THIS U.S. CITIZEN: October 2015

The Center Holds

That's my prediction for 2016 in a nutshell. We have two extremes in our politics today. On the right are furious populists, on the left socialist misfits. Neither represent a majority. As always, the center is the key.
Kasich and Rubio are mainstream conservatives. Kasich's record and Rubio's rhetoric line up quite nicely. Either of them will have natural appeal to the center, where elections are won. The other plausible candidate, Ted Cruz, is essentially a mainstream conservative. If he is extreme it’s because of his style and the measures he advocates, not the outcomes he seeks. The Church Lady and other pundits worry that the Trump purported appeal to nativism will tarnish the Republican brand. Nonsense. The winning candidate will be the brand.
While the Republicans will not nominate an extremist, the Democrats will. Like Wilson before him, Obama has taken his party far to the left, too far. The political pendulum is just starting to swing to the right, but Obama will demand that the Democrat candidate resist, and run for his third term. Hillary, Biden, and Sanders will comply with his wishes, or lose the essential black vote. This is a recipe for disaster. Centrist voters will have a clear choice. A center-right conservative vs. a hard core leftist.
And hardcore the Democrat will be, we are assured of that. All the whack jobs on the left are becoming more shrill and militant, and Hillary and the others feel they have no choice but to embrace them. The D's have endorsed Black Lives Matter, and there's a great chance that could blow up in their face. Soros money is at the ready to spread on the flames, and the next police shooting of an unarmed black, justified or not, could be turned into another urban conflagration. Law and order has won elections before.
They kowtow to the earth-worshiping econazis, who are wildly out of touch with the American people. Their global warming fraud is seen as such by ordinary Americans. They respond with heightened hysteria.
The Democrats cater to pro-abortion extremism, cheerfully celebrate the war on men, and sympathize with the mentally ill who complain of micro-aggressions. The fanatical prosecution of college boys who have sex with drunken coeds will not win the hearts of regular Americans.
Gay marriage is the tip of the iceberg of the homosexual agenda. They will always want more. They want their lifestyle celebrated, and the D's will gladly comply. Forcing little girls to share a bathroom with some confused little boy will not win many votes.
The war on coal is just the start of a campaign to seize total control of the energy industry. They want to eliminate fossil fuels, and to hell with the consequences. The war on white and Asian men that masquerades under the euphemisms of affirmative action and disparate impact widens in scope. HUD plans to disrupt residential areas it deems too "homogeneous", as in affluent white. The smothering regulatory state marches inexorably on, laying waste to private industry. I could go on, but this gets depressing after a while.
The point is that the Democrat is going to have a hell of a time appealing to the center, which the Republican can do effortlessly. The progressive left is intellectually exhausted. It is out of ideas, and is playing defense. ObamaCare, the regulatory state, affirmative action, and wealth redistribution are all under assault, and the Democrat Party is now a reactionary force. All the ideas and energy are on the right.
I try to pay attention to the other side, keep an eye on them, watch how they think they're going to win. The whiz kids at 538.com are always good for a laugh. Right now they’re trying to predict Trump’s prospects by using “…regression of name recognition against net favorability.” I’m serious. It's all mechanics, and statistics, and social media, and turnout models, and demographics, money, and race. That's all they've got. They don't have any issues. And they don't have any candidates. They've got nothing to brag about, and a lot to defend.
They've got nothing. And no prospect of getting anything. The trifles they do have on offer will be flotsam in the tide.
I have to say this. How can we lose this one? How can we possibly screw this up? It's all set up to fall into our hands, as long as we don't blow it. Political ineptitude has cost us before, as in 1948. But I don't see that happening. I haven’t felt this confident in 35 years.
And 1980 was a very good year.

