Thursday, September 17, 2015


Democrats are critical of the Iran deal but they stand behind the president in this agreement. The next few years will see if their gamble in supporting the president pays off.

Top congressional Democrats have done a great job laying out the terms of the Iran nuclear deal, a Free Beacon SuperCut finds.

These members of Congress explained how Iran will ramp up its campaign of terrorism and Middle East destabilization with funds gained through the nuclear deal. They expressed “concern”—grave concern, even—over key concessions such as the curtailment of inspections on Iran’s military sites, the removal of a ban on arms sales to Iran, and the 15-year sunset clause on restrictions to Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear material.

Still, as other Democrats have unceasingly reminded us, the Iran deal was ultimately an inviolable vote of conscience for each member of Congress.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015


Great lines:

Bobby Jindal:

[Obama] has declared war on trans fats ands a truce with Iran. Think about that. He’s more worried about Twinkies than he is about the ayatollahs having a nuclear weapon.

Fiorina nails Trump:

Fiorina responded to Trump’s attack on her business career by attacking his. She said that Washington politicians had run up huge amounts of debt, and pointed out that Trump had done so in some of his business ventures in Atlantic City, N.J.

“That is precisely the way you ran your companies. You ran up mountains of debt, as well as losses, using other people’s money,” Fiorina said. “Why should we trust you to manage the finances of this nation?”


Obama is "more respectful to the ayatollah of Iran than the prime minister of Israel."


We don't need an apprentice in the White House. . .we have one right now.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


The American Interest.  "Fecklessness 101."  Did the Obama administration miss a chance to solve the Syrian crisis in 2012?

Apparently the Obama administration turned down a Russian offer to dump Assad… because the Administration was sure he was going to fall on his own. The Guardian reports:

[Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti] Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

Glenn Reynolds.  USA Today.  "The Obama-Hillary Mideast Debacles."

Obama initially called for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad, only to back down in the face of opposition from Vladimir Putin. Since then, the United States has postured a bit, but done nothing of consequence. The signal to our enemies: It’s safe to ignore us. The signal to our friends: It’s foolish to rely on us.

Now, as the war in Syria has expanded — with the U.S. arming and supporting various groups that have shown a disturbing tendency to take our guns and then switch sides — refugees are flooding Europe. It is, as Ron Radosh correctly states, Barack Obama’s refugee problem.

This would be bad enough if Syria were the Obama administration’s only foreign policy misstep, but instead it is merely representative of a larger problem. President Obamabragged about Yemen as a showpiece of his administration’s anti-terror program’s success; a few months later, Yemen was taken over by terrorists and now an ugly civil war, featuring Saudi troops, rages there. The administration’s responses, as even the Obama-friendly notes, have been ”cringe-worthy.”

Sunday, September 13, 2015


Walter Russell Mead. The Wall Street Journal.  "The Roots of the Migration Crisis."

The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals.

What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral.

The crisis in the Middle East has to do with much more than the breakdown of order in Syria and Libya. It runs deeper than the poisonous sectarian and ethnic hatreds behind the series of wars stretching from Pakistan to North Africa. At bottom, we are witnessing the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity. One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek.

Charles Paul Freund.  "The Arab Press Reacts to the European Refugee Crisis."

"We are a nauseating nation," wrote the Saudi journalist 'Ali Sa'd Al-Moussa in Al-Watan on September 5, in reaction to images of Syrians and other refugees fleeing to Europe. The "nation" he was angrily condemning was not only Saudi Arabia, but the greater Arab world. It is a world, he lamented, "that kills people for their opinions or affiliation. Compare [this] to the parallel image: in the central train station in Munich, dozens of German citizens gather to welcome the first train arriving from Budapest carrying hundreds of immigrants...

"Stop talking about the hypocrisy of [Western] morals and values, because reality exposes nothing but our own ugly countenance."

Saturday, September 12, 2015


If this is the best Obama supporters can do, the president has a problem!  Surely you would come prepared to say something his administration has accomplished.

Friday, September 11, 2015


Former U.S. intelligence officials are giving the warning. Also an interesting interview with a former intelligence operative.

The United States could be facing another 9/11 attack as factions grow deeper among the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, especially with the recently confirmed death of the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Omar, according to a senior U.S. lawmaker, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials.

