimmy Carter underwent surgery for liver cancer. After removing a small cancerous mass from his liver Carter's doctors gave him an excellent prognosis for a full, cancer free recovery. But ten days later things took a turn for the worse: Carter sadly learned that his doctors were mistaken, that his cancer wasn't defeated, that defying the surgery and treatment it metastasized and spread to other parts of his body endangering his life.
Indeed, that Carter should be suffering from a malignant life threatening cancer not long after warning that the US was in steep, precipitous geopolitical decline (as it was when he was president, see) , and when Obama three weeks later (turning 2015 into 1979) finalized his  insane,  $150 billion giveaway deal with theofascist, jihadist Khomenist Iran (which Jimmy Carter in his  stupidity, naïvety and weakness unleashed upon the world) seems ominous in the extreme of terrible things to come.
 Indeed, the failure of Carter's surgeons to cure him of his illness  after he was judged cancer free is emblematic that Obama's God awful deal with Iran will not keep them nuke free as many foolishly believe ; and that the disease of  their evil power and influence in the region will metastasize and grow like Carter's deadly affliction. Indeed, the lefts's self-deceptive optimism (inspired by Obama's lie)
that the mullahs see the light, that the punishing sanctions changed their hearts and minds, and that they're reforming and moderating themselves and giving up jihad (seewill soon be totally shattered like Carter's optimistic prognosis.
 Jimmy Carter's growing cancer is a sign  that the only cure for the cancer of implacable, expansionary, malignant Khomenism is the end of the Khomenist regime.
Senator and ex-presidential candidate George McGovern died. The date was October 21st. Five days later on October 26th  McGovern was laid to rest. Attending the funeral was Hillary Clinton who (with husband Bill) worked in the McGovern campaign. It was Hillary's 65th birthday. McGovern never made it to the White House. Looks like Hillary won't be getting there either.
Is Hillary running for the Big House?
Or White House? Can't tell the difference these days.


And for that matter, does ANYONE really believe Hillary does Yoga?




People do Yoga who are in pain from being OVERWEIGHT.



Totally believable. Leftists do yoga who are in pain from being leftists.




before he won it with the surge. And Barack Obama (who opposed the surge saying it wouldn't work) was keeping Bush's hard-won peace before he threw it away not using the tremendous leverage he had over Iraqi politicians ($60 billion in Iraq Reconstruction funds) and lost it thinking of election day. Now, thinking of his legacy, he's funding the terror masters of Iran with billions so they can complete their virtual annexation of Iraq and replace the Pax Americana with the Pax Iranica in the region. Beyond pathetic.










He opposed the surge in 2007 saying that it absolutely wouldn't work. And again he was wrong about post-occupation Iraq predicting that the stability and peace created by the surge would endure. And then along came murdering ISIS filling the vacuüm left by Obama's unnecessary, premature troop withdrawal. Then Obama goofed again saying that ISIS was JV (like his administration) and not much of a threat to the US.  And we can go on and on about Obama's lack of judgment on Libya, Yemen, the fall of Assad in Syria, al Qaida being decimated, a video causing Benghazi, etc etc.

And now he wants us to believe that he's stopped the mullahs from getting the bomb when they can continue secretly enriching uranium and building nukes with their science, technology and military partners in Axis of Evil nuclear North Korea. Add to this Obama's domestic failures on the economy, job creation, healthcare reform, border security, racial harmony, etc and what we have is the longest running Amateur Hour Show since Ted Mack. The only difference is that Mack's show was entertaining, Obama's is depressingly sad,



The Cuban people aren't free to "shape their own future." And now you and Obama (as you're doing in Iran) have made the democratic liberation of the Cuban people to "shape their future" even more unlikely for a long, long time to come. Great work. Nevertheless, you'll probably get the Nobel Peace Prize for  the nuclear deal with Iran (which has nothing to do with peace).

Obama shaking hands with Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral telling him: "Tell Fidel not to worry. I'll have more flexibility after my reelection."


The collapsing of oil prices-aggravated by the Iran nuke deal-is dealing a huge blow to the "Green Revolution" and its more costly green energy technologies. And the Saudis and their gulf oil partners are hell-bent on making sure that green energy isn't competitive with petro for a long time to come. Get used to it lefties,  as far as the eye can see the future will belong to dirty energy  "polluting" the air with all that evil, oxygen necessary carbon.
burnt them alive in cages, shot them dead through their heads, dynamited them to pieces and tortured them to death what gruesome, sadistic murders are left for them to do? Perhaps the prophet Mohammed provides the shocking clue when for his pleasure he ordered the bodies of sinning men and women torn mercilessly in two. He did this by tying the victims' arms and legs to two whipped camels which pulled their bodies asunder from opposite directions....as Mohammad and his men cheered and praised Allah.Is this what these Moslem monsters will be showing us soon? 


and it had five presidents since, and dominated Congress and state legislatures for most of the 21st century's first 15 years, then it still has a long life ahead of it-guaranteed by $18 trillion in debt and the desperate need for Austerity Economics which is a national necessity to save us from bankruptcy and depression.

"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 




Obama defends comparing Republicans to Iranianhardliners | MSNBC

President Obama stood by his claim that Republicans opposed to the Iran nuclear deal are making common cause with the most anti-western powers in Iranian society,in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.

“What I said is absolutely true factually,” Obama said. “The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community. And there’s a reason for that, because they recognize that if, in fact, this deal gets done, that rather than them being in the driver’s seat with respect to the Iranian economy, they are in a weaker position.”


Iran's Revolutionary Guard  leader General Jafari putting on a phony show of opposing nuke deal.

Now either Barack Obama is the dumbest, most clueless, most ill-informed man ever to sit in the Oval Office, or he's exploiting the public's ignorance of Iran's radical, totalitarian, intolerant, Islamofascist regime to demonize Republican and Democrat opponents to his very dangerous, doomed to fail, nuclear limitation (giveaway) deal with Iran.

Jafari with his boss who can crush him like a fly for insubordination.
Now while it is true that regime sycophant Major General Mohammed Jafari, head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRG), came out publicly against the nuke deal (see and see) it was because his boss, the all-powerful, infallible, God-directed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (who has the power of life and death over all matters of state and diplomacy, and controls Iran's military) allowed him to do so. If not, if Jafari defying Khamenei went against him on his own, it would be viewed as either an act of insubordination that could get him fired, or an act of treason that could get him killed. Indeed, in radical Islamist Iran there is zero tolerance for anyone who challenges the regime, and whatever is believed by Khamenei to advance Iran's revolutionary goals in the region and world.
Indeed, look at what happened in June 2009: when Iranians massively in the millions (the real moderates) rose up against the "tyrant" Khamenei  (hard-liner-in-chief) demanding true democracy while protesting the rigged election that reelected the hugely unpopular Ahmadenijad (all presidential elections are fixed to favor Khamenei's choice) they were violently suppressed by  Khamenei's brutal militias  And such would be Jafari's fate if he dared, without approval, to publicly oppose any of Khamenei's diplomatic and policy decisions. Now either Obama is ignorant of this-doesn't understand Iran's top down, theocratic, command and control structure with Khamenei at its head controlling everything-or he's lying through his teeth, which is most likely the case.
Indeed, this was the same mendacious president who last year promoted the outrageous lie that the mullahs didn't have a nuclear weapons program; that we should trust them when they deny wanting to build the bomb; and that Republicans, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and everyone else sounding the alarm about Iran's secret illegal program are badly mistaken. And proof that their nuclear program is limited to peaceful energy purposes Obama cited an alleged fatwa (religious decree) issued by Khamenei stating that nuclear weapons were against Islamic law (see); that Allah is opposed to them, and to Iran or any Moslem country becoming a nuclear armed state. But, as it turned out, this fatwa was a complete fabrication and regime hoax that Obama was in on. For among the many fatwas Khamenei issued over the years not one was an anti-nuke decree. Indeed, if such a fatwa existed Obama would have made a copy available to the press, or had it posted on the White House web site for all to see. But he did neither because he was lying and in effect became an apologist and propaganda arm for this evil regime. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of US soldiers and veterans despise Obama, and are ashamed that he's their Commander-in-Chief? No president since Jimmy Carter has been more uselessly and worthlessly friendly to our enemies and (to our shame) has nothing to show for it but their distain.
Moreover, in the interview with Zakaria Obama gives the most ridiculous and easily refutable reason why the IRG and Quds Force are opposed to the deal:

"It takes them out of the driver's seat with respect to the economy......putting them in a weaker position" explained Obama

 O really? Iran's terrorist allies: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houties, Syria's mass murderer Assad, and the Taliban in Afghanistan who are killing our troops, stand to prosper from this deal with billions divided between them to advance Iran's regional plans; but the highly valued and elite IRG (the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) and Qud's Force (used in foreign operations) will lose stature, be diminished and made poorer? Why would Khamenei allow that when they serve the regime so well? Do you see how idiotic Obama's argument is? In reality Iran's economy (like most everything in the country) is controlled by Khamenei. And the nuke deal with the $150 billion in unfrozen funds Khamenei is happily getting is a bonanza for the IRG and Quds. It means better equipment, more sophisticated arms and possibly higher pay for their troops; and, most importantly, more money for their subversive, revolutionary and terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and beyond. In short, the already wealthy IRG and Quds will be prospering even more from this deal along with the regime.

Indeed, this means that General Jafari's public opposition to the deal is mostly a charade; a dog and pony show designed to make Iran's radical Islamic leader (Khamenei) look moderate, reasonable and statesmanlike-and that he's steering Iran in a new direction: toward the normalizing of relations with the world.

Indeed. if Jafari believed that this nuke deal would seriously compromise the revolution and Iran's security as he seems to say why then doesn't he lead a coup against Khameini whose decision is endangering the state and is unfit to command? The IRG with its 125,000 troops, and Quds with its thousands, could easily take Khamenei down and replace him with an Islamically correct "hard-liner." But that isn't happening nor will it as the IRG and Quds cannot but love this deal and want it as badly as Khamenei. Moreover, this staged, bogus opposition (with small peaceful protests) is obviously a bone that the regime threw to Obama (who they despise like a dog) to help him counter domestic critics who say he's signed a bad Munich-like deal with an unreliable, devious, Nazi-like regime.

Anyway you look at it Obama's battle of hardliners and moderates inside Iran over the nuclear limitation deal has no reality outside his scheming, lying, leftist, appeasement driven, legacy desperate brain; and will likely have horrific consequences that will haunt him to his grave.


Sanctions against Iran crumble as America wrangles over the nuclear deal | World news | The Guardian

EU government ministers and business leaders are racing to begin new era of cooperation with Tehran – regardless of what US and Israeli sceptics say.

After the great Munich deception of 1938 heads of state and business leaders worldwide raced to do business with Nazi Germany, regardless of what Winston Churchill and the sceptics said.  Even Franklin Roosevelt, opposing Churchill (who he admired) and the hawks came out in praise of the agreement. But after Hitler's invasion of Poland FDR said "Normal practices of diplomacy are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws (what we call today "rogue states"). And undoubtedly he'd have applied this to Iran if he were alive today. 

"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 



Last Thursday afternoon August 6th Barack Obama received an unwanted phone call from New York Senator Chuck Schumer. Breaking the bad news the third most powerful Democrat in Congress and successor to Harry Reid told Obama that on Friday he'd be announcing his opposition to his controversial nuke deal with Iran. Coming just eight months after Schumer joined Republicans in their opposition to Obamacare  (saying it was a "bad mistake") an angry Obama couldn't restrain himself and wait another day for Schumer's announcement. As Thursday was the day of the first Republican presidential debates Obama chose to leak the news of Schumer's defection then and there. Some say Obama timed the leak to coincide with the debates to minimize its impact. But a more likely explanation is that the timing was symbolic of Obama's great displeasure with the Senator; and that his second defection on a key signature, legacy issue was an act of unforgivable treason that (in Obama's eyes) turned him into a virtual Republican unworthy to replace Harry Reid. In short, leaking news of Schumer's defection on a big Republican day was Obama's lame way of humiliating him.
 But what Obama in his fury missed as if it were a sign to him that Schumer was right on the issue and he dead wrong was that Thursday August 6th was the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima-the first of two devastating atomic bomb attacks that would bring Imperial Japan to its knees and end the worst war in human history. Perhaps an ominous sign of nuclear devastation to come; and just how badly and dangerously the incompetent blundering appeaser failed in his deal with the chess playing, nuclear terror masters of Iran. (I'll have more to say on this below.) 

Now Schumer, a pro-Israel, America first, New York Jew concerned for America's and Israel's security against an Islamonazi enemy hell-bent on the destruction of both our countries courageously refused on principle (and possibly great political cost) to be party to a deal that doesn't stop Iran from getting the bomb and rewards its evil jihadist behavior with $150 billion in unfrozen assets and the lifting of sanctions.
Indeed, who in their right mind (Jew or not) would support this terrible deal? A deal far removed from the outcome Obama originally promised this country, Israel and world? An outcome so good and desirable that Henry Kissinger and George Schultz approved it (see). What outcome did Obama promise? That he'd negotiate nothing less than an end to Iran's nuclear aspirations and get the Ayatollah Khamenei (Iran's supreme, all-powerful religious and political leader) to completely and utterly dismantle Iran's nuclear bomb making capabilities and infrastructure-thus limiting its nuclear program to peaceful scientific and energy purposes. Indeed, a reformed moderate normalized Iran with a truly peaceful, non-military nuclear program means this: 
ZERO centrifuges. ZERO enriching of uranium. ZERO heavy (and light*)-water plutonium reactors. ZERO ICBM and IRBM missiles (used to carry nuclear warheads across great distances). Centrifuges, uranium enrichment and heavy water plutonium plants aren't needed for a peaceful scientific nuclear energy program; and nor are nuke carrying missiles. If Iran was serious about not building a bomb they'd buy nuclear fuel for their power plants on the market like other countries do.

*The nuke deal calls for Iran to convert its heavy water plutonium reactor into a light water reactor. But the later can produce a crude nuclear device with about 1/3rd the destructive capability of the Hiroshima bomb.

And just as crucial for ending Iran's nuclear ambitions (hardly discussed by anyone) is the termination of all scientific and technological coöperation with rogue, "Axis of Evil" partner nuclear North Korea-with whom Iran (for the right price) can secretly and with impunity enrich and weaponize all the uranium it desires, or buy nukes off the shelf from its growing illegal stockpile.  
Obama's deal does none of the above. Hardline Islamonazi Ali Khamenei (God's anointed infallible absolute leader of Iran) implacably bent on keeping Iran's $100 billion nuclear weapons infrastructure while getting sanctions lifted and $150 billion returned fought hard and resisted the weak, pathetic, appeasing Obama all the way down the line until he got what he wanted: a mere limiting or modifying of Iran's nuclear bomb making capabilities while extending not ending the breakout time for getting the bomb. And adding to the worthlessness of the deal (we get nothing they get everything) Iran is allowed to continue building intermediate and long range missiles (to hit Israel, America and whoever) while maintaining its dangerous nuclear relationship with North Korea.
From the very ill-starred beginning of Obama's presidency all the signs have been dreadfully bad. Obama (the greatest enabler of Iranian power since Jimmy Carter) elected president on the 29th anniversary of the 444 day Iran Hostage Crisis. Then 2444 days later (seeon the anniversary of the atrocious, mass murdering French Revolution, Obama finalizes a Munich-like appeasement deal with Iran at the very hotel in Vienna where Hitler in 1938 (the year of the Munich disaster) celebrated Germany's annexation and conquest of Austria. And now we have Democrat Chuck Schumer, the most prominent Jewish politician in America, courageously (putting principle above politics) joining Bibi Netanyahu and Republicans in opposing  Obama's nuke deal on (of all days) the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima.
Maybe it's coincidental; maybe providential. But what is certain is this:  what militant Japan was to the US and its allies in World War II militant jihadist Islamic Iran is to the US, Israel and the West in the Global War on Islamic Terror; and its ambition to become the nuclear hegemon  dominating the Middle East (as a stepping stone to world domination*) has been emboldened not diminished by this deal. 

*The overarching historic goal of Islam as laid out in the Koran.

Doubtless Khamenei and the jubilant mullahs are interpreting July 14th as an auspicious sign from On High that America (as Jimmy Carter recently said) is in a state of irreversible decline, and they are rising like Mohammed  and his armies at Medina. And that victory over America, Israel and their Sunni enemies shall in time be theirs. Is nuclear war then coming to the Middle East?  Is Khamemei's diplomatic victory getting to his head as did Hitler's victory at Munich? Will Israel and/or the US end up devastating Iran (after it miscalculates) like the US 70 years ago crushed fascist Japan? However this plays out Schumer summerizing his analysis is right: "No deal is better than this deal." For it greatly amplifies Iran's power to export terror and do evil, and that means a more deadly and dangerous world for everyone.