'Gun Control' Is Actually Conservative Control

By Jeffrey T. Brown

Any casual observer of reality in America can figure out which citizens are likely to embrace the Second Amendment, and which will need to change pants at the mere thought of a gun. Liberals are terrified of guns in a way that is utterly detached from logic and reason. They aren’t terrified of their cars. They aren’t frightened of their carving knives, or pruning shears, or hammers, or baseball bats. Liberals are terrified of guns because they’ve been conditioned to believe they are possessed of evil, and can only do evil. By extension, many of them further believe that to touch one, or use one, is tantamount to a betrayal of their own imagined morality. This same set of fallacies enables them to comfortably indulge their considerable capacity for bigotry and unabashed hatred for those who have no use for superstitions and delusions.
The people most likely to possess guns are rational Americans who still understand and cherish the Bill of Rights -- not just the Second Amendment, but all of them. For the most part, such persons are generally politically conservative, since gun phobia is a uniquely liberal affliction. Already having an understanding of the Bill of Rights, gun owners also are aware of the history and reason for the Second Amendment, why it was included in the Bill of Rights, and what part it plays in the Bill as a whole. They know the threats to individual liberty posed by centralized government. They are fully aware of history, and what comes with an all-powerful government that no longer feels beholden to its citizens. They know that without the Second Amendment, all the others will become mere platitudes, temporary grants of protection from the government so long as the populace behaves itself, to be rescinded or canceled as soon as the citizenry fails to understand its place. You may cheer endlessly, but booing will have consequences.
Gun control has nothing to do with saving lives. If lives mattered, Planned Parenthood would have been deconstructed long ago. If lives mattered, the nightly “mass shootings” in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and every other Democrat-run city with “gun control” would be openly acknowledged and confronted. We all know that those shootings, as well as the other horrific shootings we’ve seen in the last several years, were not carried out by people who embrace conservative American values. People who believe in freedom don’t deprive others of theirs. Rather, sociopathic deeds are carried out by people who reflect the culture of devaluation which liberalism has brought us.
The casual taking of lives is a uniquely liberal phenomena. When people are trained to be victims, and that their “right” to take from others is both fair and commendable, it is only a matter of time before they take everything that belongs to another, including his life. Liberals are professional victims. Whether it’s the punishment of pregnancy, as the president termed it, or that someone else has obtained through work what the leftist wishes to steal, it’s only fair that someone else’s life be taken to assuage the harm done to the liberal. He has been conditioned to believe that he has been so mistreated in his outcomes, it is fair that someone should pay the ultimate price for his disappointment. This same warped mindset has brought us the ‘kill the cops’ mantra of the Black Lives Matter movement. The innocent and the dead are only being made to pay for the perpetrator’s subjective unhappiness.
This intellectual deformity is not a product of conservative values or beliefs. It is a product of liberal conditioning. The statistics on mass shootings which liberals instantly and breathlessly recite when regurgitating their gun control talking points are almost entirely comprised of the urban slayings in which Democrats pull the trigger and liberal politicians seem entirely uninterested. I know I am not alone in observing that as the beliefs and values of the left have assumed greater prominence in our society, the number of shooting deaths has risen proportionately to their control of the culture. Similarly, as they have more purposefully begun to infringe rights valued by conservatives, we have become increasingly unsafe. We have seven years of knowledge that others’ lives are the last things this president or his party cares about.
Despite all this, at whom is gun control directed? Obviously, at that portion of the citizenry that owns guns but doesn’t use them to harm anyone. That is, primarily at conservatives, who are morally averse to doing harm to those who do not seek to harm them first. Conservatives, you see, do not pose any risk to the public at large by their ownership of guns. They do pose a risk, however, to those whose pathway to totalitarianism would be vastly easier without hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of those whom they would see subservient to the government. It is those steadfast citizens, and only those citizens, against whom the president speaks every time a product of the liberal culture he embodies decides to exact his revenge for his inadequacy.
The fact is that liberals have already not only surrendered to servitude, they have embraced it. They have bought the lie that government is the solution, rather than the cause of nearly every problem which besets this country. They are fine with fewer rights, because they seem to think that the government they worship and depend upon would never turn on them when the money dries up or the issue becomes which priority a totalitarian regime will indulge: freebies to its supporters or its own self-preservation at the barrel of a gun. They see that same paternal government targeting their philosophical enemies, conservatives, and think that because they are politically aligned, it is perfectly fine that government targets some of its citizens. They don’t understand that a time will come when such a government doesn’t need liberals, either.
Conservatives understand that to be disarmed is to hasten the end of freedom and individual liberty. They understand that to own guns, and know how to use them, is to refuse to surrender. They know, as shown by history, that government unmoored from its role as servant of the public will pursue complete control. Speech is no longer as free as it was, and is becoming less so. Look at the price Ben Carson has been made to pay for telling the truth about Sharia. The president has just informed us that the newly minted rights of the LGBT crusaders will trump historic Constitutional protections concerning religion. Government is deciding its supporters will have rights, and the resistance will not. The last hedge against full serfdom is the knowledge on the left that conservatives will not become slaves of Democrats without a fight.
Gun control is purely and simply a political tool to achieve the disarmament of that portion of the populace that will not surrender to Marxists and fascists. The president wishes to politicize the deaths brought about by his culture, and that of his followers, to achieve total political domination through manipulation of the weak-minded. The left has no intention of being forever checked by those who preserve the America he has sought to overwhelm. The last breath of that America will occur when citizens can no longer forcefully resist the malfeasance of their own government. No one knows that better than a fundamentally transformative tyrant.