The tensions between Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and the Taliban is as dangerous a national security threat to the United States as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Brian Fairchild, who spent two decades with the CIA and has testified before Congress on terrorism.


The Daily Beast is reporting that fifty intelligence analysts are saying the Obama administration is tinkering with their reports. . .a very serious charge. The Obama administration has been trying to paint a rosy picture, but the intelligence may not support this rosy view.

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

Arthur L. Herman in the National Review gives a conservative critique of this report.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Remember all the complaints Democrats made about how the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in order to get us into war with Iraq over non-existent WMD’s? Official investigation after investigation showed they didn’t, but the false claim that “Bush lied and people died’ still haunts the memory of that war–and the sacrifice Americans made fighting and dying in it. 

Now we know why Democrats were so insistent somebody had to be cooking the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. It’s because that’s what they would have done themselves to fit their policy line. And, the Daily Beast suggests, that’s what they’re doing now, so they can avoid having to make the kind of military commitment we need, in order to eradicate the ISIS plague once and for all.

Update:  9/17/15.  John R. Schindler.  Observer.  "Obama's Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal."

It’s happening again. A White House fumbling with the violent mess of Iraq finds itself surrounded by mounting accusations that it’s played dirty games with intelligence. A Pentagon facing charges that its analysts have skewed assessments on Iraq to tell top policymakers what they want to hear, rather than what is really happening in that troubled country.

If this sounds terribly familiar, it should. Only a dozen years after the George W. Bush White House was buffeted by allegations that it had “cherry-picked” intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama is facing similar accusations. Intelligence Community analysts alleged that, in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were pressured to exaggerate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, analysts claim that they have been pushed to present Obama’s war against the Islamic State as more successful than it really is.

Only the most optimistic Obama backers still portray that year-long air campaign (its proper name is Operation Inherent Resolve) as adequate, and most security experts agree that the Islamic State is winning the war on the ground, thanks in part to an American-led air war that is bombing too little and too cautiously. There is no indication that Western airpower is anywhere near inflicting decisive pain on the Islamic State, while our Iraqi partners, who serve as the ground anvil for the U.S. airborne hammer, increasingly feel left in the lurch by Obama.


Wednesday, September 09, 2015


Wow.  An article advocating burning the Christian, Kim Davis, because of her stand on homosexual marriage.  Michael Brendan Dougherty, This Week. "Burn Kim Davis."

Any normal punishment rewards her with the comfort of solidarity from right-wing Christians, or her own sense of moral self-approval. Therefore the only way to avoid granting her such "martyrdom" is to actually martyr her. That's the really perverse thing about Christians who make a spectacle like this. The only way the state can really punish them is to inform them that their suffering is meaningless and proving that God doesn't exist by sending them to the darkness of oblivion in torment. Justice Kennedy has issued his theological bull; let Kentucky officials in defiance of it be put on a pyre.

When the smoke settles there will be no GoFundMe campaign, save perhaps for a small carbon offset.

Brian Beutler.  The New Republic.  "Throw Kentucky Clerk Kim in Jail.  She must be severely punished for denying marriage licenses to gay couples."

There are surely other religious clerks in the South and elsewhere who’d love to get away with discriminating against gays and lesbians, in defiance of the country's highest court. The only way to assure this doesn’t happen is to jail Kim Davis until she agrees to issue the licenses, resigns, or is removed from office.

Tuesday, September 08, 2015


Roger Cohen.  New York Times.  "Obama's Syrian Nightmare."  (He does not mention Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's roles.)

Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions. For more than four years now, the war has festered. A country has been destroyed, four million Syrians are refugees, Islamic State has moved into the vacuum and President Bashar al-Assad still drops barrel bombs whose shrapnel and chlorine rip women and children to shreds.

At multiple stages, if Obama could have mustered the will, the belief in American power, there were options. The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. A safe area for refugees might have been created. Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. Counterfactuals, of course, don’t carry much weight. We will never know. We only know the facts of the Syrian nightmare now seeping, in various forms, into the West. Syria, broken, will be the rift that keeps on giving.

In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered. He has been comfortable with the pinpoint use of force — the killing of Osama bin Laden for example — but uncomfortable with American military power.

