Monthly Archives: July 2015

BARACK OBAMA, JIMMY CARTER, NUCLEAR IRAN AND THE OMINOUS SIGN OF 444

   

 

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'S ELECTION

THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER

 

 

 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.

*1917

 

THE 4TH MONTH OF APRIL

OBAMA BREAKS WITH BUSH ADMINISTRATION OVER IRAN

 

 
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.
 
 

THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE IN THE 4TH MONTH OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY

HIS MOSLEM OUTREACH INITIATIVE TO IRAN

 

 

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.

 

OBAMA'S 144TH DAY IN OFFICE

IRAN'S GREEN MOVEMENT

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.

 

THE 4TH MONTH OF 2015

THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

 

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.

 

THE 2444TH DAY

THE DEAL

BLOCKING IRAN'S 4 PATHWAYS TO A NUCLEAR BOMB?

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.

 

ARGO

THE 44TH MONTH OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY

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.

 

RELATED

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: THE GREAT ENABLER OF RADICAL IRAN

THE PERILS OF A WAR WEARY NATION IN THE TRAGIC AGE OF BARACK OBAMA 

TURKEY, OBAMA AND THE WORSENING CONFLICT WITH ISLAM, OR THE RE-CARTERIZATION OF US FOREIGN POLICY

OBAMA, TURKEY AND MY PREDICTION OF THE RE-CARTERIZATION OF US FOREIGN POLICY

WHAT OBAMA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IRAN’S OFFSHORE NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

HAS OBAMA’S NUKE DEAL WITH “AXIS OF EVIL” IRAN MADE HIM THE NEW RONALD REAGAN?

 

 FORWARD EMAILS TO

reninvest2013@aol.com

"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. 


UNDERLYING HILLARY FATIGUE IS HILLARY’S FATIGUE (POLITICO DEBATE ADDED)

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

 
 
 
 
HILLARY CLINTON: A SPENT FORCE 
 

What's not right about Hillary's campaign is Hillary Clinton. She's neither 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 stamina and 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 much 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 endlessly claim is part of a vast right-wing plot (of old, sexist white Republican 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 weak, lying mendacious Hillary.

Unfortunately for Hillary the more we see of her the less presidential and more diminished she looks. 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 of Media Matters, MSM, and her left-wing propaganda machine. More like Minnie Mouse than Margret Thatcher, that's who weakling Hillary Clinton is.

 

 Getting harder and harder to choose as President.

 

POSTSCRIPT

 

POLITICO DEBATE

 

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.
 
 

RELATED 

THE FINAL TRANSFORMATION OF HILLARY CLINTON AFTER THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

WAS THE BIRTH OF HILLARY’S FEMALE GRANDCHILD A SIGN SHE WAS BORN TO BE AMERICA’S FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT? 

BERNIE SANDERS VS. HILLARY CLINTION: THE RACE FOR FDR’S OBSOLETE NEW DEAL LEGACY 

 HILLARY CLINTON ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF FDR’S DEATH. DOES THIS SIGNAL HER SUCCESS? OR HER DEFEAT AND THE DEATH OF NEW DEAL LIBERALISM

RESET AND OUTREACH: SIGNS OF REVERSAL FOR HILLARY’S PRESIDENTIAL DREAMS?

DID HILLARY’S POST-PRIMARY MEETING WITH OBAMA ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF RFK’S DEATH FORESHADOW THE COLLAPSE OF HER PRESIDENTIAL DREAMS

IS OBAMA ONCE AGAIN DOOMING HILLARY’S RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY? 

 RESET AND OUTREACH: SIGNS OF REVERSAL FOR HILLARY’S PRESIDENTIAL DREAMS?

OBAMA, HILLARY CLINTON, THE COLLAPSE OF IRAQ AND 2016

y differences between things. 

HAS OBAMA’S NUKE DEAL WITH “AXIS OF EVIL” IRAN MADE HIM THE NEW RONALD REAGAN?

 
 
 
REAGAN VS OBAMA ON IRAN
 
 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.

 

RELATED

WHAT DO RONALD REAGAN AND BARACK OBAMA HAVE IN COMMON? 

OBAMA THINKING HE’S REAGAN CRAZILY PREDICTS HILLARY CAN BE BUSH 41 

 

"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. 

 

MR. OBAMA: DO A JIMMY CARTER WITH GITMO AND SAVE YOURSELF FROM BEING THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER (SATIRE)

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

 

 

MR. PRESIDENT:

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.

 

RELATED

TURKEY, OBAMA AND THE WORSENING CONFLICT WITH ISLAM, OR THE RE-CARTERIZATION OF US FOREIGN POLICY

REPLACE HAMILTON WITH CAITLYN ON $10 BILL AND SCREW BEN SHAPIRO (EXPLANATORY POSTSCRIPT ADDED)

 

"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

 

POSTSCRIPT

 

DIDN'T I KNOW THAT JENNER IS STILL A MAN WHEN I WROTE THE ABOVE?

 

OF COURSE!

 

 
 

HE, BRUCE, IS STILL A MAN WITH PHONY BREAST IMPLANTS AND HORMONE SHOTS AND TEN HOURS FACIAL SURGERY. BTW HE STILL HAS BRUCE'S VOICE ALONG WITH HIS PENIS.  BRUCE IS A DELUSIONAL OLD FART OF A MAN 

 

APOLLO LOL

 

  

 

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.



QUESTIONS FOR OBAMA ON THE CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING AND THE SILENCE OF IRAN

 

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

 

QUESTION FOR BARACK OBAMA:

 

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.