No Coherent Identityitis

By Clarice Feldman

There’s an illness sweeping the country and even the White House has succumbed to it: No coherent identityitis.
In the way that the media highlights and frames mass shootings as a sort of ghoulish entertainment and ignores far more serious events, you might have missed the connection between the shootings in Oregon and Obama’s conduct this week. There’s a great deal of commonality between those murders and the disaster in the Middle East that Obama touched off with his ridiculous Arab Spring and Iran deal, a disaster that certainly has resulted in many more deaths and holds out the terrible prospect of millions more.
Symptoms of No Coherent Identityitis
A. Confused Backgrounds and Absent Fathers
Both Chris Mercer and Obama are mixed-race males. Both had foreign fathers who skipped out on them, leaving them without a fixed role model so critical to an integrated personality which is necessary to process information (reality) and make informed decisions. As a result, neither seems to have a firm fixed identity. Their conduct is without integrity. It is out of accord with actuality. Instead it is erratic and inexplicable, a reflection of their inner chaos.
That Obama’s self-history is confused and incoherent is obvious from his two “autobiographies” which are full of inexplicable contradictions. Looking at what is publicly reported about the shooter -- that he is a conservative and a white supremacist -- the great Daniel Greenfield observes:

i'm not an expert on "White Supremacism", but being half-black and then shooting a bunch of white Christians would make him the worst White Supremacist ever. If being half-white and hating white Christians makes you a White Supremacist... then Obama should be investigated for being a White Supremacist.
[snip]
Right now there's no coherent identity here. And that's normal for crazy people. And it's either that or Mercer was one of the half-white Neo-Nazi IRA anti-Christian Republican killers. And you know how big of a problem they are.

Compare with Obama, who has lied about his Muslim background. By birth and early education he was clearly a Moslem who has steadfastly denied his early history after converting to the Reverend Wright’s bizarre version of Christianity.
B. Incoherent Views and Actions

It would be hard to catalogue all of Obama’s inconsistent words and deeds, but this week they were particularly and repeatedly glaring.
The man who armed the Mexican drug lords and the thugs in Syria and who is giving Iran the green light to develop its nuclear weapons and wreak further havoc in the world, chose the Oregon incident to press for gun control.
As Michelle Obama’s Mirror noted:

In a lecture filled with lies Barry told us yesterday that mass shootings are “something we should politicize,” as if we haven’t.
A visibly angry Obama blasted Congress for being unwilling to change the nations [sic] gun laws in response to a wave of mass shootings that have cast a cloud over his presidency.
I guess we are all to agree with his flawed logic, submit to his will, and by-pass the do-nothing Congress that we elected as stipulated in the Constitution because we need some common sense gun control laws; like repealing the 2nd Amendment. Because, you know, Obama’s Amerika: and we don’t want Barry to look bad.
I don’t know about you, butt I would be more inclined to listen to a President lecture us on “common sense gun control” if he weren’t the president that armed a Mexican drug cartel.
[snip]
And gave Iran, the single most important state sponsor of terrorism in the world, the go-ahead to build their nuclear bomb. Now that’s something some of us think should be politicized. Because, you know, they’ve announced their intent to annihilate Israel. What a bother.

The normally more sedately ironic Tom Maguire was incredulous:

What Was That?
Did Obama just have a press conference or was I watching a "Best of Saturday Night Live" sketch?
[snip]
On Syria, Obama mentioned Assad's despicable use of barrel bombs on his civilian population several times. But is a no-fly zone a good idea? NOT SO FAST, haters -- it's complicated, and has been for years. And Obama won't do half-measures. Far better to do no measures. And Hillary's call for a no-fly zone is just political grandstanding, unlike the calls from the Republican haters, who are just "half-baked" and full of "mumbo jumbo.
[snip]
In a moment even more detached from reality Obama addressed the question of why there seems to be a growing perception that Putin is winning and Obama is losing.
His gist -- the US economy is growing, we are the world's economic bright spot, and the Russian economy is shrinking. Putin is shoving his troops into the Syrian quagmire, which will be a long term mistake, and anyway, his only allies in the region are Libya and Syria (but not Iran?!? With whom he is coordinating air strikes, while monitoring their compliance with the nuclear deal?), and how is that working for him, so c'mon, haters, this is what winning looks like!