It went unreported by MSN (and was strangely ignored by FOX),  and no GOP candidates peeped a word about it at Thursday's debates, that on May 26th when straight shooting, social democrat, Clinton challenger Bernie Sanders kicked off his presidential campaign with a hard-hitting speech in Burlington, Vermont he said (11 minutes into his speech)  that the American people were being deceived about the state of the US economy. Indeed, after bemoaning the disappearing middle class,  the dire drop in median income, the growing poverty and people working two or three jobs to make ends meet Sanders dropped a bomb and said about Obama's  unemployment rate:

" Don't believe what you read in the papers. Truth is the REAL unemployment rate in this country is close to 11 per cent!"

 Huh? That's more than double the official BLS rate of 5.3% that Obama is touting as evidence of his great history making recovery. That he, Barack Obama, with the largest government spending stimulus package of all time  not only saved the US economy from plunging into a second Great Depression (which Bush actually did with TARP), but that he has spent his way to a strong recovery and is putting America back to work which no government anywhere has ever done. "Democratic economic policies," said Obama, " has produced a record streak in private sector jobs growth of 12.8 million jobs over 64 straight months."


 It's just simply amazing. What neither Hoover nor FDR could do for ten years during the 1930s, nor the Japanese, Greeks, Spanish, Italians, Brits, Irish and Portuguese, he, Obama, has triumphantly achieved for 21st century America.  Both Hoover and FDR believing that government was the answer tried and miserably failed to tax and spend their way out of the Great Depression. And the Japanese with two lost decades of recession after recession and poor economic growth believe the same thing and is still spending beyond its means. But, as it turns out, they weren't wrong-at least not in theory. Government spending was and is and always will be the answer. But Hoover, FDR, the Greeks, Brits and Japanese failed because, unlike Obama who learned from the past, they spent way too little. They didn't go where Obama boldly went using an awesome, unprecedented $830 billion to dig the country out of its hole. That is the secret Obama wants us to believe.

 But here is Bernie Sanders breaking ranks with Obama, Democrats and Hillary (who vows to continue Obama's economic policies)claiming that after 64 months and trillions borrowed, printed and spent we have an actual jobless rate in the double digits, as if close to zero progress has been made in ending the Great Recession; as if Obama is FDR and Hoover all over again repeating the same mistakes;  as if the recovery is fake and we are being lied to again as with Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, al Qaida's decimation and record deportees.  What's going on here?

 Is Sanders who voted for Obama's stimulus lying about the 11% for political gain? Or is it evidence as some say that this senior citizen is senile and losing his grip? Or is it that he's being misled by bad advisors who got the numbers wrong? Neither lying nor senile nor misled Sanders is fearlessly looking at economic reality and boldly telling the truth about the real, sad state of joblessness in America that Obama lies about daily.


 "There are statistics and lying statistics." And Obama, arguably the most mendacious president in US history, is using decades old, politically driven, smoke and mirrors metrics (started by Bill Clinton) to calculate the jobless rate and make it look significantly better than it is-a practice that continued throughout the Bush years and is now being used by Obama to hide the failure of his stimulus to trigger the promised, robust, Reagan-like recovery. Truth is, Obama is  Hoover and FDR all over again; he chose a model (Keynesiansm) to fix our economy that's failed for everyone who's tried it; and his economy remains the worst since the Great Depression. But Sanders who's running for the presidency against Bill Clinton's wife to his credit will have none of this lie; and is willing to speak the truth whatever the political cost and blowback from Obama and fellow Dems.

 But what is this lie that was continued by Bush and now by Obama with glee? It is this: real, hurting unemployed Americans who can't find work in Obama's pathetic, weak, trickle growth economy and have given up looking  (and these number millions) are not counted as unemployed like they were until 22 years ago; called "discouraged workers" they are excluded from the official jobless rate of 5.3% as if like unicorns they don't exist.  However, tell any one of these "discouraged workers" that they're not officially considered unemployed and they'll think that you're nuts because it's so nonsensical.

 But how did this fraudulent method, or statistical trickery, of excluding millions of jobless workers from the unemployment rolls come about? From what my researches have uncovered  it all started with Bill Clinton's large, ill-considered tax hike of 1993. Clinton inherited from George H. W. Bush an economic recovery of 22 straight months of economic growth driven by the Hi-Tech Revolution that was steaming ahead, growing the economy and creating lots of jobs; wanting to bring down the deficit and balance the budget (one of the good things about his presidency) Clinton signed into law two large tax hikes on the rich and upper middle class increasing the former 31%-39.6%, and the latter for from 31% to 36%.

 Now experience teaches and common sense knows that tax hikes (any hikes large or small) have a contractionary effect on economic growth; and the Clinton tax was no exception. Because of his taxes the booming hi-tech driven recovery slowed down preventing the creation of hundreds and thousands of additional jobs (see); and in 1994  Clinton  lost the House to Newt Gingrich and the GOP as a result.  Alarmed that the unintended consequences of the new taxes could cost him reelection Clinton apologized for it regretting that it was too big (see). And then Slick Willy did something underhanded to make up for the slowdown: someone in the Bureau of Labor Statistics came up with an ingenious idea of making the unemployment rate look significantly better than it was. This was achieved by removing the above mentioned "discouraged workers" from the official unemployment rate  (now called U-3) and moving them to a separate category (U-5) as if it were a kind of shell game. 

 Now in 1994 when the transition to the new Clinton metrics was made joblessness was cut roughly in half from 1.1 million at the end of 1993  to 500,000 over the course of the next year as 600,000 "discourage workers" magically disappeared from the unemployment rolls. This dropped the jobless rate more than a full point for Clinton from 6.8% to 5.5% thus burying the job stunting slowdown from his wrong headed tax hikes (see).


  It's going to be fascinating watching Sanders and Clinton at the Democrat primary debates slugging it out over the economy. For the Clintons carrying water for Obama have praised his economic leadership. Believing that the stimulus was a success Bill Clinton said at the 2012 DNC:

"Obama changed the course of a weak economy which suffered the biggest collapse since the Great Depression [due in main to Clinton's housing policies]; he stopped the slide into depression [it was Bush's TARP that did that] and put us on the long road to recovery [this began before Obama took office]......He put a floor under the [Clinton caused] crash. He began the long, hard road to recovery [the V-shaped recovery began in December 2008] and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses and lots of new wealth for innovators [which hasn't happened] (see).

 But getting back to Sanders vs. Hillary. How will Hillary during tseehe primary debates handle Sanders' economic honesty, that Obamanomics is a failure and that the real unemployment rate is close to 11% and not the Obama/Clinton 5.3%? When Sanders goes through the history (as I did) of Bill Clinton changing  the metrics for calculating  unemployment (falsifying it to make his presidency look better) that is going to make for one hell of an interesting debate, and a learning event for the American people.



"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For noh a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 


 Occidental College [Obama's college] Politics Professor Caroline Heldman declared “we are a white supremacist society” on Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”
Obama sworn in as president of racist, white supremacist, black lives don't matter America
Let me understand this. The United States of America, perhaps the most racially integrated society on earth, which made a black man not just a two term president and leader of the Free World, but the most powerful black man in all of human history, is a white supremacist racist nation?
Suppose this were true,  what would it mean? That Obama was made president to conceal our white racism? To fool the world into believing that we're a post-racial society when we're still  racially unjust and oppressive? If so then is  a white supremacist America with a black president the new American exceptionalism?  LOL!!
Apart from her greatness as Secretary of State when she reset the entire world after the catastrophe of the Bush years why should the portrait of Hillary Clinton (45th President to be) replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill? Because she looks like Hamilton  after he was shot by Aaron Burr./sarc


any anti-Israel leftist who bitterly complains that the Jewish State is a mooching, leaching, free stuff getting welfare recipient of the US, and who supports the unfreezing of $150 billion to Iran and lifting of sanctions, will now look like a fool with his head up his butt.



Why on the evening of 9/11 was there a massive candlelight vigil in Tehran's Madar Square (and nowhere else in Iran) with thousands of Iranians expressing support for the American people? My guess is that it was staged by the mullahs because they were scared that we knew about,  or would discover, their complicity with al Qaida in the attacks; and that we might bomb the living shiite out of them (see).


 Imam at Boston jihadis’ mosque: “Islam literally means a practice of peace” | Pamela Geller


Islam is a religion of peace. Not my peace or your peace. Not Jewish peace, Christian peace, Hindu or Buddhist peace. Not Conservative peace or Liberal peace. Not Democrat, Republican, Socialist or Communist peace. Islam is a religion of Islamic peace and only Islamic peace. And "Islamic peace" means Moslem world conquest and domination after millions have been slaughtered and killed. Only in that sense is Mohammed's WAR ISLAM a religion of peace.






Barbara Boxer Reprimands Republican Colleagues: If John Kerry Was Bamboozled Then The Whole World Was Bamboozled - RealClearPolitics…



when it was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council in a 15-0 vote? After all didn't the same UNSC on May 22, 2003  (just nine weeks into Operation Iraqi Freedom)  authorize and legalize the US/UK led military occupation of Iraq (see)?  What was wrong with that?/sarc




the model human being worthy of emulation by everyone. And that every new US citizen should follow his example and ideally be a World Citizen not limited in their concerns to any one nation or groups of nations. And as a World Citizen what is it that Obama is defending and wants our new citizens to defend? Answer: The world or collective humanity and not just America in particular. But defend from what universal enemy or foe? From radical Islam? Poverty? AIDS? Ebola? Guns? The Bomb? No. None of these things. The real World Citizen, emulating Obama, is a Warmunist defending the human race from the deadliest existential threat in history: catastrophic man-made global warming. That's what.




a pro-Obama leftist Jew, can't get passed a little thing like the 
mullahs' annihilating hatred of Jews? Didn't Schumer hear Obama's sage remark several weeks ago that one could be a vicious murderung Jew hater and want to turn Israel into one large radioactive Nazi death camp and still be a rational human being wanting peace and love and all good things (see)?




for asking butt ugly Annie Robbins (above) the following question about Israel:

"If you were an atheist married to a practicing Buddhist and you had a gay kid what country in the MIddle East would you and your family be safest in? The question was posted then deleted without a reply. Then I was banned. Tears. Tears."






into believing that Trump is the new Ronald Reagan. What kind of Reagan is Trump when he violates with every breath Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican"?


Earth to Apollo- We have a country to save. Trump is Trump. Reagan is Reagan. This is a different nation than the one Reagan left to us in 1989.


Apollo to Yvonne- Marier 


A Conservative is Conservative. Trump is Trump. Trump is no Conservative.


and watch Democrats howl.



when in 2012 Joe Biden told a group of blacks (see) that Republicans want to revive the old South and put them back in chains? Does that mean we have a crazy man for a VP who wants to be President?


"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 


 Declinist Jimmy Carter at the Aspen Institute
In my previous piece I wrote that in lieu of Barack Obama's worthless, Munich-like nuclear containment deal with radical, terrorist,  expansionary Iran he has completed a tragic process (for his legacy and the country) that began in April 2009: the re-Carterization of US foreign policy, which has turned this fateful year of 2015 into Obama's 1979. Indeed, this was the year when the hapless Jimmy Carter under pressure from the Democrat left (the party of weakness, appeasement and retreat that lost the peace in Vietnam and now in strife torn Iraq) deserted the moderate, pro-Western, progressive regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi (because of his necessary crackdown on radical Islam) to butt-kiss his implacable, Islamic supremacist foe: the evil, power mad Ayatollah Khomeini. Carter's monumental blunder midwifed the Iranian Revolution which eventually destroyed his presidency after an agonizing 444 day hostage crisis-which Khomeini deliberately ended on the day of Ronald  Reagan's inaugural to further humiliate the defeated and despised Jimmy Carter.
 Now because of Obama's Carter-like blunder with Iran at Vienna US foreign policy is in
total disarray with America perceived universally as a steadily collapsing superpower in disastrous global retreat creating chaos and war in its wake-Obama's new world (dis) order . And incredibly ironic as it is this very same Jimmy Carter, just 22 days before Obama's Carter-like blunder with Iran, and oddly agreeing with the anti-Obama right, admitted what is plain for all to see:  US foreign policy is in catastrophic free fall. Indeed, at the Apsen Institute (a liberal think tank) in Washington DC the 90 year old Carter shocked his left leaning, pro-Obama audience telling them what they least wanted to hear: that American power, credibility and prestige on the world stage are in inevitable and irreversible  decline; and that our relationships with most nations are worse now than  when Obama took over the presidency from George W. Bush (see).  A damning indictment of Obama if there ever was one.
Though Obama vehemently denies this analysis saying against the hard, cold facts of growing international  turmoil and strife that America under his leadership "is the strongest and most respected it has ever been," and the world is "the less violent and most peaceful in history" everything Carter said about our decline was painfully true-except for one thing: its "irreversible inevitability."
 Yes, America under the feckless, unfit to command, lead from behind Obama is declining economically, militarily and geopolitically; and there is certainly much truth to the view that Obama is intentionally diminishing our power absurdly thinking that it's best for world peace (see). But this decline is not  "inevitable" and "irreversible" as the excessively pessimistic Jimmy Carter believes*.  For the same was said of our great country in the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate years when Gerald Ford and Carter were presidents. For it was then that our greatest enemy, the Soviet Union, was advancing across the world; and reaching its apogee of influence and power seemed to be winning the Cold War-just as jihadists (al-Qaida, ISIS, Iran, etc.) seem to be winning today.
*It's more likely that Carter, like Obama, is a declinist; and hopes that our decline is irreversible because he thinks it's for the best.
Then at the right historical moment a providential man named Ronald Reagan appeared to reverse America's "irreversible decline" making us great again with inspiring, patriotic, America first leadership that revived our economy and national power and ended the 30 year Cold War. And now more than ever we Americans must have faith that Providence will bring good out of the harm and evil that Obama and the left are doing; and that we can and will have a Reagan like era of national renewal of our power, wealth and greatness again. It is coming. I can see it.  Can you?
Biden swearing in Ashton Carter as DefSec.
My thanks to AnthonyG
From before the start of the Obama administration it has been my firm belief that the providential significance and purpose of this destructive left-wing president-apart from whatever he imagines that to be-is to lead this country into great and terrible peril and wake it up. Barack Obama in a very real sense is NATIONAL SHOCK TREATMENT (see) designed by God to wake us up-just as Jimmy Carter's ill-starred presidency awakened us from our "national malaise" and "crisis in confidence" and set the stage for Ronald Reagan. And more than ever I am certain that I'm right.
 Now in addition to Carter's Aspen shocker, prefiguring the Carter-like blunder with Iran was  the swearing in of Ashton Carter as Defense Secretary earlier this year. It's not so much the person of Secretary Carter that’s significant as it is the symbolism of his name; for a man with the name "Carter" is defense secretary for a president who like Jimmy Carter is systematically weakening our defenses and emboldening our foes. But on top of this there are the same familiar Iran-related signs of weakness and decline which suggest that Providence is at work in these events and (like Reagan succeeding Carter) good will come from the harm and evil Obama and the left are doing.
Indeed, Ash Carter was sworn into office on February 17th-the month of the iranian
  Revolution 36 years earlier *. And just as the triplet number 444 (as I said here)  is symbolic of Jimmy Carter's terrible, tragic, costly blunders with the Shah and Khomeini, and, as I said, that on the 2444th day from Obama's election (the Vienna deal) which fell on the 29th anniversary of the 444 day hostage crisis, remarkably this number 444 appears twice from the start of Ashton Carter's secretaryship. This is what I mean
On February 17th, the day that Carter became DefSec, it was the 2220th day of the Obama presidency (see). And on the day that Obama's God awful deal with Iran was finalized it was 148 days from February 17th (see). Whether mere  chaotic chance or God's purposeful plans were at work in these events is for the reader to decide. But be it God or chance it is simply amazing that the doubling of the number 2220 produces 4440 (444 x 10), and when 148 is multiplied by three it equals exactly, precisely, incredibly to the Jimmy Carter-caused hostage crisis related sign of 444.
Defense Secretary Carter, so I believe, is one of many unmistakable signs that Barack Obama's sixth year (2015) will be seen by history as analogous to 1979-Jimmy Carter's third disastrous year in office; and because of our country’s badly weakening defenses (symbolized by a man named “Carter” heading Defense) we should expect the hell from our enemies in the time ahead.
*Khomeini returned to Iran from exile on February 1, 1979, and started the Islamic Revolution less than two weeks later.
General Carter Ham 
" And last but not least, General Carter Ham, the man now heading the North African Command, was in charge of the initial military operation in Libya. That's "Carter" as in Jimmy who gave us the catastrophe of nuclear, genocidal, terrorist Iran; and "Ham" as in the meat derived from swine, an animal offensive to Moslems and unlawful to eat. These are awful signs of the pig-like infidels Sarkozy, Obama and NATO making things worse in Libya like Carter did in Iran when he deserted the pro-Western Shah for the Islamist Khomeine (see). Does this portend that in the end we will abandon Libyia to KhomeinI like radicals?
*Obama and the West are siding with the more Islamist, anti-American of the two tribes in this conflict over the more secular and moderate Kaddafyites"


"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 




On January 20, 1981, 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, the humiliating, agonizing Iran Hostage Crisis came to a sudden and unexpected end. Having started on November 4, 1979 (nine months into the Iranian Revolution) it lasted for 1 year,  2 months, and 17 days or 444 days (see). And since that memorable day the triplet number 444 became for this country a numeric symbol and sign of that crisis; a crisis ultimately caused by Reagan's predecessor Jimmy Carter a man of staggering stupidity and blindness who let himself be duped by the radical Shiite cleric Ayatollah Khomeini into thinking he was a Jeffersonian democrat wanting to replace the oppressive (but progressive) pro-Western constitutional monarchy of Shah Reza Pahlavi with a free and open Western type parliamentary democracy protecting the rights of minorities and women.



