Matching a Mother's Courage !

The current conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is the third major confrontation between the two sides since Hamas took control of the enclave in 2007. By some accounts -- it depends how you define major -- it's the fifth or even the sixth. The fighting is usually ignited by smaller acts of violence. The battles tend to end with a cease-fire. The results rarely differ: a weakened Hamas, a lot of dead people (so far 1000 Palestinians, 48 Israelis) and many ruined buildings.

Almost as familiar as this round of fighting was the political failure that preceded it. In late April, U.S. sponsored negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority collapsed, with each side left blaming the other. Secretary of State John Kerry (right) had made getting a deal a policy priority and spent a huge amount of time on the talks -- and still they came to nothing. No surprise when you understand that the idiots in Hamas have a mission statement that says Israel has no right to exist.

With such a legacy of denial of reality, violence, contemporary and historic, should the leaders of both sides finally accept that the conflict is unfixable and that the Israelis will simply have to live under periodic rocket attack from Gaza and Gazans will have to suffer occasional bombardment by Israel. While political fatigue is understandable, the leaders of both peoples would do well to listen to an Israeli-American woman named Rachel Fraenkel. Her 16 year-old son Naftal was among three teenagers who were abducted and killed in the West Bank. Israel has claimed that two members of Hamas were responsible for the murders.

Naftal Fraenkel on the Left

The day after the boys' funeral, a 16-year-old Palestinian teenager, Mohammed Abu Khdeir, was seized off the streets of Jerusalem and murdered in what Israeli police say was a revenge attack by Israeli extremists. With Israeli citizens mourning the three boys quietly, of course that wasn't going to happen with the nut-cases in Gaza over their child and this contributed to the start of the war with rockets flying into Israel. These people don't know when to leave well enough alone, especially when Hamas selfishly builds lots of tunnels and not one bomb shelter for its people. Something tells me they have priorities wrong. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated; ''Israel uses missiles to protect its people, while Hamas uses people to protect its missiles.''

This is what Fraenkel (right) had to say to journalists about the Khdeir killing: ''Even in the depth of the mourning of our son, it's hard for me to describe how distressed we were over the out rage that happened in Jerusalem. The shedding of innocent blood is against the Torah and Judaism, it's against the basis of our life in this country. No mother or father should go through what we are going through now. The death of a child in the conflict should prompt a period of self-examination and reflection by both sides, not a renewed round of violence. Rachel Fraenkel's empathy for the parents of a child from the other side shows the sort of courage and humanity that Palestinian and Israeli leaders have failed to match.

What's needed is a political act that mirrors Fraenkel's generosity and faith. Netanyahu is in a greater position of strength than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and that gives him greater opportunity to make the first move. No one could reasonably argue that Netanyahu hasn't consistently performed his duty as an uncompromising protector of Israel and its people. He can try to see that he can do a deal with the Palestinians that would ensure that no one else's children are murdered in acts of political hatred fomented by the brainwashing of the Koran. He needs a partner for peace -- and it may well be that he will never find one in Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel - but he has little option but to keep trying, even if it means talking with Muslim filth he considers terrorists.

The Way I See It......Netanyahu will lose no political support in Israel by refusing to talk with the new Palestinian government formed in June with support of Hamas, once the war is over. But he would show greater strength than ever in making a gesture - a unilateral freezing of the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, for instance.- that would as a challenge to Abbas and Hamas. Abbas would then feel pressure to make a reciprocal gesture - perhaps a promise not to pursue Israel at the International Criminal Court - and we might begin to see a cycle of concessions rather than of violence. That would be the sort of leadership that children like Naftali Fraenkel and Mohammed Abu Khdeir have long deserved.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: The Scourge of Our Times

Here is a insightful submission by Gerry Jampol, a very good friend of mine, who is a fine wordsmith and former systems technician for the San Francisco Chronicle for many years.

 Anyone with a pulse is familiar with the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” 

 However, the authors of the Bill of Rights, proponents of the freedom of speech provision, apparently didn’t foresee a time when citizens themselves would abridge freedom of speech. For more than three decades the country has been terrorized by a self-important coterie of citizens who have mocked freedom of speech through what is called political correctness, or P.C.

  P.C. has become the refuge for the ignorant and oversensitive. It’s a political weapon that seeks to ostracize and judge people who have redefined words and terms. Those who don’t use P.C. terminology are readily accused of being racist, sexist, insensitive, homophobic.

  The P.C. lobby’s holier-than-thou attitude and air of moral superiority doesn’t impress me at all and is just a cover for their Leftist-liberal-women’s lib agenda in which they seek to bludgeon everyone who disagrees with them.

  The nonsensical term “Afro-American” has largely replaced “Black.”  P.C. wordsmiths have concocted all sorts of circumlocutions. The ''mentally retarded'' are now mentally challenged. If you’re ''crippled'' in an accident, you are now physically challenged, but, heaven forbid, not a cripple. A U.K. council has banned the term ''brainstorming'' and replaced it with ''thought showers'' , as the councillors thought the term may offend epileptics! Also a ''man hole'' is now called a ''utility hole.''
  In San Francisco, a loudmouthed group of wheelchair-bound people used their P.C. bull to stop the opening of a restaurant because they were too good to go through the kitchen to use the service elevator to take them to the second floor. They demanded that the restaurateur build a very expensive elevator just for their own selfish use. The restaurant owner lost about $800,000 thanks to the P.C. pigs. In politically correct San Francisco, there was little doubt that the city wouldn’t grant the owner a certificate to open his eatery.