Even on the topic of gun control where for the second weekend in a row 50 people were shot in his home town Chicago which has very strict gun control laws, the incoherence of Obama’s positions are impossible to ignore. Returning to Tom Maguire:

In any case, his gist is that all Republicans oppose gun control, so let's not talk about the Democrats who also oppose it; let's talk about the kooky Republicans reasons for opposing common sense gun safety laws. Those reason range from unconvincing to silly, but let me spend the most time on the absurd idea that I want to confiscate everyone's guns and permanently empower myself. C'mon, haters, serious up!
Well, he omitted "half-baked" "mumbo jumbo", so there is that. Such a small, unimaginative, divisive President committed to leading half the people. Is this really his idea of away to promote national dialogue? I am sure that in his mind he scored this as 'Obama 1, Strawmen 0", but acknowledging the actual concerns of serious opponents is often a better negotiating ploy.
[snip]
Obama also noted that on the mean streets of Chicago the level of violence we saw in the Oregon shooting is an everyday (or at least, every weekend) occurrence, so of course stricter laws would help there as well. How that coexists with "Black Lives Matter" and the end of stop and frisk in New York City was left unexplained.
[snip]
Most socially liberal gun control champions don’t see themselves as pushing policies that would abet racial profiling or worsen the problem of mass incarceration.
[snip]
Yeah, we are going to get guns off the streets of Chicago without arresting any young black men, or even ruffling their feathers. Obama is right -- he can't do that by himself.

He cited approvingly the UK and Australia ban on guns -- ironically just as there was another shooting in Australia linked to terrorism while at the same time saying “but let me spend the most time on the absurd idea that I want to confiscate everyone's guns -- This prompted Ignatz Ratzkywatzky’s response: "Yeah, why would anyone entertain that absurd idea when his only two examples of how to deal with "gun violence" are the UK and Australia, who dealt with it via confiscation.”
He regularly insults and jeopardizes the safety of our allies and cozies up to our enemies. Just this week he pulled John Kerry and Samantha Powers out of the UN when Bibi Netanyahu made his impassioned speech about the UN’s failure to condemn Iran’s call for the destruction of Israel. Nor did he comment to my knowledge on Mahmoud Abbas’ claim that Palestine was no longer bound to the Oslo accords .
For all the bleating about gun control, its proponents have no solution.

Professor Gene Volokh suggests the problem is alcohol and notes how ineffective prohibition was to deal with that.
Maybe it’s a mistake to consider Obama’s angry contradictory battles with unarmed strawmen merely politically opportune oratory designed to demonize his opponents. Maybe he’s just a man with no sense of himself or of reality who cannot process facts at odds with his fixed notions and is now so over his head that his mental illness is now unmistakable. He lives in his own head and has made the real world the rest of us live in far more perilous.

Comment discussion on what to do about mass shooters..

This U.S. Citizen • 2 days ago

These attacks are nothing more than a military ambush. The US Marines train to react immediately to an ambush. We are trained to "assault through" the ambush. Don't take cover. Don't drop and shoot. Don't retreat. You assault through the ambush. People dying is already a given at the point a shooter like this appears. If people are taught to immediately assault these shooters, yes a few will die but casualties and death will always be minimalized. A much better option than to stand there and answer questions like sheep to the slaughter waiting for someone to decide if you are worthy of living. I will take my chance and assault.

Liberty or Death This U.S. Citizen • 2 days ago

That was my thinking this morning, after hearing this psycho thought it would be cute to interrogate people about their religious affiliation, prior to executing them.
If I am in this situation, I make my peace with the Lord and "roll." I'd like to take my last breath choking the life out of this guy, rather than wait in line for my bullet. In those moments, it would be incredibly difficult to summon the courage to face a man with a gun, and I certainly don't think any less of those who couldn't... but that's what I would hope for in my case.

aRdent This U.S. Citizen • 2 days ago

The worst possible thing to do in an ambush is "nothing." You are already in the kill zone, so there is no wrong way to move as long as you do it fast and with determination. Hoping the worst will not happen is just as effective as hoping for whirled peas. The problem is most of us are not trained or even vaguely encouraged think in terms of immediate action.
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.
God_Guts_Guns This U.S. Citizen • 2 days ago

Good luck trying to train a bunch of metrosexual pajama boys to do anything other than pass their pants
- This U.S. Citizen God_Guts_Guns • 2 days ago
  
  Not worried about them. You cannot teach everyone. Just teach your kids and practice thinking about it and walking through it mentally about the scenario. Since 9/11 its something I do on a plane, in crowds, etc. Scenario planning. In a worst case scenario like this, almost anything you do will create a better outcome.
  