Frederick C. Hof.  Foreign Policy.  "Obama:  Open Your Eyes".

Having decided to leave millions of Syrians subject to barrel bombs, starvation sieges, mass terrorism, and collective punishment so as not to offend Iran, the administration (or more precisely, Europe) now reaps the whirlwind of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Yet instead of changing course, it whines about how much worse things would have been had other decisions been taken.

Fred Hyatt, Editorial Page Director, Washington Post.  "Obama's Syria Achievement."

This may be the most surprising of President Obama’s foreign-policy legacies: not just that he presided over a humanitarian and cultural disaster of epochal proportions, but that he soothed the American people into feeling no responsibility for the tragedy.

Starvation in Biafra a generation ago sparked a movement. Synagogues and churches a decade ago mobilized to relieve misery in Darfur. When the Taliban in 2001 destroyed ancient statues of Buddha at Bamiyan, the world was appalled at the lost heritage.

When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011 that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe.

Ron Radosh, "Obama's Refugee Crisis."

While many foreign leaders have spoken out, there is one who has said not a word. That leader, as you most probably can guess, is Barack Obama. And how could he? His policies, after all, have ended in this tragedy. It is, as Michael Gerson writes in a powerful Washington Post column, the result of his failure in Syria.

Obama said a “red line” in Syria could not be crossed; then Bashar Al-Assad crossed it—and nothing happened except for temporarily harsher rhetoric from the president. Now, Assad drops barrel bombs on his own people, filled with supposedly outlawed chemical weapons. Obama, of course, had plenty of measures which he could have ordered that would have stopped or limited Assad’s war on his own people. Instead, he ignored the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, who favored using screened moderate forces of the Sunni majority willing to fight and supplying them with shoulder-to-air missiles that would have brought down the helicopters Assad uses to carry out the bombings. Instead, he did nothing.

Muslims chant "fuck you" in Hungary.  

Conservative European angry at refugees who are not refugees.  "European leaders are committing cultural and demographic suicide."

Michael Goodwin, New York Post.  "The Bigger Picture Behind the European Refugee Crisis."

This metastasizing catastrophe is not the result of famine or drought or disease. It is man-made and should have been ­prevented.

But that would have required leaders with the moral conviction of Roosevelt and Churchill. ­Instead, America and Great Britain are led by frat boys.

Barack Obama and David Cameron indulged themselves in the delusion that human nature had magically changed and the world would take care of itself while they gutted the arsenals of ­democracy.

History will record their fecklessness, and that of France, Germany and the other once-great powers. That is, unless history ­itself is erased by the madmen of Islamic State.

Not content to slaughter those they deem infidels and apostates, the would-be Hitlers are cleansing Syria and Iraq of its ancient temples and artifacts. They aim to control the past as well as the future.

Obama has been a gift to the worst of the world, topped by his surrender to Iran. He and the quislings masquerading as the leaders of Europe see no evil as Iran spreads its tentacles. Sooner, on their own, or later, with America’s blessing, the mullahs will have their doomsday weapon.

David P. Goldman. Asia Times.  "The Price of Europe's Fecklessness."

The Europeans, to be sure, are a pack of cynical hypocrites. If they had cared about Syrians, they might have sent a couple of brigades of soldiers to fight ISIS. But not a single European will risk his neck to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. The last time European soldiers got close to real trouble, in Srebrenica in 1995, Dutch peacekeepers stood aside while Bosnian Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslims.

The horror has now piled up on Europe’s doorstep, thanks evidently to the skill of Turkish gangs who have turned the Turkey-to-Balkans smuggling route into a superhighway. Europe said and did nothing while the global refugee count exploded from 40 million in 2010 to 60 million in 2014, according to the UN High Commission on Refugees, but was shocked, shocked to find such people on its doorstep.

Washington Post.  "Hungarian Bishop Says Pope is Wrong about Refugees."

Lee Smith.  The Weekly Standard.  "Obama Avoided Syrian Action to Help Iran Negotiations."

Obama decided to steer clear of the Syrian conflict not just to avoid doing anything, but just as importantly, to avoid damaging Iranian interests in Syria. As Obama wrote Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, “the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.” Obama didn’t do anything to bring down Assad because he was afraid it might anger the Syrian president’s patrons in Iran, and getting a nuclear deal with Iran was Obama’s foreign policy priority.