The Shah who banished Khomeini from Iran because of his subversive activities to overthrow his rule desperately tried to reason with Carter that he was being lied to and deceived and would live to regret it. He told Carter the truth about Khomeini: that he was a regressive, reactionary, Shiite fundamentalist who'd replace his progressive, modernizing pro-Western regime (an enlightened monarchy by 18th century standards) with a brutal, oppressive, anti-Western medieval theocracy where Khomeini would  be both Pope and King uniting the powers of church (mosque) and state in an absolute totalitarian dictatorship based on the 7th century Median model of the Prophet Mohammed.


But Carter ignored the Shah. Listening instead to reports that Khomeini was a "saintly man of God," a "Moslem Mahatma Gandhi"and "peace loving democratic reformer" who wouldn't hurt a fly, Carter withdrew his support from the Shah (who fled to Egypt) and let Khomeini come to power. But in doing so (as the Shah warned) Carter midwifed the anti-American, freedom hating Iranian Revolution which made the Koran, Sharia Law  and Jihad (war against all infidels) the basis of a new Iran far more oppressive and unjust than the Shah's regime. Indeed, no sooner did Khomeini seize power becoming Iran's Supreme Leader (Allah's absolute agent on Earth) than he viciously turned on America and Jimmy Carter. Demonizing our country as the "Great Satan," and enemy of Allah, Islam and all that's holy and good, Khomeini sent hundreds and thousands of his followers into the streets of Tehran chanting "Death to America!"  as they burned US flags and Carter in effigy. From the start of Khomeini's murderous, fanatical, jihadist regime ("war is good" is one of his famous sayings) there was a constant drum beat of anti-American propaganda and hate until November 4, 1979 disaster struck: a militant gang of pro-Khomeini college students stormed the US embassy in Tehran, and with Khomeini's blessing held our diplomats hostage while he ridiculed us daily as powerless, pathetic and weak. 

The hostage crisis was an act of Islamic Jihad (holy war) against the United States; it was the first such act since the Barbary Wars of the early 19th century when US merchantmen were captured by Islamic pirates and were either held hostage for ransom or put in chains the slaves of Moslem masters.

Therefore, the triplet number 444 in one respect is a symbol of evil* for our country-the evil of an implacable Islamic supremacist regime at war with America, modernity, and democratic freedom as inspired by the Koran** and the radical jihadist teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

*On the other hand, the freeing of the hostages during Reagan's inaugural was very definitely an auspicious sign that Reagan's strong, unwavering anti-communist leadership would defeat the Soviet Union and liberate millions from its tyranny. Indeed, when multiplied by 4 444 gives us the number 1776 the year of America's revolutionary founding and liberation from Great Britain.

**The Koran is made up of 114 books, and this number 114 gives us the date 11-4 when the Koran inspired Iranian Hostage Crisis began.


But now 36 years into the dreadful jihadist Iranian Revolution and on the fatal date of July 14th (the anniversary of the terrifying, murderous French Revolution) in Vienna-a city once occupied by Nazi troops-and in a hotel (The Imperial) where the victorious Adolf Hitler stayed to celebrate his peaceful conquest of Austria, the worst, weakest and blindest US President since Jimmy Carter finalized a dangerous deal with genocidal Islamonazi Iran on its illegal nuclear weapons program. And strangely on that very day, as you shall see, the ominous number 444 providentially I believe reappeared connecting the day of Barack Obama's ill-starred election to his Munich-like nuke deal with Iran, portending great evil and woe for our country, the Middle East and world.

But before I venture into this it needs be said that the number 4, for whatever reason, as you will see, is the most significant and meaningful number in Barack Obama's political life; and is strangely written all over his policies and dealings with radical supremacist Shiite Iran. Here is what I mean.






 Obama, who was born on the 4th day of August 1961 (44 years after the Russian Revolution*) was elected 44th President on November 4, 2008 (the 44th week of the year) which ominously landed on the 29th anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis which painfully lasted for 444 days. Clearly, as you will see below, the day of Obama's election prefigured (as I predicted it would herethat Obama would be as weak and foolish in dealing with Iran as was hapless, gutless, senseless Jimmy Carter. And that Obama would surpass Carter as the greatest and most dangerous enabler of Iranian power.






On the 8th* day of the 4th month of April 2009, following an Iran policy review, the Obama administration made its first fatal mistake with Iran by announcing it would participate fully in the P5+1 talks with them (see). This was a departure from the Bush administration’s policy requiring Iran to first meet UN demands to stop uranium enrichment before directly engaging in talks. Indeed, Obama's God awful, dangerous, legacy driven, appeasement nuclear deal, which greatly enhances the wealth and power of an aggressive, expansionary, totalitarian terror state  (a de facto nuclear power via its "Axis of Evil" partner North Korea, see) began with this foolish policy change.

*8 is a multiple of 4 twice, or 4+4.





Now excatly 4 months and 16* (see) Barack Obama on the 4th day of June delivered his historic "New Beginning" speech in Cairo reaching out to the Islamic world in an attempt to heal US/Moslem relations which had been damaged during the Bush years. But as if it were a sign warning that his Mideast policies would achieve no such thing, that instead they'd greatly benefit Iran and exacerbate the regional conflict between Sunni and Shia started during the Bush years**, the date of the speech ominously fell on the 26th anniversary of Ali Khamenei succeeding his mentor Ayatollah Khomeini as the supreme religious and political head of Iran (see). Indeed, in retrospect and unplanned it seems that the "New Beginning" was mostly to benefit Iran as no Moslem country in the region has gained more from Obama. For Obama's policies on pro-Iran Iraq (premature withdrawal of our troops), pro-Iran Syria (non-intervention in the civil war) and Iran's nuclear weapons program (the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing of assets and giving them a pathway to a bomb) have enabled its power, wealth and military strength at the expense of US influence in the region and the power of the Sunni Moslem states (see).

* 16 is multiple of 4 4 times, or 4 squared (4x4).

**The Iraq War Resolution or H J Res 114 (giving us the number of books in the Koran and the date of the Iran Hostage Crisis) was passed by Congress on 10-10-2002. Amazingly, that day was  the 1322nd anniversary of the Battle of Karbala in present day Iraq-the first battle between Sunnis and Shiites in history (see and see). You can't make this stuff up.




But no sooner did Obama give his speech than 8 days later on June 12th* (the 144th day of the Obama administration, see) a rigged presidential election in Iran, which gave the unpopular Ahmadenijad a second term as president, caused massive protests in Tehran and across the country. Called the Green Movement it was violently suppressed with thousands of arrests and many deaths by police and government militia forces (see). But instead of rallying to the cause of freedom, as Ronald Reagan did for Lech Walesa and Poland's Solidarity Movement (see), Obama instead "ignored the Green Party's request for financial and other aid..... and squandered the opportunity to undermine the government," as Rick Santorum said (see). Indeed, Obama feared to vigorously speak out against the government crackdown least he rub the mullahs the wrong way and hurt his chances of kowtowing and appeasing his way to getting a nuke deal for his legacy 

*12 is a multiple of 4 thrice, or 4+4+4.





On the 2nd day of the 4th month of April of this year (the 2264th* day of the Obama presidency, see), after 8 grueling days of negotiations Obama and Iran reached a framework agreement for containing its nuclear weapons program-which it continued to deny having. Oddly, the deadline date for these talks was March 31st. But the deadline was reached without an agreement and talks carried over into the 4th month of April. Indeed, thIs foolish framework was agreed upon on April 1st, April Fool's Day. But to avoid all the ridicule of announcing it then it was postponed to the following day. 

* 2264 is the 64th number of the 2200 series. 64 is the cube of 4 or 4x4x4.





Iran, of course (as I mentioned above), has a fifth pathway to a nuclear bomb with long time, Axis of Evil ally nuclear North Korea. In North Korea Iran can covertly do all of the above, and Barack Obama knows it.

This is truly, truly extraordinary and at the same time very frightening. We have seen that as a sign portending terrible things to come with our  deadly enemy "Death to America" radical Iran Barack Obama was elected 44th President on the 4th of November 2008. We saw that this date ominously coincided with 29th anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis where American diplomats and their staff were held hostage by Iran for 444 days. Now this is the part that frightens me. If I add 2444 days to the date November 4, 2008 (2444 is encoded with the triplet number 444) it brings us to July 14, 2015 the dark day which will live in infamy when Barack Obama, the weakest and worst president since Jimmy Carter (who midwifed the Iranian Revolution that gave us the 444 day hostage crisis) finalized a deal with Islamonazi Iran on its nuclear weapons program.

Keep in mind (as I said above) that the deal was closed at the Imperial Hotel in Vienna where Adolf Hitler stayed in 1938 to celebrate his peaceful conquest of Austria; also keep in mind (as I said) that July 14th was the 226th anniversary of the failed and murderous French Revolution. Oddly, France was a signatory to this terrible deal. And France was the place where the Ayatollah Khomeini (founder of Iran's radical jihadlst regime) was living in exile before his return to Iran in early 1979. Could this too have oracular meaning signifying the ultimate failure or downfall of Iran's revolutionary regime? That the nuclear mullahs will miscalculate as a result of this deal and strike our country or Israel and incur the wrath of either or both suffering devastating consequences? Or will the Green Movement rise up again more powerful than before and this time succeed in toppling the evil mullah regime? That is the outcome all of us pray for.

Nevertheless, 444 is a portentous sign that this ill-conceived nuke deal with Iran, and the billions in appeasement funds we are insanely giving to them, will have evil consequences for our country and the region in the short term. For implacable, "Death to America," radical Iran, whether we want to admit it or not, is very much at war with us. What started with the hostage crisis where no Americans died evolved 4 years later into the suicidal terrorist killing of 241 US soldiers at the Marine barracks in Beruit executed by Hezbollah jihadis who Iran to this day honors as holy martyrs (see). Moreover, scores of US servicemen, 500 or more, were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by Iran backed anti-US forces (see). And despite this "historic" nuke deal Iran's anti-US jihad goes on in Afghanistan as the mulllahs continue to supply the Taliban (and their al Qaida allies?) with arms, ammo, cash and training to kill more of our troops, as reported here.




It is astonishingly ironic that just three weeks before Obama's ill-starred reelection (it was the 44th month of his presidency, see) that Warner Brothers released Ben Affleck's Acadamy Award winning "Argo" a film about the Iran Hostage Crisis (see).

This outstanding film, so it seems, was an ominous sign that if Obama were reelected president his second term would be as disastrous as Jimmy Carter's first term. And now with Obama's dangerous deal on Iran's nuclear program finalized on the 2444th day after his election (the 29th anniversary of the 444 day hostage crisis) we see that is unfortunately what is happening.  The re-Carterization of US foreign policy is now complete. God help us all.












"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 


Chuck Todd: "There's Something Just Not Quite Right" About Hillary Clinton's Campaign | Video | RealClearPolitics


What's not right about Hillary's campaign is Hillary Clinton. She's not up to the task of running for president (or being president) and it shows on her old, tired, ill-looking face, and in speech after speech after dull, lifeless, uninspiring speech-which puts you to sleep they're so ineffectual, bloodless and weak. Rapidly aging, worn down and spent it's no secret why Hillary is a poorer candidate now than in 2008 when she was seven years younger and hadn't exhausted so much of her strength ranging the world as Obama's failed secretary of state. Those four, hard laborious years (pushing herself over the edge) of stress and strain and disappointment (and enduring an asinine prez) took their toll on Hillary's health aging her considerably beyond her 67 years. If she had stayed in the senate, instead of taking the bait and heading state, she'd have more  pizzazz and vigor today, and be a more dynamic candidate like the older Bernie Sanders whose zeal belies his age. But now she lacks the energy, stamina, health and strength for the grueling fights and battles ahead made worse by charges of lawlessness, scandals, cover-ups and lies (Benghazi, missing emails, the foundation, and the like) that she'll exhaustingly claim is part of a vast right-wing plot (of old, sexist Republican white men) to criminally deny America its first lady prez. But it's not going to work as America is looking for a trustworthy leader with good American values and moral strength-which excludes the nearly burnt out, mendacious Hillary.

Unfortunately for Hillary the more we see of her the less presidential and more diminished she seems. An incredible shrinking woman falling in public esteem. Fewer and fewer voters think she's fit for high office; or see her as Commander-in-Chief heading our armed forces in this time of growing crisis, and confronting Putin, al Qaida, Iran and cruel, sadistic ISIS.

Billed as one of the world's greatest women and an icon of power and success Hillary radiates neither quality as she struggles with her declining strength to seem positive, upbeat and optimistic. It's pathetic watching her trying to fake it and think she can make it while running from Fox and the press.

 Hillary is a boring, ineffective, wearisome candidate who can't excite her base like Obama did in 2008, and her charismatic husband 16 years earlier; hence her steady drop in the polls with independents who she needs to win. The bottom line for this woman is this: Hillary fatigue is growing because Hillary is fatigued. She is terribly, abysmally tired and America is tiring of her not being the awesome, majestic, dignified woman (another Margret Thatcher) of Media Matters, MSM, and her left-wing propaganda machine. More like Minnie Mouse than Margret Thatcher, that's who Hillary Clinton is.


 Getting harder and harder to choose as President.




Hillary Clinton agrees to appear before Benghazi panel · Politico · Disqus


Your desperation is palpable.


Independents are turning away from Hillary in droves. Without them she's lost. And she's fallen behind the front running GOP candidates in several key swing states.Moreover, her unfavorability rating is more than twice that of Bernie Sanders 46% to 20%. This wasn't the case in 2007 when Hillary was soaring above McCain, Obama and everyone else, and the independents were with her.


Yes, I keep hearing this over and over again from republicans. I'm not even a big Hillary fan. I'd much rather see Sanders in there but I'm realistic and see that he has little to no shot in the long run. It's amazing what people will obsess on in hopes of seeing some bigger truth that doesn't exist. All these people who keep laser focusing on Hillary's unfavorability rating fail to address the fact that all of the candidates suffer from the exact same thing because this country is polarized thanks to all the hyperbole and manufactured rage that the media puts out there. If Sanders ever jumped ahead you could be darn sure the far right and their press would slam him to China and send his unfavorabilty rating through the roof. But, like Trump for the left, the right is delighted to see him in there causing a problem for that side.
The election isn't for another 16 months so anything can happen. But at this point, Hillary has been smart and pretty much kept quiet as the far right does its usual slamming of her. And through all of it, she sill sits comfortably ahead in the polls against anyone the right has to offer up (except for Bush in one poll - Fox News - what a shocker). Sure, things could change, but the whole idea of independents "turning away from Hillary in droves" is wishful thinking at its best. They may not be thrilled with her but they see the options out there and they only make her look better.
ApolloSpeaks  FactsNotFox  
What you're missing is a greatly diminished woman from 2007 who is old beyond her 67 years and lacks the vitality, strength and vigorous health of her former pre-SoS self. Her four years of traveling the world and pushing herself beyond her limits to achieve historic and significant things in foreign policy (for herself and the great amateur) took their toll. And it shows not only in her sadly aged face, but in her weak, lackluster, uninspiring speeches. Her "keeping quiet" and not exerting herself is by design as too much of an effort (like the older and healthier Bernie Sanders is showing) would be terribly exhausting for her. Don't take my word for it. Compare Hillary's early 2007 campaign speeches to her recent speeches. It's apples and oranges. She's not the same woman..Eight years ago she was a far more effective candidate with more energy, stamina, zest and appeal. She could be exciting then. But not anymore. The force is no longer with her. You'll see that I'm right as the campaign progresses. Underlying "Hillary Fatigue" is Hillary's fatigue. 
Again, this whole idea that she's old and worn down is a right wing talking point that ignores the fact that she has no reason to come out charging right now. The republicans are doing their patented job of destroying each other to pieces. Her best chance is to let them do their thing as she slowly builds towards early next year. Yes, of course she's older, we all slow down. But if you think you're dealing with a woman who's no longer energized I think you'll be in for a big surprise.
LOL!!! You say there's no good reason for Hillary Clinton (who is aspiring to be the leader of the Free World)  to boldly and fearlessly come out  at this time charging and show real leadership on serious questions about her character, honesty, trustworthiness and integrity? There's no reason at this time for Hillary to show the nation and world- Putin, China, ISIS and Iran-that she's an Iron Lady with the strength of will and character of a Margaret Thatcher, someone to be respected, feared, trusted and reckoned with? Oh you fool. If Hillary could come out charging she would. Any woman candidate with real strength of character wouldn't hesitate to dynamically and dramatically assert themselves at every opportunity like Thatcher did when running for PM, and in defending her government.
No real leader would stand idly by giving insipid campaign speeches while they sink like a rock in the polls because of unanswered questions about scandals, cover-ups, contradictions and lies. This woman has no fight in her. There's no fire in her belly. It was there in 2008. It was there early in her tenure as Secretary of State when she tackled the job with zeal. But it's not there now; and you can see and sense that it evaporated by the time she left office. Hillary has physically deteriorated and changed for the worse. Which is why pro-Clinton pundits like NBC's Chuck Todd worried about Hillary's downward polling trend said to Andrea Mitchell (who agreed with him): "There's something just not quite right with the Hillary Clinton campaign... there's nothing BIG, BOLD, BOOM." What's not right is Hillary. She's Minnie Mouse not a BIG BOLD BOOMING leader like Margaret Thatcher. They'll be no surprises for me, friend. The BIG BOLD non-existent HIllary in your head is not the greatly diminished, mediocre woman half-running for office. Sooner or later you'll be mugged by reality, Hilla-reality.
"There's no good reason for Hillary Clinton who is aspiring to be the leader of the Free World to boldly and fearlessly come out charging..."The election is sixteen months away. Sixteen months. This is all more media drama and hyperbolic talking points put out there to excite everyone and keep them tuning in. What Hillary does now will be forgotten like Donald Trump by this time next year. If she's lucky and plays it right, anyway.
The Clinton machine has built up an image of Hillary as one of  the world's greatest women-a larger than life figure.. But the more the public sees the poor reality (the mediocre Hillary) the more disillusioned they become with her. They're not blown away, not overawed like they imagined they would be from all the hype. That's why Todd in his interview uses the adjectives "big" and "bold." This is the kind of extraordinary, remarkable, ideal woman Todd, Mitchell and others on the left want Hillary to be. But she's even less of that today than in 2008. You believe that such a women is innate in Hillary. That there's a giant inside her that she's intentionally hiding for some inexplicable reason. And that at the right time she will unleash this giant and surprise people like me and soar in the polls again winning the day. I say that you're mistaken. That you will wait forever to see this ideal Hillary because she doesn't exist.