  Videre Licet God_Guts_Guns • 2 days ago
  
  We could train them to drop down, curl in a fetal position and generally get out of our way.
ShermanLogan This U.S. Citizen • 2 hours ago

Great theory, doesn't work so well in practice.
Marines are trained to work as a group. They are also trained in how to respond when ambushed and at the moment of the ambush are generally expecting it as something that might happen.
In a scenario like this one, people are surprised, most take at least a few seconds, those critical few first seconds, to even figure out what's going on, much less how to react.
You also run into the game theory of John Nash. Yes, if we all rush the shooter at once, he gets off only a few shots. But if I charge alone or with only one or two others, I will almost certainly be killed. Whereas if I lay quietly and avoid drawing his attention, I may be one of the lucky survivors.
IOW, the strategy that is best for the group is not necessarily the best for any of the individuals in that group.
EDIT: Doesn't mean I don't hope that if I'm ever in this situation I die, if I must, attacking rather than cowering.
- This U.S. Citizen ShermanLogan • an hour ago
  
  Mandatory "shooter/reaction" orientation. Every student, every year. But then again, teaching people to be aggressive vs passive in these situations might not be politically correct. But people keep asking what to do. You cannot ban guns. Background checks and magazine limits will not stop this. Gun free zones is just a stupid concept since only law abiding people follow laws. No, It has to be mitigated when the situation presents itself and the only ones who can do that are those involved. At that point, there are no wrong answers. Deadly force, misdirection, hell just everyone learning to throw every book they have on their desk at them then doing a mad rush will save lives.
  Regarding "You also run into the game theory of John Nash. Yes, if we all rush the
  shooter at once, he gets off only a few shots. But if I charge alone
  or with only one or two others, I will almost certainly be killed.
  Whereas if I lay quietly and avoid drawing his attention, I may be one
  of the lucky survivors."
  I believe you have more chance by being on the offensive rather than hope for the best and leave it up to a lunatic with obvious bad intent and a weapon. No thanks. The shooter has likely only thought about how he would follow his plan. If his plan goes downhill immediately, he is now on a path he probably had not thought through and will be at a disadvantage at that point. Those who have had repeated training or at least discussed the scenario will have better odds than if they had not. You are right, Marines are trained as a group and civilians need to be trained as a group for this particular situation. Their life depends on it.

25 Ways to Be a Real Man

By Craig Dunkley

In its Men's Style section, The New York Times recently published a somewhat ridiculous, liberalism-infused article entitled "27 Ways to Be a Modern Man." While a few of the 27 ways made some sense, many of them were so soft-handed and weak that one wonders if the article was meant as a joke. Sadly, it appears that the writer was serious:

When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

The modern man cries. He cries often.

Well, if a modern man is supposed to be a mushy, fashion-conscious crybaby with a melon-baller, then I want no part of it. It's far better to be a real man. So what are the traits of a real man? There are many, and this list isn't comprehensive, but it should be a good start.
A real man:

Has integrity. If he gives you his word on something – or shakes on it – then you can put it in the bank. A real man does what he says he's going to do.
Treats people with dignity and respect. He adheres to the Golden Rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. All people get the same treatment, whether he needs something from them or not.
Respects women. For a real man, chivalry is not dead. He will open a door for a woman, give up his seat for a woman, and never, ever abuse a woman.
Has principles and a moral compass. The real man knows that there are objective truths. He makes decisions based on them, conducts himself according to them, judges the character of others based on them, and won't compromise them.
Is not afraid to take a stand. He is not a "yes man" at work or anywhere else, nor is he difficult just for the sake of being difficult. However, he's not afraid to express his opinion.
Loves and supports his family. A real man understands that he can't abandon his responsibility to provide for his family. He doesn't have to do it alone…but he needs to be in the game.
Is willing to fight. The real man should be slow to anger, but he understands that sometimes, he has to fight, whether it's figuratively in a courtroom, boardroom, or some other setting, or physically on the street. He will protect his family from harm or die trying.
Has some martial arts training. Maybe he wrestled in high school, learned to box in a local gym, or competed in karate, judo, or some other art. It all counts.
Understands the gun. He respects the pistol and rifle, and he knows how to use them safely and effectively.
Reads. The real man doesn't have to be a top-flight intellectual, but he isn't afraid to read a book every once in a while, and he knows what's going on in the world.
Doesn't keep a diary. Unless he's an important political or military figure, a great scientist, a modern-day explorer, leading businessman, or some other figure of historical significance, the real man knows that most of his day-to-day life isn't worth writing down. If he wants to write out a diary to "explore his feelings," then he might not qualify as a real man.
Isn't afraid of his emotions, but knows how to control them. The real man is not a crybaby. He can cry over something major, like the death of a close friend or family member. Aside from that, there aren't many reasons to pull a John Boehner.
Has some mechanical ability. The real man can do things like change the oil and filters in his car (or better yet, his truck), use – and repair – a lawnmower, change a flat tire, hang a ceiling fan, and do some basic plumbing work or similar things.
Knows how to use tools. Related to number 12 above, the real man knows how to turn a wrench, drive a nail, and cut wood. He doesn't need to be a master carpenter, but he should have some basic skills.
Knows how to back a trailer.
Isn't afraid of manual labor. A real man can be in a white-collar or blue-collar profession. For those in white-collar jobs, it's important to have done – and continue to do – some work with their hands and their backs.
Has self-discipline and self-control. Whether it's his job, diet, exercise routine, personal finances, or other elements within his personal control, a real man knows how to stay on track. He's not a prude, but he does know when to conduct himself in a more dignified manner…and when it's okay to loosen up.
Loves a good steak.
Isn't afraid of a good cigar and a glass of whiskey.
Knows how to hunt or fish. He also knows how to clean and prepare the game or fish he takes.
Is not a narcissist. He is not overly introspective, and he understands that there are things larger than himself.
Knows what the term "inalienable rights" means, and what those rights are for every individual.
Takes his work seriously, and strives to be the best he can be.
Understands that the world owes him nothing. After reaching adulthood, the real man understands that he is entitled only to what he can earn. Anything else is a gift, for which he should be appreciative.
Doesn't pretend he's something he's not.

While this nation's future might rest with the modern man, its greatness most certainly rests upon the shoulders of the real man. We need more of the latter.

Obama's perfect storm to destroy Israel

By Lauri B. Regan

As the country’s electorate focuses on the Roseburg shootings, three very important items leaked onto the news wires on Thursday that deserve broad, nationwide attention.
Sadly, I am not referring to the drip, drip, drip of Hillary’s emails, the deaths of our service members in a plane crash in Afghanistan, or the attack by a Palestinian terrorist who murdered the parents of four young children.
I awoke to a breaking story in Politico with the headline “Exclusive: Obama brushed off Reid’s plea on Palestinian State.” From that story we learn:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on two different occasions this year went to White House chief of staff Denis McDonough seeking a public commitment from President Barack Obama that he would veto any U.N. resolution calling for an independent Palestinian state.
Both times, Obama did nothing.

While this would be unprecedented, so would abstaining from, rather than vetoing, a U.N. resolution condemning the United States for its embargo on Cuba. But that is exactly what the administration is threatening to do. This is arguably treasonous, given that Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the country, but given the fact that he has not been impeached for all of his other unconstitutional offenses to date, what does he have to lose by screwing over our most important ally in the Mideast?
Shortly after reading the Politico article, I turned my attention to watching Bibi Netanyahu’s much awaited speech before the U.N. General Assembly. Noticeably absent was the United States’ U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, and Secretary of State John Kerry, both of whom were in New York City for the UNGA events this week. Later in the day Breitbart broke the story with the headline “Obama Pulled John Kerry and Samantha Power from Netanyahu UN Speech.”

“Ambassador Power and Secretary Kerry were unable to attend Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before the General Assembly because they were called into a meeting with President Obama, which they participated in via video teleconference,” a State Department Official told Breitbart News.

Is it possible for our president to get even smaller with his vindictive, childish, and unpresidential treatment of Israel’s prime minister? Presumably he decided that pulling our ambassador and SOS would destroy any credibility that Bibi had and detract from his compelling message. And sadly, this is not the first time that Obama has spit in Netanyahu’s face; unquestionably, it will not be the last. But watching Bibi’s speech, it was clear that the only grown-up in the room, the only hero in these first decades of the 21st century, the only world leader history will look back upon without shame and condemnation is Israel’s prime minister.
Finally, despite thinking that things could not get worse, someone sent me an article with the following headline: “Argentine President: Obama Administration Tried To Convince Us to Give Iran Nuclear Fuel.”

