Obama's Inbred Tribalism Spurs Chaos In Iraq
President Barack Obama's Communist, Kenyan father was a product of hundreds of tribal generations. Loyalty to the senior Obama was demonstrated by a comprehensive knowledge that personal allegiances went to:
- Self.
- Family.
- Tribe.
- Nation.
It is this perversion of the political system that has shaded the difference between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. It is so drastically different from the mores of most of the worlds' people. It's similar to Josef Stalin, in that Obama could either crush the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or he could nurture their effort.
In the June 30 edition of TIME, Michael Crowley wrote:
President Obama has kept a wary distance from Syria's civil war and the turmoil of postwar Iraq. But now that the two have become one rapidly metastasizing cancer, that may no longer be possible.As long as the global economy still runs on Middle Eastern oil, Sunni radicals plot terrorist attacks against the West and Iran's leaders pursue nuclear technology, the U.S. cannot turn its back.What sickens me about Obama is that the crux of this crisis in the Mideast is tribalism, the most basic element of which is prejudice.
With Obama it is always the case on how he will instruct Americans to act or even think when it comes to prejudice. But when it comes to the world, he will exploit human prejudices in any way he can, which should not as of yet rule out future political power for himself.
In that same issue of TIME, the magazine addressed the greatest racism in the world, which thrives on Islamic lands.
The Westerners who have sought to control the Middle East for more than a century have always struggled to understand the religion that defines the region. But how could the secular West hope to understand cultures in which religion is government, scripture is law and the past defines the future? Islam has been divided between Sunni and Shiite since the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 and a bitter dispute that followed over who should lead Islam. (Sunnis called for an elected Caliph. Shiites followed Muhammad's descendants.) Over the centuries, the two sects have developed distinct cultural, geographic and political identities that go well beyond the theological origins of that schism. Today Sunnis make up about 90 percent of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. But Shiites have disproportionate power, with their control of Iran and their concentration around oil-rich areas.Iraq was the exception for Sunnis and oil power, at least before President George W. Bush's invasion more than a decade ago. With Shiites holding most of Iraq's oil wells, Obama was safe to withdraw U.S. power from Iraq. Obama's vision of "Mission Accomplished" and Bush's image were vastly different. This is highlighted by the Pentagon's belief that the United States could easily lock down the peace in Iraq by keeping 20,000 U.S. ground troops in secured areas. Eventually, Obama settled on just more than 3,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.
The cost of the war in Iraq did not matter to Obama, which is shocking in that the U.S. spent $1 trillion prosecuting it at the cost of 4,500 U.S. troops killed and more than 32,000 wounded. Obama welcomed home the troops at Fort Bragg and outright lied to them, speaking in the poetic language of a pro-imperialist like Rudyard Kipling.
Obama's lies were all the more deafening because the people who know him are convinced that he is an anti-imperialist. Yet Obama said, "[W]e're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people."
Obama's words had barely been uttered when a series of suicide attacks occurred, which have escalated into Iraq's bloody civil war. But all that matters to Obama is that the Shiites control the enormous oil wealth and much of the Mideast.
That hydrocarbons are dirty in the first place applies to only non-Arabic oil.
Those who find fault with Bush do so based on what they consider his naiveté or his outright stupidity regarding Iraq. The man who proclaimed himself the peace President, Obama, has done more to jeopardize foreign security than any President in the union's history - to a large degree because of Iraq.
Yours in good times and bad times,
-John Myers
Palin Versus Buchanan: To Impeach Obama. Or Not?
Sarah Palin torched President Barack Obama this week in an opinion piece in which she argued the time has come for the House of Representatives to draft articles of impeachment against him. Her ideology may be sound, but there are other conservative voices who believe that the GOP - and the Nation - have more to gain by watching Obama go down, slowly, in his own ship.
Writing for Breitbart Tuesday, Palin cited the ongoing border crisis as she made a passionate case for impeachment:
Because of Obama's purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services. There is no end in sight as our president prioritizes parties over doing the job he was hired by voters to do. Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.
.His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best "border security" money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out.