There is plenty that Obama might have done to support Syrian rebels— an opposition he derided as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists”—without ever risking putting American forces on the ground in Syria. By 2013, all his national security cabinet officials—Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Thomas Donilon, et al.—argued for supporting Syrian rebel units.

Obama however kept his eyes on the prize: the Iran deal. Same when it came to enforcing the red line he drew against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. No one in their right mind believes that firing missiles on Assad regime facilities was likely to compel the White House to land forces in Syria. Obama’s concern rather was that if the United States signaled that it was no longer protecting Assad it might turn the balance of power against the Syrian regime. But that of course would anger the Iranians, and all Obama wanted was an accommodation with the regime—and now he has one in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Thursday, May 28, 2015


I may get overwhelmed with ads and I am sure I will miss some, but I thought I would start a collection of clever campaign ads.


  • From Reason.  "Introducing the Bernie Sanders Save the Children Fund."
  • Ben Carson
    the new John Wayne!


Wednesday, May 27, 2015


Bill O'Reilly summarizes all of the problems facing American today because of the incompetence in Washington.  He could probably add a few more.

Some O'Reilly comments:
  • Even though President Obama promised to confront ISIS and downgrade it -- that has not happened.So while ISIS is burning human beings alive, Congresswoman Pelosi is concerned about the social media aspect of the struggle.
  • Harry Reid is blaming congress (Republican-controlled) for not doing more to support Obama against ISIS-->O'Reilly thinks this is crazy because many congressman are wanting a reluctant Obama to do more.
  • Recently Secretary of State John Kerry met with Putin promising him sanctions would be lifted if he promised to stop seizing more territory. That must have delighted Vlad Putin who I have nicknamed Vlad the invader as he saw once again the U.S.A. desperately trying to appease him.
  • China -- that country is now expanding in the specific, seizing territory that does not belong to it and developing its military in a dramatic way. China seeks to dominate Southeast Asia and understands it can now expand without any consequence from the West.
  • Next up: a phony nuke deal with Iran that will empower that villainous country. God help the next president of the United States.

Thursday, May 21, 2015


Some people have excitedly sent me emails about the Shemitah (Leviticus 25) and its application to America as a result of reading Jonathan Cahn's book, The Harbinger, and watching him on TV. They believe wholeheartedly in what Cahn is saying, but I am a bit of a "Berean" and want to make sure it is not just a false hermeneutic.

I have been trying to find if there is a biblical basis to Shemitah and other Old Testament prophecies for America today.  I am a bit late in reading Jonathan Cahn's the Harbinger. It is not a well-written book, but he tries to build the case for God working in events in America based on a verse in Isaiah and 7 & 50 year cycles related to the jubilee years.  America is in trouble  but are his interpretations accurate?  It is clear that God judges nations, but is America's judgment a result of prophecies in Isaiah written to the nation of Israel or more because we are a nation violating God's moral principles (Romans 1)?

I am also concerned because money and marketing are involved and in addition after doing some internet reading, some people are seeing signs in some strange things like the number "7" on a cow's face. It also strikes me a bit like the old "British Israelism" heresy that was using Old Testament verses to argue the British people descended from Israel and were finding Old Testament verses to support its case.

Here is an ad for a $20.00 DVD arguing Cahn's case:  But on YouTube you can see a number of interviews.  He is a very good speaker.

Here are a couple of people who are questioning his biblical interpretation.  These critics may be wrong, but they do point up issues and failures of the 7 year cycle to have any apparent consistent impact looking back into recent history.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015


This is a pivotal turning point showing the failure of U.S. policy and also it is a slap in the face to the U.S. soldiers who died there not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been and will be killed.  Here is a summary of reports on Ramadi’s takeover by ISIS (although it may be more than you want to read).  But it does show a wide consensus among policy analysts that the fall of Ramadi is a disaster. Everything the administration has said and done is quickly degenerating in the Middle East.

Democrats before the War Started:   Before Bush Democrats were arguing that Saddam was a threat.