 

P.C. is dangerous. Thousands of employees have lost their jobs because of P.C. During a private conversation some troublemaking lout overheard one of two men using a non-P.C. term. An intimidated employer, fearful of a lawsuit for having a “hostile work environment,” fired the “offending” employee. During Stalin’s reign, Russians were too scared of the secret police and informers to talk with one another in public, so they whispered even the most innocuous remarks. Are we, too, being reduced to whispering our opinions lest some politically correct moron should hear us?

  In England several years ago, the authorities forced a homeowner to remove ceramic pigs she had in her front window because Muslim passers-by were “offended” by the pigs. The authorities were supposedly trying to be sensitive, that is, politically correct. The homeowner’s rights did not matter. Muslims are pulling this crap all over Europe.

  Educators are among the worst PC oppressors. A school district banned a children’s book because it contained a story about peanuts. The district felt that the book was offensive to children who have peanut allergy. The poor Christmas tree is now referred to as a ''holiday tree''.

  In 2006 and 2008 a Dutch newspaper published and other newspapers reprinted satirical cartoons that depicted Mohammed. Muslims object to seeing their prophet depicted. So, they rioted throughout the world for nearly a week. Freedom of speech and press are alien to Muslims, who are undoubtedly the most dangerous and capricious people in the world. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were under way in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims.

  Even worse, when CNN reported the story, it told its audience that it wouldn’t show any of the

cartoons for fear of “offending” Muslims. This was a story that demanded an accompanying illustration so viewers could see what the fuss was all about. However, politically correct CNN deprived its viewers of making a judgment for themselves, but I'm glad to show them to you on the right. CNN offends plenty of people every day, but Muslims are now a special group.

  On one of FB’s World War II groups, the high-handed administrator declared that the word “Jap” was racist and threatened to throw out anyone who used it. In the context of the war “Jap” was a common term. In dozens of documentaries, veterans who discuss the war rarely hesitate to use “Jap.” Those vets fought a vicious enemy and they are entitled to use the word. Perhaps the administrator would like to rewrite all books about the Pacific war and delete Jap. That would be a very Stalinist thing to do. The Soviet dictator was always ordering books rewritten to conform to his whims.

  Nearly a decade ago, a municipal official in Washington, D.C., was addressing his staff about the department budget. In his speech, he used the perfectly legitimate word “niggardly,” which means stingy. However, it isn’t on the P.C. list of acceptable words. Well, ignorant and oversensitive staff members called the official a racist and demanded his firing, which the equally ignorant mayor of Washington did. When the dust settled – and someone opened a dictionary -- the fired official was rehired but in a different job. When a reporter mentioned to one of the ignoramuses that the word was of Swedish origin, she replied, “we don’t know where they [the Swedes] got that word from.”The Third Reich mentality of the P.C. crowd could lead the deletion of thousands of words from the English language. 

Political correctness has scared off the news media from covering important issues. Black-on-white bigotry and hatred is one subject that needs to be tackled, but don’t expect the news media to cover it in any depth, if at all. The lack of allegiance to the United States by many second-generation Latinos is another issue on the list of untouchable subjects. There are thousands of gay men who seek out sex partners to deliberately infect them with HIV. It’s a national scandal, but you won’t be hearing much about it.
 

In 2012, when George Mitchell shot and killed black Trayvon Martin, even before the facts of the case were known, five female members of the House black caucus delivered the vilest, most hateful anti-white speeches I recall ever hearing. If white people weren’t shackled by political correctness, they should have denounced the five women and their speeches. Alas, white Americans were too P.C. to be outraged.

  In the 11th Century, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was forced to make a trek through a blizzard to plead to Pope Gregory VII to revoke his excommunication. When Henry reached the pope’s residence at Canossa, he humiliated himself for three days on his knees outside the castle gates. Today’s version of the “Walk to Canossa” is the pilgrimage to Jesse Jackson. When white people seek absolution for offending blacks, they make the trek to Jackson to seek his forgiveness. This politically correct act has given Jackson far more power than he deserves. Until wimpy white people cut out this nonsense, Jackson will continue his guilt game.

The Way I See It.......political correctness movement has gone way too far. While the original intent of PC may have been good (to encourage tact and sensitivity to other's feelings around issues of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical abilities), the effect has been to make everyone avoid these topics altogether, thereby hindering our ability to freely and openly discuss diversity issues. Political correctness has become a bigger problem than the problem it was intended to address!

My friend is right and joins the millions of us who are fed up to the back-teeth with the PC Thought Police spearheaded mainly by leftist academic elites that are slowly trying to bring Marxist-Socialism into the fabric of the United States starting with the polluting of university students in their charge as well as infiltrating the Democratic Party and the major media outlets with their ''Great Leader'' Barack Obama as their poster boy.