Kirchner said that two years into Obama's first term, his administration sent Gary Samore, former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Argentina to persuade the nation to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, which is a key component of nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt that the White House will deny this accusation. In fact, Kirchner stated that when she asked Samore to put his request in writing, “he disappeared” – so there is no smoking gun. But given what we have learned about Obama’s outreach to the Iranians from his first moments in office in 2009 and his capitulations throughout the Iran deal negotiations, this story is more than plausible, although lord knows what he was thinking.
While those of us who were actually paying attention to who and what the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was are not surprised that an unleashed second term has led to Obama bringing chaos and violence to the Middle East as well as Israel’s survival to the brink, we did not expect that he would do everything in his power to hand to Iran a nuclear weapon on a silver platter. But that is exactly what he is doing.
And he has handed over the Middle East to Russia and Iran to run amok, decimating any remaining stability or ability for America to protect its interests. But it is Israel that will pay the most expensive price in the near term as ISIS moves on Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank and Hezb’allah’s power is buoyed by our enemies’ projection of their own military might.
In an appearance on The Kelly File Thursday evening, Charles Krauthammer issued a devastating critique of Obama and his Syrian policy. Kelly asked if we are watching the end of our status as a super power. Krauthammer replied

We are watching the culmination of a policy begun by Obama when he came into office to get out of the Middle East. That’s all he cared about….
You leave, everything implodes and our allies…are in absolute panic over the fact that the umbrella America has held over the region for half a century has been folded – deliberately by Barack Obama.

Watch the full interview here.
Netanyahu concluded his UNGA speech pointing out that Israel is on the front lines of the war for the survival of Western civilization. He beseeched the world to “[s]tand with Israel because it is not just defending itself. More than ever, Israel is defending you.” Would that the world’s leaders, Barack Obama, and the American people wake up before it is too late.