Stop It, Liberals:  Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs:  The Daily Caller
There is plenty of criticism that can be leveled against George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but he didn’t deliberately mislead the country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

The Painful Loss of Ramadi: From the Atlantic.  Washington is arguing that Ramadi's fall is not a problem, but they obviously have to defend the administration's decisions.  
Even as the Islamic State takeover of the capital city of Iraq’s largest province seemed nearly complete on Sunday, the Pentagon continued to argue that the situation was still “fluid and contested.” That assessment was countered by reports that “hundreds of police personnel, soldiers and tribal fighters abandoned the city,” leaving it and a “large store” of American weapons in ISIS hands. The BBC cited a statement “purportedly from IS” claiming that the city had been “purged.”
It was also a development that American officials not only didn’t prefer, but evidently didn’t see coming a month ago, when a senior U.S. official told Foreign Policy it was unlikely that Shiite militias would fight the Islamic State in Anbar. The Iraqi government’s growing reliance on Shiite militias to fight ISIS has the potential to undermine American-trained Iraqi security forces. And the fall of Ramadi despite a U.S. air campaign aimed at blunting ISIS’s momentum shows the limits of the American strategy.

The World Will Blame President Obama if Iraq Falls:  From the National Journal.  Not so sure this will happen.
A decade later and after millions of American dollars, thousands of casualties, and seemingly hundreds of different policies, Iraq is very much broken. Even though he has boasted of "ending" the U.S. role in the war and even though he didn't create the situation, Obama very much owns the mess. And he finds himself on a timetable not of his choosing and very much at odds with his policy.

What Kind of Iraq Did Obama Inherit:  Commentary.  In 2010 White House officials told Larry King that things were going well in Iraq.  So it is not “Bush’s Fault.”
A fair-minded reading of the facts, I think, shows that when Mr. Obama was sworn in, the Iraq war had more or less been won. Things were fragile to be sure. But the errors that were made during the occupation of Iraq following the fall of Saddam, which were extremely costly, were corrected in 2007. That was when President Bush made what is in my estimation his most impressive decision. In the face of enormous political opposition, with the nation weary of the war, Mr. Bush implemented a new counterinsurgency strategy, dubbed the “surge” and led by the estimable General David Petraeus. It resulted in startling gains.
To sum up, then: post-surge, Iraq was making significant progress on virtually every front. The Obama administration said as much. The president was not engaged or eager to sign a new SOFA. A full withdrawal was the right decision. His own top advisers admitted as much. The president had long argued he wanted all American troops out of Iraq during his presidency, and he got his wish. He met his goal.

Obama’s ISIS Strategy Takes a Hit:  The Hill
The White House on Monday acknowledged the seizure represents a “setback” but signaled it is unlikely to alter its approach to combatting ISIS, which relies on U.S.-led airstrikes and training Iraqi security forces to fight the ground war. 

Obama’s Middle East Policy is in a State of Collapse:  Powerline.
It seems as though things couldn’t possibly get worse, but they almost certainly will. We are seeing the fruit of a set of policies that were based on the false premise that problems in the Middle East are mostly the fault of the United States. Not only were such policies misbegotten, they have been executed incompetently. The resulting collapse is occurring with sickening speed.

Pentagon:  Islam State on The Defensive, Just not in Ramadi:  Foreign Policy  The Pentagon spins the situation, but where do we have ISIL on the “defensive”?—Mosul has also fallen within the past year.  What will happen if Baghdad falls?  The Pentagon is shifting the blame to Iraqi leaders, but the administration got rid of all of Bush’s Iraqi leaders for these guys who they are now saying a bad leaders. Go figure.

Bob Gates:  “U.S. Has no Middle East Strategy “at all”: Politico.   Gates says the US is playing it “day by day”—this is not a strategy!  What could go wrong?

Susan Rice:  With Ramadi’s Fall, “a long slog” ahead against ISIL:  USA Today. An administration official admits that this is not a good situation, but she has not solutions.

ISIS capture of Ramadi renews criticism over US troop pullout, airstrike strategy:  FoxNews.
The Islamic State’s capture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi is sparking renewed criticism of Obama administration policies in the region -- from the decision to withdraw virtually all U.S. troops in 2011 to the current anti-ISIS strategy that relies mostly on airstrikes.

White House Steps Up Warnings About Terrorism on US Soil:  Los Angeles Times If the US can’t stop ISIS in Iraq, how is it going to stop ISIS in the US?