Have faith that average American workers - native-born and wonderful legal immigrants of all races, backgrounds, and political parties - do care because we're the ones getting screwed as we're forced to follow all our government's rules while others are not required to do so. Many now feel like strangers in their own land.
.President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution's role in protecting our rights.
It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.
You can read Palin's full piece at Breitbart.
While Palin's ideological basis for impeachment may be sound, not all conservative voices believe impeachment is the right approach. Pat Buchanan, who fundamentally agrees with Palin that Obama has done, and continues to do, impeachable things, argues that proving his offenses would become a protracted and creepingly unpopular process that would drain Republicans' steadily accruing political capital. Besides, he argued, the political climate strongly favors letting things just play out as this year's election cycle - as well as the Presidential election of 2016 - approaches.
In an opinion piece for WND on Monday, Buchanan made the pragmatist's case against impeachment - an extreme measure he described as "a bridge too far":
Democrats are talking impeachment to rally a lethargic base to come out and vote this fall to prevent Republicans from taking control of the Senate, and with it the power to convict an impeached president.
Still, Republicans should drop the talk of impeachment.
For the GOP would gain nothing and risk everything if the people began to take seriously their threats to do to Barack Obama what Newt Gingrich's House did to Bill Clinton.
The charges for which a president can be impeached and removed from office are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
With Bill Clinton, the impeachers had a solid case of perjury.
With Richard Nixon, they had a preponderance of evidence that, at least for a time, he had sought to obstruct justice in the investigation of the Watergate break-in.
Concerning Obama's "I was the last to know" pattern of excuse-making to explain his role in the many scandals under his watch, Robertson says there's not much to be gained by impeachment-minded Republicans, who would be risking a dramatic swing in the momentum they've gained in public opinion, which already has come to regard Obama as an ineffective bungler:
Obama claims he did not learn of the IRS abuse until years after it began, and weeks after his White House staff learned of it.
In the absence of those emails, the claim cannot be refuted.
In the Benghazi scandal, the president's defense is the same.
He had no idea what was going on. And cluelessness appears here to be a credible defense. Two weeks after the Benghazi atrocity, Obama was at the U.N. still parroting the Susan Rice line about an anti-Muslim video having been the cause of it all.
.Any Republican attempt at impeachment would go up against a stacked deck. And the GOP would be throwing away a winning hand for a losing one.
For while the American people have shown no interest in impeaching Obama, they are coming to believe they elected an incompetent executive and compulsive speechmaker who does not know what the presidency requires and who equates talk with action.
Buchanan's full piece is online at WND.
Who's right? Are Obama's offenses against his Constitutional oath so egregious that Republicans should summon the zeal - at any political cost - to follow through with impeachment (especially if they retake the Senate in November)? Or should they sit back, confident and self-assured that the remainder of his Presidency will implode, to their benefit, without irrevocable harm to the Nation?
Or is all this talk of impeachment among conservatives nothing more than news fodder and gamesmanship, what Buchanan himself described as "just beer talk?"
Obama Awaits Another Court Ruling That Could Deal Blow To Obamacare
WASHINGTON (MCT) - President Barack Obama's healthcare law could be dealt a severe blow this week if a U.S. appeals court rules that some low- and middle-income residents no longer qualify to receive promised government subsidies to pay for their health insurance.
The case revolves around a legal glitch in the wording of the Affordable Care Act, which as written says that such subsidies may be paid only if the insurance is purchased through an "exchange established by the state."
That would seem to leave out the 36 States in which the exchanges are operated by the Federal government.
A ruling could come as early as Tuesday.
The Administration has argued that Congress intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low- and middle-income people who bought insurance through an exchange, without making a distinction.
Lawyers and Congressional staffers who worked on the 2010 law have described the problem as a classic wording glitch in a long and complicated piece of legislation.
In one part of the law, it says that States, which normally regulate insurance, could create exchanges that would help consumers and small businesses shop for coverage. The law also said if a State failed to establish an exchange, the Federal government could step in and run one in its place.