"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 


 Reagan broke the law to free several American hostages held by Iran backed Hezbollah terrorists And he certainly would have broke the law to free the 4 American prisoners held by Iran. What patriotic American President wouldn't?
Ronald Reagan was willing to break the law and illegally ship weapons through Israel to Iran to secure the release of seven US hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. But Obama refused to use the tremendous leverage of $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets to secure the release of four innocent Americans held in Iranian jails. Reagan would have used the assets to free the prisoners, or broken the law to do so. And Obama wants to be regarded as the new Ronald Reagan comparing himself in his dealings with Iran to Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev in ending the Cold War? It's mind-boggling!
The truth is the gap between Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev and Obama's with Iran is so wide you can sail an oceanliner through it. But don't tell that to Obamunist liberals like Bill Scher. Scher a Contributor Editor to Politico and Contributor to Real Clear Politics posted an article on RCP absurdly  stating that Obama is the new Ronald Reagan and that he and Reagan "walked similar paths of peace." Scher, in fact, thinks that there's no substance to  charges made by Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives that Reagan would have walked out on Iranian negotiators like he did with Gorbachev and the Soviets at Reykjavík. In comparing Obama to Reagan Sher is hugely, hugely mistaken. He seems to know less about the real Ronald Reagan than he does  about the real Barack Obama. There's no Ronald Wilson Reagan in Barack Obama.  Compared to Reagan Obama is a mental and moral pipsqueak, his ideological, intellectual and moral opposite.
Indeed, can anyone imagine Nuclear Freeze Obama (he, Biden and Kerry participated in that hysterical leftist movement that Reagan rightly ignored) finding the courage and strength to walk out on Gorbachev at Reykjavik? Just as Obama canceled the missile defense shield for Poland and Eastern Europe (on the 70th anniversary of Stalin's invasion of Poland) to appease the unappeasable, unresettable Vladimir Putin so had he been President in the 1980s he would have likely canceled the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe to appease the millions of frightened protesters  and fearmongering Soviets. Or he would have canceled it out of fear that their deployment could start WW III like the soft-on-Soviet wussies believed at the time-and just like he now believes that the only alternative to his awful, bogus, dangerous nuke deal is war.
"Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane,driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles 
and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, 
planes and helicopter gunships."
But foreshadowing the likely disastrous consequences of Obama's atrociously bad deal with Iran was his terrible nuclear arms reduction treaty that he made with then Russian President Dimitri Medeved in April 2010 (see). For just four years later Vladimir Putin, in defiance of the US and EU, ordered the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Now that the mullahs are emboldened by Obama's butt kissing deal we shouldn't be surprised to see some shocking act of aggression in the years ahead committed by them or a terrorist proxy.
But to return to Bill Scher's badly confused article equating anti-Reagan Obama with the 40th President the truth about Reagan's strong anti-Communist administration-where he relentlessly attacked the "Evil Empire" from every conceivable angle (economic, political, military, geostrategic) short of war-and his dealings with Gorbachev at Reykjavík is this:

Those eight strong years of Ronald Reagan (as Gorbachev admitted) brought the Soviets to their knees. He made them realize that their cause against the West was hopeless. And that is what ended the Cold War.


By the time Reagan got through with Gorbachev he was no longer a believing communist.

It's really that simple. Indeed, after Reagan's famous walk out on the Reykjavík Summit Gorbachev said that it forced him to realize (as if he had a revelation) that "a new world was possible." Meaning he now saw a world of peace without the East-West Conflict. In other words, Reykjavík shattered Gorbachev's ideological illusions. Reagan caused Gorbachev to lose faith in Marxist-Leninism the governing philosophy of the Soviet Union and evil dynamic underlying the Cold War. Indeed, Reykjavik made Gorbachev realize that the vision of the  inevitability of Communism triumphing over Democratic Capitalism in a Socialist world order at the end of history was a dangerous leftist utopian lie. And his disillusionment with Communism made real peace with the West possible as there was no longer any reason to continue the conflict. Indeed, those who hold, like myself, that Reagan's walkout at Reykjavik was the pivotal moment that ended the Cold War and liberated millions (the begining of the end) are 1000% correct

But for Bill Sher and those who wrongly see in Barack Obama a new Ronald Reagan defeating radical Iranian Shiite Islam (Khomenism) like Reagan defeated Soviet Communism my question to them  is this: who is the Ayatollah Gorbachev, the great Iranian democratic reformer who will replace the theocratic sharia state with individual rights and political liberty? Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei? If so has Khamenei and his regime reached the same point of ideological disillusionment with Islamism-Khomenism that Gorbachev and the Soviets did with Marxist-Leninism? Does Khamenei now realize that the imperialist vision of the Prophet Mohammed of a one world Moslem state (Islamic world domination) at the end of history (achieved through jihad) is as falsely utopian and ridiculous as Communism? Has Obama broken Khamenei's spirit and will to victory like Reagan broke Gorbachev's? Has he and the mullahs given up the fiction that the Koran is God's absolutely perfect and final revelation of truth to mankind like Gorbachev  and the Soviets once believed in the scientifically "infallible" Communist Manifesto? In other words, is Islam for the mullahs no longer the panacea and "ANSWER" to all of humanity's ills like Socialism was for Gorbachev and the Soviets? 

Or has Obama completely failed at this? That unlike Reagan with the Soviets he's been completely ineffective in changing the hearts and minds of Khamenei and the mullahs? That they are as ideologically and spiritually committed as ever to their revolution? That they are dead certain that God and history are on their side in the struggle against America, Israel and the West, and that victory will inevitably be their's?  I see no evidence that Khamenei is the Ayatollah Gorbachev and that his regime has changed direction. An enemy is defeated when they've lost the will to victory. I don't see this loss of will. "Death to America!" "Death to Israel!" The Iranian revolution and jihad goes on.  Iran is still an "Axis of Evil" state driven by Khomenism.






"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. 



Republican showdown over fate of Guantanamo - Austin Wright and Jeremy Herb - POLITICO




The completely worthless Jimmy Carter who presided over a post-Vietnam America in retreat, defeat and steep decline recently criticized your post-Iraq War, lead from behind, retreat and defeat foreign policy as a disaster far worse than his own. 'Not since the end of World War II,' implied Carter, 'has American power, influence, standing and prestige been at such a dangerously low ebb on the world stage." Now, Mr. President, you need to act and show the world that Carter is wrong about you; that when you leave office your foreign policy will be no better or worse than his; that they'll be practically indistinguishable for the great harm and little good that they've done to this country.

And what better way to accomplish this than by following up on your historic deal with nuclear-to-be, terrorist Iran, and normalizing relations with democracy hating communist Cuba (as you did today), than by doing a Jimmy Carter with Guantanamo Bay? Indeed, just as Carter gave the Panama Canal lands back to Panama now is the time, after closing Gitmo and freeing its inmates, to dismantle our naval base there and give it back to Cuba with compensation in the millions.

Indeed, Mr. President, make Cuba whole again like Carter made Panama whole (and Ariel Sharon Gaza). Heed Castro's just demand and return to his people what's rightfully theirs. The least harm they could do is replace our naval base with a Russian, Chinese or Iranian base (for their nuclear subs). Or maybe in the future when ISIS has a navy its terror ships will find a home there-a jihad port in the Western Hemisphere to threaten the US. Do this little thing, Mr. President, and you will leave office with head erect knowing that historians won't rank you the worst president ever; knowing you'll be tied with Jimmy Carter; knowing that between you and Abe Lincoln they'll be 41 instead of 42 presidents: misery loves company, Mr. President, and you and Carter will be on bottom looking with envy at everyone else  It's the least you can do for your legacy of ashes, disaster and choking  dust.






"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

 Zero Ben Shapiro and steaming hot transgender hero Caitlyn Jenner
Ben Shapiro is wrong, and should grow a pair and admit it. Caitlyn Jenner is a Profile of Courage and not a mentally ill leftist freak confused about her gender like Shapiro absurdly thinks. It takes balls for a man to mutilate his balls and become a hot ball-less voluptuous female babe. (Just look at her curvaceous Beyonce-like body and tell me you're not pining for love.) 
Indeed, if our girlie man prez had one once of Caitlyn's courage the monsters of ISIS would soon be defeated; and the dangerous surge in domestic ISIS jihadis would stop and quickly die.  But Obama is more like Shapiro than Jenner; and we are losing the war to these LGBT-hating 7th century retrograde savages.
Those who are looking to replace first treasury secretary  Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill with an American woman of note need look no further as the obvious choice is national treasure Caitlyn Jenner-the PERFECT TEN for the New Age of 21st century anything goes once great degenerate America./sarcasm

Ripped off from Zero Hedge















I was waiting for someone like you to tell me what I already know. My post was anticipatory written in advance of Jenner's complete transformation into a pathetic sexual freak. As Jenner's partial transformation doesn't change his inner emptiness and misery he will eventually want to finish it impelled by the illusion that it will give him the happiness that's painfully eluding him. And as Jenner loves and craves all the national attention he's been getting he will want to revive it after it's gone. What better way to grab the spotlight again than for Jenner to announce his "courageous" decision to go all the way with the knife and cut out his manhood mutilating himself into a sick, unnatural, perverse, surgically made woman. If this transition occurs before Obama leaves office he might award Jenner (in drag) with "The Presidential Medal of Freedom" in some special new category.




wsurfs .  ApolloSpeaks 


Bruce Jenner is NOT nutless...! He STILL has his male parts so your post doesn't wash..!

But for how long? As Bruce pathologically craves public attention once the intoxication of the limelight wears off and he's practically forgotten "courageously" completing his transition into Caitlyn is the only way he'll get it back. I'm predicting that the nut will be nutless.



Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham strongly condemning the terrorist bombing attack on a French gas station killing one and injuring many.




Why haven't your wonderful, celebrating, “denuked” peace partners in normalizing , moderating, truly Islamic Iran condemned Thursday's deadly terror attack in Chattanooga? Why are they silent when five brave, innocent, patriotic Marines were killed and two others wounded? Did they not recently condemn such attacks in and on other Western countries such as France and Italy? Then why are the mullahs mute about Chattanooga just days after you agreed to unfreeze $150 billion in frozen assets? Where's their gratitude? Where's their Islamic goodness and heart?


 Indeed, Mr. President,  in January Iran condemned the terrorist killing of the Charley Hebdo 12 in Paris (see); and likewise last month they  condemned a terror attack near Lyons where a jihadi carrying an ISIS flag detonated several small explosive devices at a gas station killing one and injuring many (see). And just last week Tehran was quick to condemn an ISIS car bomb attack on the Italian consulate in downtown Cairo which killed one civilian and wounded nine (see). Horrible, terrible crimes.


But on Chattanooga we hear nothing, Mr. President. Nothing. No tweets from Iran's Supreme Leader or from "moderate" President Rouhani expressing their condolences to America and the grieving families. Nothing. Not a word from Iran's  foreign ministry which issued the condemnation on the other three Western attacks. Why, Mr. President? Why? We thought you appeased the Iranians and satisfied most if not all of  the many grievances they hold against us? That you won over a good part of their hearts and minds? How could they be so cold and indifferent after all that you've done for them? Is it because they continue to delight in the killing of our "satanic" soldiers of which they killed and wounded  hundreds in Iraq and Afghanistan in terrorist attacks? Is it because they are secretly praising the radical Moslem killer and are hoping more like him  rise up and strike? Could it be that the only regret the mullahs have for the attack is that too few of our soldiers were killed? And that the killer was Sunni not Shiite?

You have a lot of explaining to do, Mr. President. A lot.



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;"> 


Hitler in Vienna (1938, the year of Munich) addressing a cheering pro-Nazi crowd from the balcony of the Imperial Hotel where US and Iran concluded a worse than Munich like deal on Iran's nuclear weapons program (see). 
July 16, 1945. US detonates history's first nuclear bomb.
Just two days before the 70th anniversary of America exploding history’s first nuclear bomb*, in a city formerly occupied by Nazi Germany, at a hotel where a victorious Adolf Hitler resided, the US and Iran ominously finalized a “historic” but worthless agreement on Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program. Obama claims that the deal shuts down EVERY pathway to Iran developing nuclear weapons. But what Obama doesn’t say or want you to know is that Iran can continue to enrich uranium and develop nukes secretly and with impunity thousands of miles away in a distant country friendly to its evil interests. What Obama doesn’t say or want you to know is that in 2012 Iran signed a Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement with its "Axis of Evil" partner nuclear North Korea. What Obama doesn’t want you or anyone to know is that this agreement covers military as well as civilian science and technology projects. What he doesn’t want you to know is that Iran has nuclear scientists and missile technicians in North Korea developing ICBMs for the Norks to carry their nuclear bombs across the pacific to the US.
*July 14th was the 226th anniversary of the FAILED French Revolution.
Mass murdering Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad receiving a delegation from North Korea. The Norks had an illegal covert nuclear program with Syria and most likely have one with Syria's partner Iran in North Korea.

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.

Just as Saudi Arabia is a de facto nuclear power via Pakistan so is Iran via North Korea.
Alarmingly, North Korea’s nukes are for sale on the international market. To ISIS, al-Qaida, drug cartels, crime syndicates, anyone with the cash that’s in the market for nukes will find a willing seller in North Korea. And for the last three years Iran and the world’s most dangerous nuclear proliferators have been secretly working on science and technology projects in North Korea. As North Korea was developing a nuclear weapons plant for Iran’s ally Syria only a fool would doubt that they’re not enriching uranium and building bombs for Iran, or doing this jointly with their scientists and technicians. In short, Obama’s deal with Iran like Hitler's with Chamberlain at Munich is a charade and sham that like Nazi Germany has made Iran a more powerful, confident and emboldened state. The only way to ultimately prevent the Islamonazi  jihadist mullahs from becoming a nuclea power is to destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities along with Iran's. Or topple the mullahs like we toppled Saddam.



 Before Barack Obama became president we had border security chaos and much illegal alien crime. But since the start of his thinly disguised open borders presidency the crime problem of illegals has gotten progressively worse for the victimized American people who are now being aroused by Donald Trump's brash presidential candidacy. Just look at these statistics from the border state of Texas and shudder: 
"Since 2008," says former governor Rick Perry " 203,000 illegal immigrants have been put in Texas' jails, and those illegals have been responsible for 3000 murders and 8000 sexual assaults."  Perry also warns that since 2008 "a record number of illegals from Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border (see)." If these stats don't alarm you nothing will.
Now I'm no fan of Donald Trump's. Since he announced his candidacy for 2016 the only thing I liked about him were his Miss America Pageants. But that has changed. Though he's currently tied with Jeb Bush  in the polls Trump won't be the GOP nominee for president because he's not a serious candidate. But it appears to me, as it should to you, that in the firestorm Trump's unleashed over the crisis of criminal illegal aliens killing, raping and assaulting our citizens that The Donald is doing the work of Providence. Why do I say this? Because of the extraordinary timing of June 16th when Trump announced his candidacy, and the meaningful coincident events just prior to and shortly after that date. This is what I mean, and it's fascinating:

 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.