The Most Dangerous Man In the World

By Andrew Logar

…is neither Russia’s Vladimir Putin nor China’s Xi Jinping, nor at this time, Ayatollah Khamenei – it’s none other than America’s Barack Hussein Obama. This is not because of any aggressive, risk-laden actions he has taken, far from it. It is because of those he has failed to take at critical times to credibly dissuade strategic competitors and potential aggressors, such as Russia and China, from actions that may suddenly compound into destabilizing confrontations, even war. When the Middle East cauldron spawned the barbaric ISIS, Obama’s indecisive, pusillanimous response allowed this Islamic malignancy to rapidly metastasize, compounding and accelerating an existing refugee problem that will involve America. Additionally, throughout his tenure, overt actions Obama has taken served to steadily and materially, degrade American military capabilities, while enemies grow stronger.
In retrospect, divining Obama’s foreign policy should have been relatively easy given his background – a world seen through the eyes of someone whose father was a Muslim, as was his step-father, whose early education was in a Muslim madrassa, followed by mentoring from the known communist Frank Marshall Davis, associations with Columbia University’s Palestinian activist Edward Said and later, Harvard’s leftist Brazilian socialist Roberto Unger, later close association with admitted communist and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, then followed by 20 years of anti-American and anti- Semitic sermons by Reverend Jeremiah Wright who, placing much of the world’s ills at America’s doorstep, culminated a post 9-11 sermon sententiously intoning, “…America’s chickens have come home to roost.”
Ironically, other chickens have indeed come home to roost. American liberalism’s pernicious obsession to eradicate the odium of slavery long gone and any vestiges of remaining discrimination in one fell swoop, blindly promoted the candidacy of the first black president, propelling a relatively unknown, unvetted and remarkably unqualified candidate to two electoral victories. That most unfortunate occurrence followed by resultant deleterious fallout at home and abroad, are liberalism’s chickens coming home to roost – in the White House – where they’ll cluck away until January 20, 2017.
After winning the 2008 election, Obama launched his now infamous “Apology Tour,” covering three continents in some 100 days, during which the Heritage Foundation identified 10 major apologies Obama made for America’s past behavior. Mitt Romney, in his book, “No Apology,” correctly criticized Obama’s gratuitous apologies. Indeed, unnecessary apologies by our president projected a weakness in resolve, confidence and appreciation of our nation’s accomplishments, our beliefs and values. While in Europe, when asked if he believed in American “exceptionalism,” he said yes – in the same way that, “ …the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.”
This was an arresting, if not downright stupefying statement – coming from the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, with a manifestly unrivaled history. This is a nation which in 239 years since the Declaration of Independence, grew from 13 colonies and 3 million people to 50 states and 320 million people, a nation victorious in its Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and which fought its bloodiest of wars, the Civil War, to expunge slavery; this is a nation victorious in the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII, that introduced the incontestably successful Marshall Plan critical in European post war recovery, that sent men to the moon and back, 6 times – and the nation that won the Cold War - a nation that has consistently led the world in Nobel prizes in medicine, science and technology. This is unequivocally a nation like none other, a nation of unparalleled achievements and sadly, one whose president does not consider particularly exceptional.
The historical record now shows global competitors and enemies have taken their measure of Obama: the Russians have acted with impunity in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, the Chinese are establishing a stranglehold on the South China Sea while Russians, Chinese and Iranians are engaged in flagrant cyber-espionage against America, ISIS is growing, while Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are all in play.
Barack Obama’s sophomoric efforts at geopolitics derived from his warped, kaleidoscopic misreading of 20^th century history have now spiraled into a veritable tragicomedy of incompetence. Witness his administration’s $500 million program to train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS: not only didn’t that produce the projected 5,000 trained fighters, or even 500, but only, according to General Lloyd Austin, “…four or five.” This is grist for a Marx Brothers movie and attributable to abysmally poor leadership, planning and organization which can only be placed at the doorstep of the White House.
An objective review of the Obama administration’s policies reveals they have consistently posed a direct or indirect threat to national security:
- The unilateral cancellation of the Easter Europe ABM deployment without securing a tangible quid pro quo from Moscow and no counter to Russia’s recent decision to sell the potent S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran.
- The ill-advised support for the overthrow of long-term ally of the West, Egypt's Mubarak and the inexplicable enthusiastic White House support of the Muslim Brotherhood.
- The equally ill-advised and ill-planned toppling of Libya’s Gaddafi, resulting in a country without a functional government now overrun with Islamists, where at Benghazi four Americans died needlessly.
- The withholding of vital intelligence from the Senate that Russia had been flagrantly cheating on the existing INF treaty to advance ratification of New START in 2010. Seventy-one Senators voted for ratification without full background knowledge.
- The 2011 withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by Obama while blaming the Bush administration for inadequacies of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). This allowed Iraq to descend back into sectarian chaos, giving rise to ISIS and advantage to Iran. A war won at high cost in blood and treasure was thus lost.
- The military drawdown in Afghanistan – mindlessly pre-announced to the enemy – may lose that war as well if continued.
- The release of five dangerous Taliban in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl is beyond rational justification and/or discussion.
- The manifest dereliction of duty in not taking strong measures to protect America from devastating EMP attack – which can be done at very affordable cost.
- The lack resolute policy has turned Syria into a graveyard of American credibility. Nothing substantive has been achieved to slow, let alone destroy, rapidly metastasizing ISIS, unconscionably leaving a compounding problem to future administrations.
- The opening of our southern border to a tsunami of illegal immigration, arguably to permanently bias future voter demographics toward a one-party (Democratic) state. That many of those gaining easy entry may wish us harm is apparently of no concern to Obama.
- The continuing undermining of America’s military superiority is increasing the likelihood of confrontation with adversaries. According to the Heritage Foundation Index of Military Strength, our Commander-In-Chief has allowed our military power to degrade to “Marginal,” leaving the US Army at its relatively weakest level since the end of WWII, while our antagonists pour money into their armed forces.
- Finally (but Obama is not through yet!) - during recent post-summit remarks, China’s Xi Jinping suggested tough U.S. response to Chinese hacking would bring retaliation; obligingly, Obama affirmed sanctions wouldn’t be directed against governments. Essentially, Xi stepped forward, Obama blinked and stepped back – signaling a major geopolitical sea change. Cyberespionage by Russia and Iran haven’t been addressed.
Before winning the 2008 election and still a senator, during the Bush administration’s then ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, Obama, in a brazen and historically unprecedented move, secretly sent a personal emissary to Iran, William G. Miller, a former Ambassador to Ukraine, essentially conveying this message: Obama will very likely to be elected president, after which time Iran will find negotiating with him far easier. The Bush negotiations reportedly then reached a stalemate. Fast-forward to 2015, through Obama’s and Kerry’s “hard” bargaining, we’ve reached an agreement with Iran whereby monitoring Iran’s programs will be left to the Iranians as they now have the right to self-inspect” and so as to take the sting away from such an onerous deal, we’ll give them $100 billion of frozen assets - with which to do as they please – while America agrees to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from cyber warfare.
Though Red China, Russia and Iran increasingly challenge America, the Middle East bloodshed continues and ISIS grows stronger, President Obama has declared “…no challenge--poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." This extraordinarily vacuous statement is from either a hopelessly delusional ideologue, woefully untutored in world history, geopolitics and the unequaled greatness of America, or a brilliant Manchurian Candidate marching to his own drumbeat. In any case, Obama is a president like none other - and may we never see the likes of him again.