A second part of the law described the subsidies that could be offered to low- and middle-income people to cover the cost of the insurance. This part of the law said these subsidies - or tax credits - would be offered for insurance bought on an exchange "established by the state."
Apparently, no one noticed the problem until the law was passed. Then, because of fierce political opposition and the 2010 Republican takeover of the House, supporters of the law could not fix the wording through an amendment. Moreover, the Administration did not anticipate most Republican-led States would refuse to create an insurance exchange for their residents.
The Internal Revenue Service adopted a regulation in 2012 that said individuals who qualify for subsidized insurance that is purchased on a government-run exchange may receive a tax credit, "regardless of whether the exchange is established and operated by a state."
But the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a suit, Halbig v. Burwell, on behalf of several plaintiffs, contending this regulation is illegal.
CEI lost in January before a Federal judge, who decided Congress intended to offer the insurance subsidies to everyone who qualified.
If a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules against Obama (and the tone of oral arguments suggested it might), the Administration could ask the full 11-member appeals court to weigh the issue.
In the past year, Obama has added four new judges to the D.C. circuit court, giving Democratic appointees a majority for the first time since the mid-1980s
Americans Finger Obama As Worst President In 70 Years
According to a new poll from Quinnipiac University, more Americans identify President Barack Obama as the worst occupant of the Oval Office since World War II than any other postwar President, including President Richard Nixon.
The poll, released Thursday, found 33 percent of U.S. voters identifying Obama as the worst President, followed by President George W. Bush (28 percent) and Nixon (13 percent). Every other President garnered "worst" votes in the single-digit percentages, led by President Jimmy Carter at 8 percent.
Of course, living memory and present-day partisanship play a role in producing these kinds of numbers: while Obama's "worst President" numbers were truly brutal, he also managed to garner a surprising number of "best President" votes in a poll that ultimately found him first among the worst. Obama came in fourth in polling of best postwar Presidents - a list topped by President Ronald Reagan (35 percent), President Bill Clinton (18 percent) and President John F. Kennedy (15 percent).
Obama received "best" votes from 8 percent of poll participants. Among Democrats, he came in a distant second to Clinton as their choice of "best" President, collecting 18 percent compared with Clinton's 34 percent.
Voters remain evenly divided on the matter of whether Obama is a worse President than his immediate predecessor. The question "Do you think Barack Obama has been a better President than George W. Bush, worse, or about the same as President Bush?" elicited a nearly even split, with 40 percent answering that Obama is worse, 39 percent maintaining that Bush was worse and another 20 percent indicating the two leaders' legacies have been about the same.
Even though Obama won a second term in office, the poll finds that voters may be pining for the alternate version of history that might have unfolded had the Republican candidate he defeated, Mitt Romney, been elected President instead.
"America would be better off if Republican Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, 45 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say the country would be worse off," the poll summary observes.
Most of the nostalgia for Romney falls along predictable party lines, with 84 percent of Republicans indicating the Nation would have been better off had he been elected President. Only 10 percent of Democrats, on the other hand, agreed. Interestingly, Independent voters favored a do-over with Romney as President by a 47 percent to 33 percent margin.
Obama's Supreme Lesson
By now, it should be patently obvious that President Barack Obama's word is almost as ironclad as Wendy Davis' resume. Heck, in taking his oath of office, the man swore on the Holy Bible - twice - to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That might placate the dwindling mob of self-titled "progressives" who still grovel slavishly at the altar of Obama, but I'm less confident about how well that's going to be received by the man upstairs.
At some point, justifying Obama's Presidency - not to mention the series of crimes and misdemeanors that have defined it - became an exercise in futility. His acolytes simply do not care, beyond blaming each successive scandal on either former President George W. Bush, racism or some combination of the two. Yet last week, a brief glimmer of the "hope" Obama promised (without any intention of delivering) appeared in a particularly unlikely corner of the Nation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama is going to have to start paying closer attention to the little things - like the Constitution he generally treats with the respect most people reserve for toilet paper, Davis' "campaign" and The New York Times.