*32 is a multiple of 16 2x.
But here is where it gets really profound. When  on June 16th Trump launched his bid for the White House little did he or anyone know that 8* years earlier in 2007-to that very date of June 16-the House of Representatives passed an amendment to a Homeland Security spending bill for the withholding of federal emergency services funds from all the 200+ sanctuary cities (see).
*8 is a factor of 16 2x.
 The bipartisan amendment (voted for by 50 Democrats) was sponsored by anti-illegal alien hardliner Tom Tancredo;  but to date it hasn't been passed by the Senate. This needs to be done ASAP so (for the safety and security of our citizens) we can get the ball rolling in putting the nation's sanctuary cities out of the sanctuary business. If Trump doesn't know about Tancredo's amendment hopefully he will soon learn of it and call on the Republican led Senate to pass it. And hopefully, God willing, we get a Republican in the White House in 2016 who will sign legislation banning sanctuary cities forever. 
As the number 16 recurs in this piece could it be a numerical sign pointing to the 16th year of the 21st century? A sign that Trump's candidacy prefigures that border security and illegal alien crime and terrorism coming from Mexico will become the dominant issue of the 2016 election? We shall see.




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.





< p style="text-align: center;">reninvest2013@aol.com


Obama on ISIS threat : ‘Ideologies are not defeated by guns, but by more compelling ideas and vision ’ |  Atlas Shrugs

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. 




 Like Pope Francis he believes in a new world political order of Moslems and Infidels united in brotherly peace to defeat the greatest existential threat to mankind since Ronald Reagan's confrontational "Roll Back" policies against the Soviet Union brought us to the brink of nuclear war: Man Made Catastrophic Global Warming-a complete delusion based on proven, exaggerated, politically driven falsehoods about  "heat trapping carbon emissions" turning the atmosphere into a world destroying furnace.

BTW, Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" policies which bankrupted the Soviet Union (and which hysterical anti-Reagan alarmists like Obama, Biden and Kerry opposed in the 80s) ended the threat of nuclear war which hung over humanity like a Damocles Sword for decades. Just as Obama (and the nuclear freeze movement) was wrong about Reagan so is he (and the warmunists) wrong about carbon emissions threatening the existence of mankind, and being a worse threat than ISIS and Islamic Jihad.

Making carbon emissions the real enemy instead of Islamic Jihad is similar to Obama's mistake of demonizing Ronald Reagan and nuclear weapons as the real enemy of America and the world instead of Soviet communism-which, like Islamic Jihad today, aimed at world domination. Ironically and outrageously the worst and weakest president ever now claims to be the Democrat Ronald Reagan transforming America and the world for the better. It doesn't get any insaner than this.










of the United States he wouldn't have gone to war against the South to restore the Union and free the slaves. Instead, he would have tried to win the hearts and minds of Southerners by making eloquent speeches on the evils of slavery, that it had no place in the mid-19th century, and that Southerners weren't true Americans for having slaves. Does anyone doubt me on this?







that Jesus was a world renouncing ascetic with zero interest in the fleeting, ephemeral pleasures of sex? Or do they believe in the "queer Jesus" of homosexuals? A gay libertine who screwed his disciples and experienced no higher bliss or happiness than sexual orgasms? How do they reconcile Jesus' asceticism with the hedonistic, lust driven, dehumanizing lifestyle of gays? Jesus and gays are polar opposites. The Kingdom of God is found within, not in bodily orgasms and pleasures. But don't tell that to sex crazed "Christian" gays with their sick and slanderous belief in a "queer Jesus"; or to Episcopalian clerics who have completely lost the way.




that he's a first-rate expert on the subject of declining superpowers?/sarc.



doesn't preclude you from being a confused nut case when it comes to Islam. For example: "The [jihadist] Islamic State isn't Islamic," says Obama. But he repeatedly refers to jihadist Iran as "The Islamic Republic of Iran" as if the mullahs are practicing authentic Islam. Truth is the only difference between the Islamic State and the Islamic Republic of Iran is that the one is Sunni, and the other Shiite.


are there in Italy? Answer: Enough for the Italian government to refuse to recognize Islam as a legitimate religion (contributing to the public good) alongside Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism.


his bankrupt socialistic America. As the one goes so does the other if we stay the course of Obamunism-with Hillary swearing to do so.






Louis Farrakhan: 'We need to put the American flag down' | www.wpxi.com

American Flag Burned in Brooklyn War Memorial Park to Protest Racism Spur Controversy | NBC New York


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.


CAIR: Consign Confederate Flag ‘to the Dustbin of History Along With the Nazi Swastika’ · CNSNews.com  

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.

hamshoe  High Information Voter 

 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.

LOL!!! That's as stupid as wanting to ban every US flag before secession because every slave state was represented on it. Moreover, I must be a racist bigot slavery lover for having a replica of the original Old Glory of 1777 of 13 states hanging in my study. For 6 of the 13 states represented on the flag were slave states.


hamshoe  ApolloSpeaks 


"LOL!!! That's as stupid as wanting to ban every US flag before secession because every slave state was represented on it."

None of them were created expressly to signify the attempt to preserve slavery. Or are you arguing that secession was about something else?

Your study must be the single most under-used room in your home.
































Thanks for the amusing post. Every pre-secession American flag was a symbol that a nation half slave half free was morally acceptable. Or are you arguing that those flags represented something else? As you can see I'm making good use of my study where I'm now sitting and watching you lose this argument.




hamshoe  Prove it 


Oh, absolutely [the whole nation was complicit in the evil institution of slavery] , since before the founding of the nation. It was the fear that it [slavery] might be ending that prompted secession.



So now in the 21st century the the British Union Jack is still a symbol of monarchical oppression for us?



Well, seeing as the U.K still exists it has a more contemporary meaning.


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.

In the spirit of freedom every emancipated black southerner was free to leave the South and live anywhere in the US to improve their fortunes-up North, out West wherever.That wasn't the case before the war.


No, it  [the Confederate flag} signifies the attempt to preserve the evil institution of slavery.

And treason.

The Stars and Stripes signify the triumph of justice, the Stars and Bars are the disgraced symbol of racism and evil.



The same could be said of the Union Jack symbolizing in the late 18th century the preservation by force of the evil tyrannical gov't of imperial British oppression in America. As the Civil War was the second phase of the American Revolution what the Union Jack symbolized in the late 18th century the Confederate flag symbolized in the mid-19th century.


Then there is the flag of Japan essentially unchanged since the 1870s. I guess today's Japanese are no different from the racist supremacist monsters who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and oppressed and killed millions in Asia because they have the same flag.



There are tenuous connections, and then there are wishful imaginings based on meaningless visual similarities.

The Confederacy was established precisely and definitively because of a fear that the institution of slavery was going to be abolished in the US. It was defeated and ceased to exist. Any further definition of it's meaning is what the conservative wing of historical thought used to derisively call "revisionist".

The American Civil War was not the second phase of the American War of Independence. The United States was already independent. The American civil war was an armed insurrection that attempted to preserve the evil institution of slavery.

Modern Japan is not the same as the country that attacked Pearl Harbor. That is to say, aside from minor differences like a complete change in their form of government and the renunciation of offensive military action.

The childish "but he did it too!" argument should have been left behind in elementary school.


We're at an impasse. You're morally offended by the Confederate flag because 150 years ago it meant (as it doesn't today) the enforcement of an evil system of slavery. Yet the vast majority of Southerners who still fly the flag, or proudly display it in some way, are no more white supremacists (or neo-Confederate reactionaries like Dylann Roof) than are today's Japanese who have kept the same red and white flag-once a symbol of Japanese racial supremacy and brutal imperialist conquest-for 145 years. Compared to the Japanese fascists of World War II the Confederate states were a nation of angels and saints.
The South went to war against the abolitionist North to keep their damnable slave system. But unlike fascist Japan the Confederacy wasn't a killing machine for a divine emperor and ancestral gods which attacked us at Pearl Harbor and overran Asia killing and enslaving millions. To paraphrase what you said: Modern Japan and the American South are not the same entities that attacked us at Pearl Harbor and the North at Ft. Sumter. If, however, there was no Civil War and the Confederacy with its slave system still existed the Stars and Bars would be as offensive to me as the evil system it represented.
You have an almost complete misconception of Civil War. It's overarching purpose was the revolutionary overthrow of the southern slave system, not a restoration of the old Union: the status quo ante of free and slave states.That brings the Civil War in line with the Revolutionary War which sort the overthrow of the existing tyrannical order and replacement with a more liberal form of government. Just as the British fought to keep their rule over the oppressed colonies so did the South fight to keep its rule over oppressed slaves.In fact Lincoln and the Abolitionists saw the Civil War as a continuation of the struggle for liberty which began in 1776, and the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence with the Gettysburg Address as its extension. Amazingly, just as the First Revolutionary War ended in Virginia with the surrender of Cornwallis the Second Revolutionary War ended in that very state with the surrender of Lee. If this is "elementary school" thinking then I must be debating with a kindergarten tot.





    When Barack Obama was running for the presidency in 2008 he wanted the public to believe that he'd be the "new Abe Lincoln" and "new JFK" rolled into one magnificent historic president. Then shortly after taking office when he signed into law his $800 billion stimulus bill to fix the economy (which was on the mend) he wanted us to believe he was the "new FDR" with a "new New Deal" for America. Now after six and a half years and having failed at being Lincoln, JFK and FDR (at least in foreign policy and fighting wars) this utterly delusional  and worthless man now wants us to believe that he's the Democrat Ronald Reagan transforming America into a more perfect Union and the world into a better and more peaceful place; and that like Reagan he'll have a worthy successor like GHW Bush to carry on his work.

     Indeed, if Obama had a Reagan-like presidency then Hillary for sure (or some other Democrat) would succeed him and be like Bush 41. But Obama is the great anti-Reagan, the ideological foe and polar opposite of that wonderfully wise and gifted man failing in every respect where Reagan was a success. Whereas Reagan knew how to govern, knew how to lead, knew how to negotiate (with domestic and foreign adversaries) and knew how to communicate effectively (raising public morale during a time of troubles with his infectious optimism and patriotic nationalism) Obama has miserably failed at all these things. Whereas Reagan had the judgment, instincts, character and courage to be president and was respected universally by friends and foes alike six years in office and  Obama is still a feckless, blundering, incompent fool whose terribly embarrassing presidency is the laughingstock of the world.

      Indeed, whilst Reagan like Obama inherited from his predecessor a country in economic, military and geostrategic decline unlike Obama Reagan turned us around transforming both the country and world making better what was worse and bringing down the Soviet state after a long Cold War. But because Obama's been no better than Reagan's shadow in practically everything (the economy, foreign policy and the national spirit which he depressed) he has transformed America and the world downwardly prolonging the worst recovery since World War II while emboldening all our enemies who are advancing across the world.

     Indeed, Obama is a worse president and failure than Reagan's predecessor Jimmy Carter who surprisingly agrees with right-wing critics that he has damaged America's power, credibility and prestige in the world making it a more dangerous place and our nation and freedom less safe and secure.

    Now as Obama when compared to Reagan is a mental and moral pipsqueak using his presidency as a model to predict that Hillary or some Democrat will follow him (like Bush 41 did Reagan) just doesn't work. A more reasonable model however with a better chance at predicting 2016 would be Dwight Eisenhower (another president Obama has falsely been compared to). For like Ike Obama has been a two term president; and like Ike Obama was elected and reelected on a November 4th and November 6th election date; and like Ike Obama's successor will be elected on a November 8th election date*. But unlike Ike Obama has been an abysmal failure. And though Ike was a successful two term Republican president he was followed into office by the Democrat John Kennedy who beat his popular VP Richard Nixon in a very close race.

    *The 2016 election falls on November 8th.


    Now given the disastrous course of Obama's presidency-which can only get worse in the months ahead as he's doubling down on stupid and going further and further to the left-doesn't it make better sense that like in 1960 a candidate for president from the opposite party will win the presidency? In other words, if a Democrat could win election during a successful Republican presidency then how much greater are the odds that a Republican will defeat Hillary (ofen compared to the mendacious Nixon) during the presidency of a God awful Democrat president? Using the Eisenhower model the odds for a Republican victory in 2016 look  very great indeed.











    Roman hedonism and licence turning into Christian chastity, virtue and love of God. The libertinism of the Romantic era turning into Victorian self-discipline and restraint. When the destructive effects of today's insane, anything goes, radical individualism (worsened by economic misfortune which is coming) runs its terrible course Americans will come to their senses;  and recalling the values and principles that made us the super power of liberty we will revive them reverse our decline and decadence and restore our nations greatness. And when that happens the cultural conditions for a constitutional amendment  defining marriage as between a man and a woman will prevail, and we shall have normalcy again.




    If we were to resurrect from the dead a homosexual from the Greco-Roman classical world he'd probably think that today's gays had lost their minds; and that the idea of same-sex marriage was unnatural, anti-social and bizarre. Gays from that period respected marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution for the procreation and raising of children and never thought of appropriating it to themselves. As they couldn't procreate the marriage state served no useful purpose to them in terms of personal happiness or to society in adding anything good or of value.

    Indeed, gays from that period didn't feel like oppressed, victimized, emotionally incomplete second class citizens because they couldn't be legally married. Some of them even wrongly thought that male homosexual unions were superior to heterosexual unions. That women being the weaker, gentler, more sensitive sex weakened a man's moral fiber and mental strength, while men strengthened these qualities in each other. Those gays (perverse though they were) make today's gays look like emotionally adolescent imbeciles. Homosexuality is a form of sexual folly in any age or culture. But today's gays (and their straight supporters) are the biggest ass clowns of history.






    think that the 5-4 ruling on same-sex marriage will change the sad reality that gays are mentally and physically the sickest and most diseased group of people in this country-that is to say, the most unhappiest and miserable Americans-then they are deluding themselves with an idealized view of gays that has nothing to do with the truth. Indeed, because of their great unhappiness gays will continue to be "sore winners," as George Will says. Indeed, not content with the 5-4 ruling (or any gains they have made as nothing appeases or pleases them) gays, as David Harsanyi warns, will press on to persecute, punish and socially pulverize those who oppose them and continue to speak the truth about their depraved practices and dehumanizing lifestyle. And that will be a cultural disaster.

    from the Greco-Roman world he'd probably think that today's gays had lost th



    Mark Salter





    'What is nature's reason for sexual pleasure?' settles the question whether homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy and good and morally equal to heterosexuality. The answer of course is an unqualified NO! By nature, and overriding everything else, sexual pleasure is nature's reward for procreation as human sexuality finds its greatest value, true purpose and fulfillment in bringing the beautiful gift of new life into this world. Anyone who sees dignity, worth and "beautiful rainbow colors" in sexual activity that dehumanizes, depresses and sickens those who practice it is an ignoramus on this subject, however well-meaning or (blindly) compassionate they are.

    If Mark Salter were to experiment and live a life of sexual depravity practicing anal and oral sex he'd inevitably come to grief understanding from the terrible, sanity destroying psychological effects how very wrong and damaging it is. And after going through hell he'd realize what the wisest men in history have understood and said: that a healthy society discourages these practices in its members.  



    Ask any heterosexual supporter of gay marriage rights the following question: "If you want children and God came down from heaven and gave you a choice of having either gay kids or straight kids which would you choose?" What do you think most of them with great difficulty* would answer? And why would they answer "we'd prefer straight over gay kids?" Because most of them want biological grand children.

    *Whenever I put this question to libs in most cases I have to drag the right answer out of them.


    Scalia's Full Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage Rulin- Frontpage


    Scalia said that on Obamacare SCOTUS became SCOTUSCARE.

    What he didn't say is that on same-sex marriage SCOTUS became SCUMOTUS.

    s because they couldn't be legally married. Some of them even thought that male homosexuality was superior to heterosexual unions. That women being the weaker, gentler, more sensitive sex weakened a man's moral fiber and mental strength. Those gays (perverted though they were) make today's gays look like emotionally adolescent imbeciles. Homosexuality is a form of sexual folly in any age. But today's gays are the biggest a*s clowns of history.