 

FORWARD EMAILS TO

reninvest2013@aol.com

 

 

 

< 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;"> 

WHAT OBAMA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IRAN’S NOT SO SECRET OFFSHORE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

 
 
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 informally concluded a worse than Munich like deal on its 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 informally** 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 imperial 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 Leftist French Revolution.

**As the NY Times reported the venue for negotiations included the Imperial Hotel where Kerry, Zarif and the other negotiators were guests. Informal talks were held at the Imperial and formal talks at the Coburg. On July 11th, as reported by the Times, Zarif was seen on the balcony outside his room at the Imperial going over the draft agreement-after which he gave a press conference where his smiles  indicated that the deal was done. Apparently it was at the Imperial that Zariff approved the draft that was formally signed two days later at the Coburg.  
 
 
 
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 (and most likely Iran) were hard at work in building a secret, illegal nuclear weapons facility 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.
 

RELATED

BORDER SECURITY CHAOS, ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME AND THE PROVIDENTIAL CANDIDACY OF DONALD TRUMP

 
 
 
 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.
 
RELATED
 
 
 
 
 

OBAMA REPLACES CLINTON’S FAILED HOUSING PROGRAM FOR SLUMDOGS WITH SECTION 8 DIVERSITY IN SUBURBS

 

HUD ANNOUNCES FINAL RULE AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING

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.

POSTSCRIPT

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.

 RELATED

BILL CLINTON: THE HOUSING BUBBLE KING OF ALL TIME 

 

FORWARD  EMAILS TO

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

OBAMA’S COMPELLING VISION FOR DEFEATING RADICAL ISLAM: WORLD POLITICAL UNITY IN FIGHTING EARTH DESTROYING CLIMATE CHANGE

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. 

 

SO WHAT ARE OBAMA'S 

"COMPELLING VISION AND IDEAS" TO DEFEAT ISIS AND ISLAMIC EXTREMISM?

 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.

 

RELATED

 FROM BAN THE HYDROGEN BOMB TO BANNING HYDROCARBON FUELS: THE LEFT’S FAILED GLOBAL SALVATION MOVEMENTS

 

POSTSCRIPT

 

 

 

IF BARACK OBAMA WERE THE 16TH PRESIDENT

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?

 

 

OTHER THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS

 

 

HAS THE EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH FORGOT

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.

 

 

 WHERE DOES CARTER GET THE AUDACITY TO THINK

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

 

 
 
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE POTUS,
 

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.

 

 
HOW MANY OF THESE UNMELTABLE, HATE FILLED, ANTI-ITALIAN MOSLEMS
 
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.
 
RELATED
 
 
 
 

OBAMA'S BANKRUPT SOCIALISTIC ILLINOIS FORESHADOWS

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.

 

 

THE COMING ANTI-US FLAG MOVEMENT? AND MY DEBATE ON BANNING THE FLAG THAT ANTICIPATED RUSH

 

 

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

   SofRepcolor062615

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.

POSTSCRIPT

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.

 

DIFFERENT THREAD

 

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.
 
 
 

 

  • OBAMA THINKING HE’S THE DEMOCRAT REAGAN CRAZILY PREDICTS HILLARY CAN BE BUSH 41

     
     

     
     
    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 to fix the economy (which was in recovery) 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 been the Democrat Ronald Reagan; a transformational president  who has impacted America and the world in positive historic ways- transforming both for the better that posterity will long remember; and because of his achievements, like Reagan he'll have  a worthy successor like George H.W. Bush to carry on his legacy and good work.

     

     

    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 Sovie state after a long and dangerous Cold War. With good reason he's called "RENALDO MAGNUS." But because Obama's been no better than Reagan's shadow in practically everything (the economy, foreign policy and the national spirit which he's depressed) he has transformed America  and the world downwardly prolonging the worst recovery since World War II with his high debt, low growth, runaway regulatory policies, while emboldening our enemies who are advancing across the world at our expense.

    Indeed, Obama is a worse president and failure than Reagan's predecessor Jimmy Carter who surprisingly agrees with conservative 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 secure and safe.

    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 credible model, in my view, 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  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 as 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 (often compared to the mendacious Nixon) during the presidency of a terrible Democrat president? Using the Eisenhower model the odds for a Republican victory in 2016 look very good.

    Postscript

    1-12-2017

    In retrospect Obama could have been the Democrat Ronald Reagan if like Reagan his Vice President Joe Biden had run for President  instead of scandal plagued unlikable Hillary.  Indeed, Biden could have been the third sitting Vice President after Martin Van Buren and George H. W. Bush to win the presidency. Obama now is deeply regretting his backing of Hillary.
     
    But would it have made much of a difference if he backed Biden? Democrats seemed hell bent on having America's first black president followed by its first woman pres.
     

    THE CULTURAL CYCLES OF HISTORY, GAY MARRIAGE, SEXUAL PLEASURE AND THE CHOICE OF GAY OR STRAIGHT CHILDREN

     

     

     

    I FIND FAITH AND INSPIRATION IN GOD AND IN THE CULTURAL CYCLES OF HISTORY

     

     

    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.

     

     

    COMPARED TO THE ANCIENTS TODAY'S GAYS ARE HISTORY'S BIGGEST ASS CLOWNS

    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.

     

     

    By 

    COMMENT

    IF PRO-GAY CONSERVATIVES

    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

    By 

     

    Mark Salter

     

     COMMENT

     

    THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

    '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.  

     

    GAY CHILDREN OR STRAIGHT CHILDREN?

    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.