In a landmark ruling, the Court determined that Obama's appointment of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board violates the Constitution. And when I say "the Court determined," I don't mean "the qualified Justices eked out a 5-4 win over the Democratic appointees." I mean "the Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Obama violated pretty much every part of the Constitution that deals with the separation of powers." The court, including Obama's own appointees, ruled that the President lacks the authority to declare the Senate "in recess." It's pretty basic separation of powers stuff. Writing for the unified and unanimous Court, President Bill Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer noted: "The Senate is in session when it says it is." (Emphasis added.)
Given that the complaints from the regressives center on logic like "But, Bush," it's clear that the Democratic Party's objection is merely another example of their conflation of partisanship and principle. (See also: Obama's illegal alterations to Obamacare post-passage, deployment of Internal Revenue Service against political opponents, etc.)
But the part that really ought to worry us is the fact that a purported Ivy League graduate, Harvard Law Review editor and former University of Chicago Law professor who claimed in 2007, "I was a Constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current President I actually respect the Constitution," needed the Supreme Court to remind him of something a first-year law student would have to know in order to become a second-year law student, much less the President of the United States.
-Ben Crystal
Obama's Fundamental Transformation
"Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington. we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor." - Barack Obama, October 2008
Has he succeeded? Let's see.
His campaign to fundamentally transform the U.S. is in full operation on the border, where his extra-Constitutional action to grant amnesty to young illegals - called Dreamers - has drawn tens of thousands of illegals across the border. along with their Third World diseases. These illegals are now being shipped across America, where they are dumped out to spread their diseases and become drains on society that scarf up what few low-wage jobs there are, and consume social services. Even some of his most ardent supporters now get it.
Obama continues his push for amnesty, which would benefit the large corporations, the unions and the Democrat voter base. His economic policies of profligate Federal Reserve money printing and government spending prop up Wall Street, create bubbles and stifle economic growth. Those same policies, combined with his signature achievement (Obamacare), kill jobs that would be held by the secretary, the janitor and the men and women on the factory floor. America is becoming a society of part-time jobs.
There are more Americans than ever on the public dole. Millions would be starving if not for government welfare programs, which have done nothing but replace the soup lines of the first Great Depression. Money printing continues; and it is nothing more than a great transfer of wealth to the elites and a tax on the poor and middle class, who see their savings gaining nothing and the prices of the things they buy skyrocketing.
This second Great Depression is showing no signs of letting up and looks to run longer and deeper than the first. There is no economic growth, and there has not been for nearly seven years.
This woman wonders why she alone is shouting into the wind.
"Am I the only one in this community that's out here, that watches the news. I feel alone in this, and I'm very saddened by it," she said.
Many of us feel the same way.
Has he succeeded? Let's see.
His campaign to fundamentally transform the U.S. is in full operation on the border, where his extra-Constitutional action to grant amnesty to young illegals - called Dreamers - has drawn tens of thousands of illegals across the border. along with their Third World diseases. These illegals are now being shipped across America, where they are dumped out to spread their diseases and become drains on society that scarf up what few low-wage jobs there are, and consume social services. Even some of his most ardent supporters now get it.
Obama continues his push for amnesty, which would benefit the large corporations, the unions and the Democrat voter base. His economic policies of profligate Federal Reserve money printing and government spending prop up Wall Street, create bubbles and stifle economic growth. Those same policies, combined with his signature achievement (Obamacare), kill jobs that would be held by the secretary, the janitor and the men and women on the factory floor. America is becoming a society of part-time jobs.
There are more Americans than ever on the public dole. Millions would be starving if not for government welfare programs, which have done nothing but replace the soup lines of the first Great Depression. Money printing continues; and it is nothing more than a great transfer of wealth to the elites and a tax on the poor and middle class, who see their savings gaining nothing and the prices of the things they buy skyrocketing.
This second Great Depression is showing no signs of letting up and looks to run longer and deeper than the first. There is no economic growth, and there has not been for nearly seven years.
This woman wonders why she alone is shouting into the wind.
"Am I the only one in this community that's out here, that watches the news. I feel alone in this, and I'm very saddened by it," she said.
Many of us feel the same way.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY PROPHECY WEBSITES...............................
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.