    After momentous week, Obama's presidency is reborn - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO

    "He sang. He wept. He cheered. And many say they finally saw the man who inspired them in '08."


    worsening leftist-caused racial tensions, a weak trickle growth economy verging on recession with soaring trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities, a collapsing incoherent rudderless foreign policy that failed at Russian Reset, Moslem Outreach, Israeli-Palestinian peace, and is emboldening terrorist Iran and ISIS to expand their influence across the radicalized unstable Middle East Obama's presidency, despite so much wreckage and ruin says Dovere, has been reborn this week? Why? Because he sang at a church? Wept over a racist killing? Saw a Confederate flag taken down? And cheered two bad illegal Supreme Court decisions-one which gave unconstitutional marriage rights to unhappy, miserable sexual deviants as if they were heterosexuals? 


    As the most unfit to command president in US history (and the left's worse nightmare) leads America into economic, military and geopolitical decline what we saw this week was perhaps the last hurrah of the old "Hope and Change" Obama with an unsustainable bump. In other words, good week or not  the trajectory of Obama's failing presidency will continue its downward slide of  incompetence, blunders, bad decisions and lies toward a  legacy of ashes, disaster and dust . Obama's terrible presidency is an unmistakable sign the radical, spendthrift, anything goes left is in its end time.




    rightwingersRmorons listing Obama's supposed "achievements" writes:

    Killed OBL

    Took out Gaddafi

    Lowered unemployment 30.76% (down 46.53% since 2009 peak caused by the Bush

    Has a record 63 straight months of added jobs (broke all time record 11 times)

    2014 was America's best year of job growth since 1999

    Lowered the deficit 71%

    Ended the Iraq war

    Ended the Afghanistan war

    Veteran Unemployment Falls To 7-Year Low

    Black unemployment falls to 7-year low

    Obama on pace to have the most private sector jobs created
    in any single Presidential term ever

    DOW rose 127%

    S&P rose 157%

    Corporate profits up 174%

    Auto industry saved

    12 million new people got health insurance

    5.0 % GDP (Bush left at -8.9%)

    Highest consumer confidence in 9 years

    Job openings up 81%

    Most job openings since 2000

    12.6 million jobs created

    NET 7.46 million jobs (Bush was NET 1 million in 8 years)

    Uninsured Rate Drops to Lowest Level since The '90s. Down
    28% since ACA kicked in.

    Unemployment Benefits Applications Fall To 15-Year Low

    Strongest dollar in 10 years

    Had no major terrorist attacks

    Got Assad to turn over all his chemical weapons without a shot fired

    Got Iran to talk peace about nukes

    Has the lowest middle class taxes in 50 years

    Was the lowest govt spender in 60 years

    Broke a record for the reduction of govt workers.

    Record deportation of illegal aliens.




    Obama dithered for seven months before taking out OBL thus endangering the mission; and is indebted to Bush's counter terrorism program for finding OBL's courier in 2007. If Bush had a third term (or McCain were president) OBL would have been dead before Christmas 2010 (see).

    Obama regrets toppling Kaddafy as it caused the collapse of Libya into chaos,  the surge of radicalism across the country, and the pre-planned 9/11 attack on the Bengahzi consulate which killed four Americans (see).

    When using honest metrics Obama's real unemployment rate is at "11%," as Bernie Sanders says (see). Indeed, when millions of discouraged workers are added to Obama's fraudulent low jobless rate-as Sanders rightly does-he has the poorest jobs creation record for any recovery in the last 70 years (see). Obama's government is the answer, spend baby spend, anti-growth policies, and success punishing class warfare agenda, have been a lead blanket around the economy inhibiting innovation and growth; and created the most part-time and low paying jobs of any recovery since the end of WWII (see).

    Obama cut his own record-breaking $trillion deficits which is no accomplishment; and has failed to cut Bush's $480 billion deficit in half as promised in 2008. We're still accumulating huge amounts of bankrupting debt and entitlement liabilities in the unsustainable trillions, with Obama assuring us that there's no looming debt crisis (see).


    With a frightening $18 trillion in fiscal debt and an even more frightening $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities what kind of budget did the most reckless spending head of state in history propose for 2015? According to the CBO a budget that would add a staggering $6 trillion in deficits over the next ten years (see).The proposal was so bizarre and deranged that the Senate quashed it in a 99-1 vote. When it comes to deficit spending and accumulating debt Barack Obama is George Bush gone completely insane.

    Driven by domestic reelection politics Obama ignored the warnings of his generals of Iraq returning  to pre-surge chaos if we withdrew our forces prematurely. In fact, he failed to  use the immense leverage he had of $60 billion in Iraq Reconstruction Funds to keep a contingency force in Iraq, as Leon Panetta sadly says in his autobiography (see).

    We are still fighting in Afghanistan as Iran supplies arms to the Taliban while Obama negotiates a dangerous, unserious, ridiculous nuke deal with them that makes us the laughing-stock of the world (see).

    Obama has a phony, Fed-manipulated, overpriced, record DOW deceptively achieved in part by lending cheap money to public firms to buy their own stocks (record-breaking buybacks, see) which is artificially inflating prices. This is a huge devastating market bubble in the making (see).

    Corporate profits are up under Obama. But this is due mostly to cost cutting measures not sales. Retail sales are a pathetic 29% of GDP under Obama. When Reagan left office ii was 68% Was 68% (see).

    Obama saved GM and Chrysler at a loss of billions to the taxpayer (see). The US auto industry (Ford, Toyota USA, Honda USA, Mercedes USA, etc,) would have survived the crash of both companies as consumer  demand for cars would have been unchanged.

    Meanwhile auto makers are  boosting sales with with  SUB PRIME loan programs. These are the same risky loans that tanked the housing market in 08 (see).

    Obama is trying to boost sagging home sales with billions in SUB PRIME mortgages given to credit poor borrowers through the FHA. After 08 sub prime housing crash this is completely irresponsible, reckless and insane. (see).

    Obamacare is hugely unpopular due to surging premiums and deductibles when steep savings were promised. Chuck Schumer and other Dems now admit that Obamacare was "a huge political mistake."

    Assad cheated on chemical weapons. He failed to dismantle his WMD production infrastructure, and keeps WMD scientists and techs on the gov't payroll; he most likely has hidden, undeclared stockpiles of WMD (see).

    Obama has phony, laughable deportation numbers that fraudulantly counts people turned away at the borders (see).

    Only 15% of active military personnel give Obama a favorable rating on leadership-the lowest of any president in memory (see).

    62% of Americans say Obama's America is on the wrong track; meaning that Obama is

    Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter. Or is it Herbert Hoover or James Buchanan? Take your pick. 














    "A huge mistake."

    Responding to his constituents profound dissatisfaction with Obama's failing health care law (the most unpopular legislation in a generation and a Pyrrhic victory that wasn't worth it) Senator Schumer anticipating worse to come caved to political and economic reality and said after the devastating 2014 election:

    "Democrats acted wrongly in using their new mandate after the 2008 election to focus on the issue [of healthcare reform] rather than the economy at the height of a terrible recession..(see)"

    Indeed, it seems that Schumer devotes much of his time these days apologizing to New Yorkers for backing the expensive growth and jobs killing law instead of focusing on fixing the worse economy since the Great Depression to reverse the decline the eroding middle class-which Obamacare is hurting most.

    "After passing the stimulus," said Schumer," Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them, We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong 
    problem—health care reform."

    Schumer underscoring the utter political folly of Democrats turning the health insurance industry inside out and on its head, and causing so much chaos and economic pain, said: "Just about 5 percent of registered voters in the United States lacked health insurance before the implementation of the law. To have focused on a problem affecting such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense."

    No sense, indeed. But what did he expect from a deaf, dumb and blind radical left community organizer who was recklessly hell-bent for the sake of "fairness" on getting that 5 percent insured regardless of the consequences to the recovery and the rest of America-who were mostly satisfied with their insurance and opposed reform. But being a socialist warrior for the underclass at war with success and everyone else Obama simply did what he had done for decades: he lied and lied and lied to the 95 percent that his law would keep the popular healthcare status quo while lowering costs and insuring every uninsured American-all 30 million of them. It was to be an unprecedented, historic win-win for everyone: healthcare heaven for all with everyone (rich, poor and in between) finally insured. What a legacy for posterity Obama envisioned for himself: up there with LBJ and Medicare. But Obama's promised heaven is now a political nightmare and hell for Democrats, and a worsening disaster for the middle class who have seen their work hours shrink and wages stagnate or drop as more of them turn to government assistance adding to the debt, and making our coming national bankruptcy increasingly more painful. 

     In short, like Obamanomics (another failed New Deal/Keynesian stimulus) and Dodd Frank (punishing banks for a corrupt government housing program started by Clinton which doesn't protect consumers) Obamacare (class warfare by health insurance means) was another thoughtless hoax and change, Obama-Democrat social justice lie that Schumer and other Dems are fleeing from in droves.

    But for 2016 the question now is this : will Hillary, like Schumer, Tom Harkin and other Dems, runaway too? So far she's been an enthusiastic supporter of the unpopular law attacking Republicans for wanting to repeal it and leave millions uninsured (see). But as things go from bad to worse for the working middle class with skyrocketing premiums and deductibles to pay for millions of uninsured Americans (most of whom don't have coverage yet) Hillary will have to turn on Obamacare and moving farther to the left join with Bernie Sanders and call for single payer, socialized, Medicare For All-a big government solution to Obama's big government debacle. But the problem there is that Medicare For Some will be bankrupt by 2026; single payer Medicare For all would speed that up to 2020 if we're lucky. As the public is wary of federal solutions Obamacare with sluggish economic growth, the debt explosion, a collapsing foreign policy and middle class , and the trust issue could be Hillary's political undoing.




    But for how long? As the Klu Klux Kueers are now super emboldened to punish and persecute any American opposed to homosexuality as unnatural, immoral and sick, as polygamists, polyandrists, adult-child and every other nontraditional form of marriage will be wanting legalization, how long will it take before normal, natural, healthy straight Americans put a stop to this madness and demand a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the traditional sense? It can't happen too soon.
    Fear not! When this era of anything goes dehumanizing hedonism and sexual depravity runs its destructive course (as has often happened in history) and the American people coming to their senses (as they're slowly doing on abortion) support in Congress a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, you gays who are married will be allowed to stay married until the day that you die.



    Though Obama threw Reverend Wright overboard in 2008 he kept aspects of his black supremacist ideology.

    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: 

    “The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination" said Obama to Maron, "in almost every institution of our lives, you know, that casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. We’re not cured of it..” 
    Racism is in our what? DNA. And passed on from whom to whom? Parents to children generation to generation. Whose DNA? Not that of black people, red people, yellow people, Hispanics or Arabs. It's only white people who are genetically racist, Obama seems to believe. Indeed, the belief that only whites are racist (that alone of all races they have a racist gene) is pure, hateful Reverend Wright black supremacism which, as I said above, Obama was exposed to for twenty years.
    Now as no one's DNA can be altered or changed, and anti-black racism is innate in every white American's genes they, according to Obama, are unalterably, incurably, inescapably racist. Though, in spite of this, there's been great progress since the Civil War in civil rights for blacks, as Obama admits, it has reached its limit going as far as it can in righting past injustices and wrongs. Ultimately, according to Obama, there is no cure for white racism;  no hope of us building a truly just society of racial equality. Though we've had a Civil War with 500,000 dead, civil rights legislation protecting blacks from bigotry in the public and private sectors, a War on Poverty costing  US tax payers $19 trillion since the mid 1960s, and reverse discrimination programs aimed at "white privlege" to even the score  it's still not enough for Obama and the unappeasable radicals on the left. The lot of them are sore winners never happy with any gains and always wanting more.  America's got to pay and keep on paying for past and ongoing sins until the greatest debtor nation on Earth goes broke and there's nothing left to give.




    Since the terrible Charleston church shooting last week we've learned a great deal about sick, delusional gunman Dylann Storm Roof from his website and friends. We've learned that his radicalization into an evil racist mass murderer began with the demonization of George Zimmerman as a bloodthirsty racist killer of an unarmed black teen by the insane, race obsessed, lynch mob left who to this day cry out for his hide though he committed no crime. It was in the super-charged atmosphere of racist hate created by the left where the innocent Mr. Zimmerman was judged guilty of murder deserving prison or death that Roof  took his first step in the jouney that would end in a masscare. For Root began to research "Black on White crime" and found tons of material on violent anti-white racism and murder that poisoned his soul drove him insane making a white supremacist of him. As he read through this stuff and obsessed over it and saw the media and racist left vilifying Zimmerman for defending himself against a violent, black, gangbanging thug he apparently began to fantasize in his sick, twisted   increasingly racist head the killing of blacks for revenge.
      But why did Roof wait so long to act? When he gunned down those nine sweet innocent church going blacks in that historic Charleston church it was 39 months after Trayvon Martin's self-defense death. Why didn't he act sooner to realize his warped fantasies and satisfy his lust for black blood?  Was it for lack of a weapon that he waited so long? In other words, if Root was armed back in 2012 would he have gone out and massacred blacks to avenge all the undeserved hate and violent rhetoric directed at Zimmerman? And all the black hate crimes against whites that go unreported by the press? Probably not. Roof was angry as hell with blacks for vilifying Zimmerman; but that wasn't enough to push him over the edge into murderous extremist rage; it wasn't enough to form in his growing racist neo-nazi brain the paranoid delusion that blacks were taking over America and dooming whites to subservience and bondage that needed a race war to prevent. No.That required something bigger and more frightful than anti- Zimmerman hate; that required the riots in Ferguson that were triggered by the racist lie that Michael Brown surrendered to Darren Wilson before he was shot; that required the protests in New York that were set off when Officer Pantaleo wasn't indicted for Eric Garner's self-caused death-and then two cops were killed by a Moslem black man in revenge; that required the mayhem and riots in Baltimore over worthless drug dealer Freddie Grey's death which most likely was unintentional when he was riding in a police van under arrest.
    Indeed, Dylann Roof's buddy Joseph Meek said while drinking with him one night that "Roof began ranting about Freddie Gray and Baltimore."  Baltimore it seems was the last straw for Roof; after Zimmerman, Ferguson and New York the anti-white, anti-cop Freddie Grey riots there completely unhinged him and decided his terrible fate. And now nine innocent blacks are dead in no small measure due to the deranged radical racist left and their hatred of America as an unjust and racist place.
    On Friday June 19th, two days after the Charlston church massacre which, as we have seen, is rooted in Trayvon Martin's death,  Matthew Apperson, the Florida man  who took a shot at George Zimmerman in a road rage incident in May nearly killing him, was charged by prosecutors with attempted second degree murder. Apparently Apperson was trying to finish the job started by Trayvon Martin who failed to kill Zimmerman as he was grounding and pounding his head on a concrete sidewalk. The timing is very strange (see).


    Does the 'Catholic vote' even exist? - Ben Schreckinger - POLITICO

    If you put Al Gore's face on Pope Francis it would hardly make a bit of difference.



    With the great scientific climate change "consensus" confounded by 18 unbroken 
    years of stagnant global temperatures and failed predictions of catastrophe (from a misunderstanding of carbon dioxide), with a 30 year cooling trend re-icing Antarctica, with Greenland covered with snow again, and temperatures in North America dropping, the Pope-trying to make the Church relevant by moving to the insane, carbon obsessed, humanity is doomed left, is dealing with yesterday's made up climate change crisis. And what is particularly pathetic is the Pope's utopian solution of a world political authority controlling the earth's resources and redistributing wealth from rich to poor nations. Like the man in the White House Pope Francis has chronic truth and reality problems that are making him one of history's worst popes.

    As a Catholic, I wonder where the Pope gets his information. It's possible that the Vatican's science "experts" who advise him are typical pawns for the climate-cult.


    ApolloSpeaks  L_Dave 


    It's likely that the Pope's science experts are divided on the issue; and that he went with the alarmists because it's the trend and good PR for the Church.


    There isn't a single Science Organization on Earth that shares your views. Why is that?


    You're also wrong about the 18 years of stagnant temperatures



    Practically every climate scientist is theorizing and debating 
    about the cause of the unexpected phenomenon called "THE GREAT PAUSE" in 
    LOWER ATMOSPHEREIC global temperatures-not surface temperatures. You're 
    confusing the two.

    Fact is, what we are putting into the atmosphere, according to 
    the RSS satellite record, isn't catastrophically heating it. Higher surface 
    temperatures (if they are happening) are not due to a rise in atmospheric 
    temperatures which haven't happened for 18 years.


    Nope...Read the article again.


    "Combine that with data from NASA's CERES sensor, which shows the rate of
    heat uptake by the whole planet is nearly constant, and it becomes 
    clear that the planet is still warming, even as the increase in surface 
    air temperatures lull temporarily."



    Which NASA are we to believe? The NASA that said before 2000 that US 
    temperatures were cooling since the 1930s, and that 1934 was much warmer than 
    1998? Or the NASA that completely reversed the data after 2000? That said US temperatures were warming since the 30s and that 1934 was much cooler 
    than 1998?

    NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

    NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

    Whither U.S. Climate?
    By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 

    Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed 
    precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

    in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time 
    of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there 
    was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

    NASA GISS: Science 
    Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

    NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

    February 04, 1989

    Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’sNational 
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings 
    for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no 
    significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) 
    Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states 
    agreed with those findings.

    New York Times

    Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, 
    making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below 
    shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US 
    history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 
    1930 into a warming trend.

    Source: NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science


    There you go again, posting political right wing websites. I got a novel idea if you want to gain support...Try posting links to websites by actual scientific organizations. I know that would be impossible for you because worldwide there isn't on single scientific organization that supports denialism :(


    Let me understand this. Before 2000 NASA wasn't a credible scientific organization on the subject of US global warming because it supported denialism? And since 2000 it became a credible entity for doing the politically correct thing and altering the data to agree with the useless, politically failing alarmism of climate change extremists who insanely turn a slight natural warming of the planet into a coming world ending, humanity killing apocalypse? What does such a far-fetched doomsday prophesy of future man-caused catastrophe (for which there is no 
    practical solution if it were true) have to do with rational, hard-headed, fact based science? NOTHING!


     Bill Brasky  ApolloSpeaks 


    Listen, if NASA has your panties in a jam, than ignore them. There are 200 other scientific organizations that say the exact same thing.


    ApolloSpeaks  Bill Brasky 


    You mean the 200 crackpot warmunist groups like NASA that got the science of carbon dioxide wrong? That based on an exaggerated, politically driven notion of its heat trapping nature have made all sorts of laughably bad embarrassing climate predictions about the catastrophic heating of the atmosphere (by two or three degrees or more) causing extreme weather events, like, for example: snowless winters in Great Britain, Canada and the Northern US by 2006. Or the 50 million people that were to be displaced by melting glaciers and rising sea levels by 2008. Or the malaria that would ravage the coastal areas of Spain, Italy and France by 2010. Or the worldwide droughts and crop failures causing global famine with millions starving to death before eating their kids by 2012. Or New York becoming the Venice of North America by 2015 with gondolas floating down 5th Avenue to the music of Vivaldi. Or Miami joining the lost continent of Atlantis at the bottom of the sea. Before my life is through do you think I could enjoy a summer vacation in Antarctica or the North Pole? Will man made global warming make Antarctica green again like it was 50 million years ago when Nature turned it into a tropical paradise with palm trees, turtles and honey bees?

    Now what all your 200 groups need do to save planet Earth from CO2 caused Waterworld is come up with $44 trillion (IPCC estimate) for redistribution to the developing third world to reverse its rip-roaring dirty industrialization-where coal-fired plants are springing up like weeds; and the use of polluting, gas guzzling cars is growing exponentially. Where are you warmunists going to get that kind of dough? From America, Europe, Japan which are drowning in entitlement debt? Or from a massive carbon tax to impoverish more of the middle class? Maybe you can get it from the Vatican Bank? Or the Pope can auction off some art for you: Michelangelos, Raphaels, Giottos, the Cistine Chapel ceiling. If not then a miracle you'll need to avert Climate Armageddon. Maybe the Pope can help you here and intercede with God to keep global temperatures down; or make coal, oil and fracking disappear along with carbon from the atmosphere. Good thing this holy man is your friend. When all else fails God is there to continue life on Earth despite man's climate sins until the dying Sun becomes a red giant expanding its radius 200 times turning Earth's surface into a burning sea of molten lava like Dante's seventh hell. It's what I call GLOBAL SCORCHING. Unlike your Waterworld bull Global Scorching is a real, catastrophic, science based, doomsday, climate change event. Pray for climate peace my friend, and that man conquers space across the stars before the dying Sun destroys him.

    Space is destiny

    It must be conquered

    On it depends our survival

    The Sun is a mortal star

    The Earth a perishable sphere

    And man a temporary earthling

    And that is the truth!








    Why does this radical leftist, race obsessed, self-hating white woman prefer the fantasy of being black over the reality of her pure white biological heritage? Answer: she has an extreme pathological hatred of white people who she perceives and stereotypes as evil, unjust, unredeemable racist oppressors of blacks; and believes (in her deranged leftist mind) that identifying with blacks and their victimhood saves her from the sin and crime of being white....transforming her into a morally whole and just human being on the side of the angels and saints.  
    Dolezal's rage against whites  includes her good, decent white Christian parents (they adopted four black kids) who she accuses of racism because they're white wouldn't go along with her immoral charade .
    In other words, as absurd and crazy as it is, what Jesus is to Christians blackness is to Rachel Dolezal. Falsely claiming that she first discovered her inner blacknesss at age five she obviously believes that she's a black soul trapped in a white woman's body needing racial liberation. And being a social justice activist working for black causes trying to right racial wrongs isn't enough to free her. Freedom for Dolezal meant convincing the world of her blackness by lying about her parents and past and looking and acting the part of a black woman as much as was possible. In short, she needed others to believe she was black to believe it more strongly and bury herself deeper and deeper in the lie.
    Equating whiteness with evil and blackness with good (because victims are holier than oppressors) Rachel Dolezal has been trying to remake herself into a black woman in an absurd act of spiritual redemption.


    But reality finally caught up to Rachel Dolezal. After years of self-deception and profitably fooling the world of her blackness (advancing to an executive position in the NAACP and winning awards) Dolezal's white parents (who she racially hates) struck back and shattered her false persona which she now tragically clings to and  refuses to let go lest the intolerable reality of being white drags her back down to the netherworld of racial damnation and hell.
    I rejoice in this women's downfall as I do in all evil people. And evil Dolezal is as her hatred of whites (shared by too many blacks) is unjustified and poisons and divides our culture turning blacks against whites for past racial wrongs considered unforgivable because of the stupid belief it created  lasting damage and harm.  If anyone needs a psychiatrist it's the Rachel Dolezals of this world.





    of FDR's first One Hundred Days (6-13-1933), a weak, uninspiring, ineffectual Hillary Clinton (sounding like the Walking Dead) tacitly vowed on Roosevelt Island to rescue the worst economy since the Great Depression (with a real jobless rate of 11%*) with another "new New Deal." Nevermind that the old New Deal was a failure that prolonged the Great Depression for years; and that Obama's costly version (the biggest stimulus in history) has caused the weakest economic recovery since the end of World War II (now verging on a double dip recession). But with Hillary at the helm it will be different. She has a "rendezvous with destiny" to RESET the New Deal and make New Deal liberalism work at last.

    *As stated by Bernie Sander's in his Burlington kick off speech.

    America has had two New Deals, both were failures. Now Hillary is promising a third. Who is singing "Yesterday"?

    How? What's Hill's secret? Will she be guided by the spirits of FDR and Eleanor from the great beyond? Nah. There's actaully nothing mystical about it. Hillary's the wife of a president who presided over a roaring economic recovery that lifted millions out of poverty and created millions of good paying jobs. Never mind that that recovery was sparked by a technological revolution that started before her husband took office; never mind it was enhanced by a phony housing boom he caused by recklessly putting millions of low-income folks into homes they couldn't afford. Indeed, never mind the housing boom was a devastating bubble that crashed the economy costing America trillions, and the election of Obama and an America in progressive collapse and decline; it's Hillary to the rescue promising that government which is going broke and can't fix itself will fix everything that's broken: from unequal pay for women (which is a lie), to the GOP suppression of minority votes (another lie), to the catastrophic man-caused heating of the atmosphere (that's not happening); indispensible Hill promises a New Deal for a new America of shared propserity with a 21st century green economy that will work for all leaving no one behind-not even the filthiest down and out bum.


    And for those Hillary hating right-wing conspirators who deny that she had any significant foreign policy achievements as secretary of state she reminded us Saturday that she was present in the Situation Room when Barack Obama (after seven months of dithering) ordered the hit on Bin Laden that killed him dead. That more than made up for Benghazl when bin Laden virtually returned from the dead killing four Americans on 9/11-foreshadowing the resurgence of Islamic extremism across the region.





    What she did for US/Russian relations

    and the peace and security of the Middle East

    she'll do for me and you and this once great country. 





    One of the big, ugly easily disprovable lies of the anti-semitic BDS movement to destroy Israel, and promoted by our pro-Palestinian imbecile president ("the most Jewish who ever lived"), is that Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Jews living in East Jerusalem constitute an unjust, immoral, illegal occupation of Palestinian Arab lands, and violation of Palestinian human rights; and that all the Jews living there (because they are Jews) must collectively pack up and deport themselves (or be forcibly removed) because they have no legal or moral right to be there.
    And backing this lie are a slew of UN Resolutions. One such resolution (446) goes so far as to falsely accuse Israel of violating the Forth Geneva Convention by illegally transferring whole populations of Jews to Palestinian Arab lands (that Palis have never owned)-which in reality has never happened. As I argue below based on the reality and history of East Jerusalem and the West Bank before the Arab-Isreali War of 1948 Jews have an absolute moral and legal right to live there-as do the bigoted, intolerant, hate driven Palestinian Arabs who lack the moral maturity and humanity to live with them in peace and want them gone.
    I'll get straight to the point: 67 years ago Jordanian troops-while waging a Nazi-like war of annihilation with six other Jew hating Arab states to crush the new-born state of Israel-illegally invaded and seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem which had been-but were no longer- under the mandatory control of Great Britain. Then Jordan's anti-semitic Arab king, Abdullah I, wanting an exclusively Arab West Bank and East Jerusalem issued an illegal, human rights violating decree making it unlawful for Jews to live there-while Arabs were granted full Jordanian citizenship. The decree was followed by the forced illegal expulsion (ethnic cleansing) of thousands of Jews whose homes, lands and businesses were confiscated by Abdullah and his regime. And what did the UN do? Did they pass resolutions condemning this ethnic cleansing of Jews, or demanding compensation for the theft of their property and lands? NO! They acquiesced in the purge and did nothing.
    Then 19 years later justice came: after enduring the killing of thousands of Jews inside Israel from terrorist attacks launched in part from East Jerusalem and the West Bank Israel in a legal, justified defensive war against Jordan (and several other Arab states) invaded and conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank ending Jordan's illegal occupation and racist regime. Then reversing Abdullah's ethnic cleansing decree Israel-to the outrage of Jew hating Jordanian Arabs (later called Palestinians)- RESTORED THE STATUS QUO ANTE and repopulated the West Bank and East Jerusalem with thousands of Jews who (contrary to what UN Resolution 442 says) VOLUNTARILY came to live there as they once had for centuries.  
    Now as Jordan's illegal, immoral and unjustified ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem was completely ignored by the UN, and the subsequent Israeli conquest of those areas righted a great moral, legal and historic wrong against the Jewish people, resolutions such as 446 are BAD LAWS based on falsehoods and lies and are therefore invalid-as are all accusations of "land theft" "illegal occupation" "oppression" "apartheid" "colonization" etc. by Israel's Arab enemies and their deranged leftist allies.
    Indeed, as Israel necessarily seized the West Bank and East Jerusalem from an aggressive racist Arab regime for security reasons, and as the aggressor (Jordan) in violation of international law illegally conquered those lands (they belonged to no nation at the time and to this day are "disputed"), where then are the injustices and crimes attributed to Israel from seizing those lands? How do the Jewish victims of racism, cultural imperialism and religious intolerance returning to lands which they previously lived on for centuries and were unjustly expelled constitute "theft" "illegal occupation" and "colonization" of those lands?  
    Of course these charges are preposterous and false and should be dismissed as the racist ravings of bigoted Arab lunatics poisoned by centuries of theologically inspired hatred-and stupidly believed by useful leftist idiots who love to bleed for victims of injustice real or imagined. 
    The truth is this: in 1948 Jordan ethnically cleansed the West Bank and East Jerusalem of its Jewish inhabitants because they were Jews; and today the Palestinians (quoting the Koran) who claim to rightfully own  every inch of East Jerusalem and the West Bank want to return to the Jordanian policy of ethnic cleansing and purge both areas of Jews all over again.
    And if anyone reading this doubts that the Jewish character, for example, of the West Bank settlements is the fundamental reason for Palestinian hostility and rage then let him ask himself this simple question: would this hostility persist if the Israeli government replaced Jewish settlers with Arab-Moslem citizens from Israel in a mass population exchange? Of course not. As Palestinians (because of faith and race) regard Israeli Arabs as Palestinians the bogus issue of "illegal, occupying, colonialist Israelis" would suddenly disappear. In fact, if Jewish Israel were to surrender to Allah and convert en masse to Islam the decade's old Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be resolved once and for all. For Israel would no longer be an infidel state of filthy non-Moslem sinners desecrating the Arabian Peninsula (the birthplace of Islam), and making Moslems (with their medieval sensibilities) murderously mad.



    On July 9, 2005, just one month into the 57th year of Israel's against-all-odds, miraculous existence as the Middle East's only functioning liberal democracy and modern state, 171 racist Palestinian organizations evilly banded together and launched the ill-fated "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement" to undermine, delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state (because it's Jewish) by nonviolent economic and political means. Under the guise of international law the Palestinians (a people created to destroy Israel) are scheming to replace the world's only Jewish state with the world's 57th Moslem state (Palestine) because the one Jewish state is a terrible offense to medieval Moslem sensibilities and makes the Islamic world (one vast insane asylum) crazy with hatred and murderous rage.
    In other words, BDS is a thinly veiled attempt at a ONE STATE SOLUTION for resolving the decades' old  Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict where Democratic Israel with its Jewish majority and Arab Moslem minority (having the same  political, economic and social rights as Jews) would be reversed with a Jewish minority living in political, religious and economic oppression (if they're allowed to live al all) just like the shrinking Christian minority in freedom hating, human rights crushing Palestinian lands. 
    Now this Palestinian and leftist scheme for a new 57th Moslem state (dominating the once Jewish land of Israel) would be achieved by forcing Israel through international economic and political pressures (boycotts, divestments and sanctions) to recognize the so-called "right of return" of five million mostly poor, illiterate, unskilled, Jew hating Palestinian refugees (holed up in squalid refugee camps)  who were created by the Arab states when they invaded Israel in 1948 to crush the new born Jewish state.
     BDS is now in its tenth year of unjustified economic warfare against the Jewish state; and thought  it has done some damage to Israel's highly productive and innovative free market economy  it's not any closer to achieving its impossible goal of destroying and Islamizing Israel than it was in 2004 when it began. What makes BDS so foolish and futile is the common sense understanding among Israelis that suffering some economic pain is overwhelmingly preferable to a flood of savage Pali refugees plunging  the country into a devastating  civil war. In short, the Zionist state is here to stay. And  nothing short of nuking her into oblivion is going to change that.
    Netanyahu and Hollande


    to the democratic Jewish State of Israel that 15 wars great and small, and hundreds of public relations disasters couldn't do in 67 years? Israeli Jews are virtually unbreakable morally stronger than all their Moslem and leftist enemies combined. And they will outlast BDS like every other attempt to bring them down. You want BDS? Bring it on and watch it fail!


    That's not the point, it's having someone on the board of directors that has supported BDS, which is also spreading like wildfire on our own college campuses, who's supporters openly call for ending the Jewish state of Israel and discriminate against Jewish college students. BDS supporters rallied openly at UC Davis, shouting Allah Akbar at Jewish students. It is an anti-Semitic movement and should have no ties in any Jewish foundation!



    Nevertheless, do you really believe that these morally deranged lunatics have the remotest chance of realizing their wicked, hate driven dream of BDSing nuclear armed "Never Again" Jewish Israel into oblivion?




    Yeah, I do. They are part of a worldwide rising anti-Semitic movement who want to destroy Israel. Obama is leading the charge with his talks with Iran who want to blow Israel off the map. It's a scary time to be a Jew and the most dangerous time since WWII.



    Nuclear armed Israel is in a much stronger position to survive than nuclear North Korea that no one dares to attack. Israel's on shore/off shore arsenal of nuclear weapons (and ICBM capability) in the middle of the economically vital Middle East ensures its existence. Within minutes Israel could turn the region into a radioactive wasteland with millions dead, and plunge the world economy into a devastating depression. Jews did not have that kind of power during WWII. Check out the Samson Option.



    Unfortunately.....yes. They are well supported by the Left, the shameful UN and the European Union.Obama is onboard as well and has yet to do his greatest damage to Israel. Hang on, it's going to be a wild ride.

    Hopefully, Netanyahu will wake up and once BHO does his "non defense" of Israel and abandons them at the UN Security council, "for their own good". Maybe Israel will finally take the offensive, annex Judea and Samaria and tell the UN to piss off (which they should have done years ago).

    Time will tell....and it will be a matter of months. BHO will have his wrath delivered before his term expires. Most likely after he does his "newspeak" on his Iran deal - doing high 5's with his European BDS friends.......

    Today's Supreme Court decision just emboldens BHO even more.




    Good news out of France yesterday (I didn't see this one coming): Hollande opposes BDS.

    Like I said earlier: the Israeli people that I know are virtually unbreakable, and prepared for any kind of challenge.

    BTW, an emboldened Obama is a more reckless Obama prone to make devastating mistakes out of desperation to escape a terrible legacy.


    About Hollande....wouldn't hold your breath. 
    I know what he said, but he has a believability quotient just above BHO.

    As to a more emboldened Obama....you are absolutely right!



    Within the context of a weak French economy Hollande's opposition to BDS looks very credible. France seems all prepared to step into the vacuum created by others-to reinvest where other's disinvest, etc. Vive La France! For now.`




    We can only both hope you're right....
    Hollander however is a far left ideologue, so again.....don't hold your breath.



    It's economic opportunism trumping ideology.



     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


    Both Hollande and Netanyahu are for a two state solution for resolving the Pali-Israeli conflict. Both oppose the radical pro-Palestinian BDS movement with its ONE STATE SOLUTION: gradual destruction of Israel through the so-called "right of return" of Palestinian refugees. Any genuine two state solution coming out of the UN that respects and recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state will be rejected by the Palestinians as not going far enough. They will run away from it just as they have every other two state solution whether coming from the UN or Israel. In the meantime, Israel and France will strengthen their economic ties as Hollande desperately tries to revive the French economy grabbing every opportunity that's available before the 2017 elections.


    Apollo, Apollo, Apollo.....
    I doubt that Netanyahu in his heart of hearts is for a "two state solution". It's more a "two state delusion".The Palestinians are no more interested in a "State" than the Arabs are interested in absorbing their Arab brethren into their societies. Palestinians are officially and heavily discriminated against by all Arab Governments.

    What the Palestinians want is, "a base of operations" to continue the original Jihad of the 20th Century to it's natural conclusion. If they wanted a "State", they've had three very good offers in the last 15 years. Not only were they rejected, but NOT ONCE even countered.

    I'm sure you know all of the above and believe what I'm saying about the Palestinians.If there is ever to truly be a "settlement" of this issue, it will have to be along the lines of what Caroline Glick or Martin Sherman have proposed.

    Israel will eventually be forced to annex Judea and Samaria (whether the world or even they! like it or not).It will be the only move they can make to defend themselves and when BHO is out of office, I expect it to happen.

    Hollande will scream as all of Europe will, but it must be done.

    The EU has prepared sanctions against Israel and are just waiting for the UN Sec. Council to adopt the Palestinian State (with the US abstaining) to impose them. BHO will tell the world, "it's for their own good".

    Keep your eye on this, I almost can guarantee it will happen. It may force Israel's hand sooner than would be advised, but they'll have to go on the offensive to defeat the fraud and show the UN up for the totally corrupt organization it has devolved into.

    Hollande will be right on the front lines of this. You give him FAR, FAR too much credit. Ultimately, he is a leftist, not a Capitalist and he'll be very willing to throw Israel under the bus.




    With Hollande being the most unpopular French President in modern history (his job approval rating is at 30%) and wanting reelection in 2017 he needs all the votes he can muster and that includes the Jewish vote-France has the third largest population of Jews in the world. Hence, Netanyahu's popularity with French Jews has made him into a power broker and valuable political asset to Hollande-or to any potential candidate for the French presidency. In fact, Nicolas Sarkozy, who seems to despise Netanyahu, paid him a visit this week in Jerusalem. Why? Sarkozy is thinking of challenging Hollande for the presidency and needs the Jewish vote. No way Hollande (at least for the next 23 months) is going to do anything to piss Bibi off at the UN or anywhere else. Vive La France! At least for the meantime.




    It's all for political expediancy.

    You seem to be in touch with your inner "Francophile".....:-)

    I hope yet again you are right. However, I wouldn't bet a farthing on it.

    In any event, if it even takes as long as when the "domestique politic" is sorted, the French will be all over the Israeli's.

    They can't help themselves. They seem to have an historic aversion to doing the right thing on a consistent basis.




    Yes, it's all expediency. Between now and May 2017 the name of the game in French politcs is appeasing Bibi and Israel. Ironic isn't it after Bibi defied Hollande and came to the Hebro rally, then walked out on him at the Paris synagogue? In retrospect that was a political mistake that Hollande now regrets and is trying to rectify.


    Fromafar ApolloSpeaks 


    The best news is that the French Presidential elections are NOT scheduled till a few months after BHO is in full retirement when we will hopefully have an Ameriphile in the White House.

    Before the end of this year, (EVEN IF it's BHO's LAST ACTION as POTUS), he will abandon Israel to the French Proposal at the UN Sec. Council. It's baked in the cake. BHO has telegraphed it repeatedly. I suppose there is some chance he'll do it between our Presidential election and the end of his term as to not jeopardize HRC's chances.



    Why are you so concerned about the French proposal when it requires that Palestinians  recognize Israel as a Jewish state? How many times has Abbas said "I will never recognize the Jewishness of Israel or a Jewish state"? Even if it clears the Security Council Arab intransigence will ensure it goes the way of its predecessors. It's not to be taken seriously.




    And this means?


    ks  Fromafar


    The desperate Mr. Hollande is playing politics to look like a statesman.  







    "I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is somebody who’s predisposed to security, to think perhaps that peace is naive, to see the worst possibilities as opposed to the best possibilities in Arab partners or Palestinian partners. And so I do think right now those politics and those fears are driving the government’s response. And I understand it. But what may seem wise and prudent on the short term can actually end up being unwise over the long term."- - Barack Obama 2015  Interveiw

    “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



     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?

    Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto




    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?      

    Roosevelt Island

    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 the comment section of Friday's post INHISNAME wrote:
    "I’ve been wearing the Crusader’s Shield for years. Now I’ll be wearing the Jewish mailed fist."
    Responding, puggo cautioned:
    "You don’t want to do that. The Jewish mailed fist is a symbol of Jewish terror and fascism used by the terrorist Jewish Defense League, and the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky the inspiration of Meir Kahane founder of JDL."
    Then jhutfedx sticking in his two cents wrote:
    "That’s stupid. But just as bad are Jews wearing the Crusader’s Shield worn by Christian soldiers who slaughtered Jews. Is that stupid or is that stupid?"
    Then along came BostonLib4Life posting a NY Times article written by atheist author Susan Jacoby (seeon the slaughter of innocent European Jews by Christian crusaders; and comparing the Crusader's Cross to the Nazi Swastika as if symbolizing the same evil for Jews.
    My response this morning was as follows:
    The overarching objective of the Crusades was a noble and righteous one: beating back the aggressive Moslem hordes of imperialistic Islam that savagely and brutally without provocation attacked and conquered for 300 years Christian lands killing multitudes of Christians (like is being done today) for the Koranic sin of not being Moslem.
    En route to the Holy Land terrible atrocities were committed by some not all crusaders against some not most European Jews. To indict the Crusades like Obama did, or the obvious Christian hating atheist author of the Times piece does, is anti-Crusades (anti-Christian) bigotry typical of gutless kumbaya New Age leftists who stupidly apologize for the Crusades, or completely demonize it, to uselessly appease implacable Moslem savages.
    Below (seeis a truer account of the excesses of the Crusades and the horrors unjustly suffered by a small minority of Europe's Jews which people like you (and Susan Jacoby) blow up into a full-fledged holocaust to discredit Christianity-whose conservative defender I am.
    And my answer to your question about the Crusader's Shield is "NO!" it is not the equivalent of the Nazi Swastika as the crusader's weren't medieval Nazis hell-bent on exterminating all Jews. I'll have more to say on this subject in a separate post."
    To the above I add:
    Modern Christian crusaders against Islamic suprematists are brothers in arms with Jewish anti-jihadists like me; for we are soldiers at war with the same totalitarian enemy in the conservative defense of Judeo-Christian-Classical Liberal values and ideals that are relentlessly under attack by violent and nonviolent Islamic jihadists (and leftists like you). I do not know of any modern Christian crusaders (like Robert Spencer, Wild Bill, Reverend Frank Graham, Sarah Palin or nanna, Christian Zionist, Pearls Before Swine or Krusader99, etc.) who are killing Jews or want to kill Jews like some but not most medieval crusaders did to some but not most European Jews-for not being Christian or for the killing of Christ. In fact, most if not all modern Christian crusaders are strong pro-Zionist supporters of Israel, oppose anti-Semiticism, and have no desire or designs to reconquer the Holy Land where Christians under a liberal democratic Jewish state live in peace practicing their faith without fear of persecution or death. As far as today's Christian crusaders are concerned the Holy Land is in good and trustworthy hands; and Israeli Jews are to be praised for having the only Christian community in the region that is growing and thriving. 
    As for the mailed Jewish fist it's a symbol of Never Again defiance against those Jew hating Moslem savages who want to finish the "Final Solution" of killing all Jews  that Hitler left undone. How that equates to "fascism" I'll never know.



    UZBEKISTAN: Devout followers of Islam are beheading people there, too | BARE NAKED ISLAM

    A blade that reaches across nations
    In doing God's justice
    And making His enemies pay.
    A sword whose blade
    Will stop shedding blood
    When all of the world obeys.
    Long is the sword of the Prophet
    Will you be the next one slain?

    Wild Bill proudly wears the shield of the Crusader. As a Jew, I will proudly wear it as well.

    joins BNI
    in wearing the Crusader's Cross,
    together with the mailed Jewish fist of  NEVER AGAIN defiance.
    11174251_438076186365678_4419628230491575076_oWill Pam Geller be dressed up as an ass-kicking patriotic biker tomorrow? That would give the free speech "BUT" pussies on the Left and Right something to howl about.
     (and its defiant Churchillian Prime Minister)
    with Pam moving up to second place replacing the Tea Party or George W. Bush. These four constitute the Left's main scapegoats for their failure to hug and butt kiss the jihad out of Moslem supremacists, and achieve New Age peace, love and harmony with them.


       I thought bin Laden and al Qaida declared war on America and killed thousands of our citizens because of our foreign policy-support of Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, backing of moderate Arab regimes-and not because of who we are and our free, open  and democratic way of life? Not according to documents seized by our brave Navy Seals from bin Laden's Abbottabad compound. These cite abortion, homosexual marriage and intoxication, etc as reason enough to kill Americans by the millions. In other words, if there were no Israel or US troops in Islamic lands 9/11 with 3000 dead would have happened all the same. But this surprises no one except dumb ass, head in the sand liberals who blame Islamophobic bigots and  Mohammed cartoons-like they once blamed freedom-loving anti-Communist patriots for the Cold War. Pathetic.



    But that was not enough for them. Now they must destroy its ruins because their God with three daughters hates the sons and daughters of Olympian Zeus.




    Obama: ‘The Values That Drive Our Brave Men and Women in Uniform Constant’ · CNSNews.com 



    and loathed by our troops.



    are so abhorrent to our fighting men and women that according to a Military Times survey (above) only 15% of active troops have any respect for him (see)-an all time low  for a Commander-in-Chief as he reeks uncertainty, confusion and weakness; and projects little or no patriotism believing himself an enlightened world citizen caring for all mankind-pointing to the fiction of climate change as proof of his great humanity.

    I'm certain that if a similar poll were taken with world leaders Obama's score would be even less. For he's universally perceived as a blundering amateur on the global stage leading America into economic, military and geo-strategic decline, and the world into turmoil.


    ‘Revitalizing’ Detroit with 50,000 Syrian Refugees? - Frontpage



    is about to get its crowning touch.  



    MOSLEM DUMPING GROUND? Australia pays Cambodia to take Muslim illegal aliens off its hands | BARE NAKED ISLAM 
    (and his killing fields) when we need him?
    A Holocaust of Jihadists is every Islamophobes dream.
    "President Barack Obama’s speech at a DC synagogue on Friday calling for a Palestinian state for Israel’s sake drew mixed responses from American Jewish groups. The liberal pro-Israel organization J Street applauded Obama’s remarks, delivered at Adas Israel Congregation in Washington DC to mark Jewish American Heritage Month, saying they were “a clear and forceful reminder that establishing a Palestinian state is necessary to safeguard Israel’s democracy and integral to Jewish values.” (TOI)


    Really? Wasn't it Obama who withdrew US forces from Iraq to appease Iran and for the sake of peace in the Middle East? Could you imagine the disaster if Israel blindly followed Obama into peace talks with the implacable, Jew hating Palestinians who still celebrate the assassination of Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel? "For Israel's sake" my eye. Obama will go to his grave cursing Netanyahu for depriving him of an impossible peace and leaving him to sulk over a foreign policy legacy of ashes, disaster and dust. 




    Obama and Hillary blatantly lied to the families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Mohammed video inspired the attack-when both knew it was pre-planned to coincide with the 11th anniversary of al Qaida's greatest and deadliest victory. What could be scandalous about that? It was for the greater national and global good of Obama's reelection so he could turn the disaster of his first term into the catastrophe of his second.


    and not 56 or 58 or some other number? Is there some reason for the number 57? Some Islamic reason? Was it chosen to reflect the number of Moslem states in the world which are 57  if we include the Palestinians? Is that the reason? And if so how many Gitmo terrorists will they want released next time? Double the number? That would make 114: one freed terrorist for each of the 114 books of the Koran .


    MYANMAR (Burma): ‘Buddhist James Bond’ is single-handedly fighting his country’s biggest enemy – Muslims | BARE NAKED ISLAM

    Kevin-Carroll-on-Rohingya-MuslimsA little monk with a giant soul. The terror of Moslem terrorists in Burma.


     "It's unfair to associate terrorism with Islam.*" Is it unfair and unBuddhistic then to fight Islamic terrorism like brave little magnificent Buddhist Ashin Wirathu  is doing in Burma? What would his Holiness have Buddhists do  when they've been violently murdered, tortured and raped and seen their temples incinerated  by Moslems for their faith? Would he have them meditate to find deeper levels of compassion, love, understanding and forgiveness? How would that stop a Moslem sword from slicing off your head? Turn your cheek when slapped. But when a Moslem draws his sword to kill you you better kill him first. And once he's dead then forgive him.
    * The Dalai Lama is an enlightened man on the subject of Buddhism. But when it comes to Islam too much of his consciousness dwells on his Root Chakra: the lowest of the seven psychic centers located between the anus and genitals.
    Buddhist woman beheaded by Muslims in Myanmar
      His Holiness the Dalia Lama is a weak, pathetic, bleeding heart, climate change believing leftist  kook who unwittingly emboldens Moslem terror against Buddhists-as does his Holiness Pope Francis against Christians. There's nothing "holy" about seeing no evil in Islam. Nothing righteous, fair or good about fanning the flames of unholy Moslem terror with inaction, blind compassion and appeasing hugs. Anti-Jihadist Buddhists like Ashin Wirathu are the real holy men  more worthy than a thousand Dalai Lamas, Pope Francises and meditating  Buddhas.



    whose policies have set the Middle East ablaze with murderous Moslem rage.

    ‘Discrimination against a Rohingya (Moslems) or any other religious minority does not express the kind of country that Burma wants to be.’

    President Barack Obama

    How can Moslems peacefully coexist with Buddhists when they're souls are poisoned by the "religion of peace" with the divisive belief that Allah hates atheism and idol worship above all evils? 





    Here’s what Muslims really think about ISIS when none of the Western media are anyhere in sight | BARE NAKED ISLAM



    80% of Sunni Moslems recalling the military greatness of Islam's past are enthralled by the exploits and conquests of Islamic State's Caliph abu al-Baghdadi. They see in him a resurrection of the ruthless, mass murdering Prophet Mohammed, and believe that his bold, fearless jihad is ordained from on high.
    OH MY GOD! 
    If, as Aljazeera claims, 80% of Moslems support the Islamic State,
    and the Islamic State (as Obama says) isn't truly Islamic, doesn't  that mean that 80% of Moslems (1.2 billion people) aren't truly Islamic and are delusional to think so? Doesn't it mean that they misunderstand the Koran and have a distorted view of the faith and need be enlightened about its true meaning? And since the Islamic State is at war with America, and 80% of Moslems support it, doesn't it mean that they too are at war with America and hate this country and want it destroyed? How could that be after six and a half years of Obama's "Moslem Outreach Initiative" and telling the world in speech after speech that "Islam is a religion of peace" and that most Moslems are good, harmless, gentle, peace-loving people? 
    Behold! The great enabler of Islamic State power.
    And that raises another question: If 80% of Moslems support the Islamic State, and Obama says that it's not truly Islamic isn't he offending the 1.2 billion Moslems that believe it is truly Islamic no less than they're truly Islamic-sharing with ISIS  the same vision for Islam of imperial restoration of a super-caliphate state? This is frightening!  What is the world's most powerful man offending and insulting so many Moslems-telling them they're morons for thinking that they're Moslem-compared to Pam Geller and her Mohammed cartoons provoking two, lone jihadis to violence? By insulting 80% of Moslems isn't Obama turning himself into the world's most powerful recruiting tool  and poster boy for ISIS?  Can it be merely coincidental that Obama is President of the United States and  ISIS and radical Islam are surging, growing and advancing across the world like never before? Absolutely not! Obama is the gift to al-Qaida, ISIS  and radical Islam that keeps on giving. And unless Obama shuts his trap and stops insulting Moslems en masse the Global War On Islamic Terror could turn into a Global War Of Islam Against America.