To put it more meaningfully; Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Like · · Share

• 
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

Our 1950s Nuke-Survival Skills are Needed Now !

When the Soviet Union was rattling its nuclear missiles and issuing not-so-veiled threats to the free world, students like me in American schools were trained to hide under their desks at the sound of a siren. Families built bomb shelters in their back yards, some of which still exist. In fact, it was a selling point for real estate salespersons then.

And who of that era can forget when Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev pounded his shoe on the desk in the United Nations and declared, ''We will bury you!''  Actually, his son, Sergei, who moved to the United States after the Berlin Wall fell, recalled that his father's words were probably better translated, ''We will outlast you.''  Whatever the precise meaning Americans feared a nuclear attack and were prepared to do their best to survive.

Now, Physicians for Civil Defense,  look up their informative website (http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org), which works to save lives of the first responders and the public in the event of disasters, especially terror attacks, has started a campaign to prepare citizens to survive a nuclear attack. The group created The Good News Nuke (http://www.goodnewsnuke.com) website, where Shane Connor has written an article entitled; ''The Good News About Nuclear Destruction.''  He explains that nuclear explosions, dirty bombs, terror attacks and more are survivable if targets ''know what to do beforehand and have made even the most modest of preparations. The lessons of ''Duck and Cover'' are still valid today.''

Today's culture, Connor wrote, has ''been jaded'' by the pervasive ''myths of nuclear un-survivability.''  He adds, '''Most people think that if nukes go off then everybody is going to die, or it'll be so bad that they'll wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as, 'If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly.''''  Connor said the ''defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense. These activists (as agents of the Soviet Union) wanted all to think there was no surviving any nukes, disarmament was your only hope. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the 50s, 60s, and 70s have been derided as being largely ineffective., or at worst a cruel joke.''

Connor goes on to say that since the end of the Cold War in the 1990's, most Americans and Western countries have seen neither a need t prepare nor believed preparation would do any good. ''Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism, and nuclear saber rattling from rogue nations, we see emerging among the public either a paralysing fear or irrational denial,'' he said. ''People can't even begin to envision effective preparations for ever surviving a nuclear attack. They think it totally futile, bordering on lunacy to even try.''

The Reality: The biggest surprise for most people, from the first flash of a nuke being unleashed, is that they will still be here, though ill-equipped to survive for long, if they don't know what to do beforehand from that very first second of the initial flash onward. The Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union and the Fukushima meltdown in Japan have demonstrated that nuclear disasters are significant, dangerous and a threat, but they are survivable. Dr. Jane M. Orient of the organization says, ''The public urgently needs to be told about nuclear effects and these proven protective actions. They are easy to learn and grasp and could save many from needlessly perishing in a future nuclear disaster.''

The Physicians for Civil Defense website lists Duck and Cover, Shelter in Place and Radiologic Monitoring as routine defense steps in any disaster. The danger actually increases if someone tries to run away from a blast and ends up heading right into the path of radiation. Dr Orient's group publicizes basic precautions that are applicable to any disaster or emergency situation. They have also posted a billboard in Salt Lake City (see below) just a few weeks ago to begin advertising its Good News Nuke.com website. ''The advice has been proven to work in the 2013 meteor air burst in Chelyabinsk, Russia,'' the organization reported.

Connor recalls that the meteor air burst stunned thousands. About 1500 were injured, mostly from the shock wave hitting glass, which then hit the people who ''were looking up scanning the winter sky....trying to see what the bright flash was.''  He sites the experience of a 4th grade teacher in Chelyabinsk, Yulia Karbysheva, who was hailed a hero after saving 44 children from imploding window glass. Despite not knowing the origin of the intense flash of light, Karbysheva thought it prudent to take precautionary measures by ordering her students to stay away from the room's windows and to  perform a ''duck and cover'' maneuver. She remained standing, was seriously lacerated when the blast arrived and window glass severed a tendon in one of her arms, however, none of her students, whom she ordered to hide under their desks suffered any cuts.

The Way I See It......the ''un-survivable'' ground zero for nuclear explosions these days is about 2.2 mile. Death and injuries could occur for another nine miles. With ''duck and cover'' employed by all, there could be more than 15 times fewer casualties from a blast wave. But the United States and just about all the European nations have not only neglected teaching such defensive maneuvers, they actively teach fatalism.

In the U.S., former Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff at one point told a USA Today audience, ''In the area of a nuclear bomb, its prevention, prevention, prevention. If a nuclear bomb goes off, you are not going to be able to protect against it unless you are prepared.'' The current incompetent Obama administration also fails to grasp that the single greatest force multiplier to reducing potential casualties, and greatly enhancing the effectiveness of first-responders, is a pre-trained public so that there will be far fewer casualties to later deal with.  Connor finishes with, ''Spending millions to train and equip first-responders is good and necessary, but having millions fewer victims, by having also an educated and trained public beforehand, would be many magnitudes more effective in saving lives.'' 

Climate of Freedom in Las Vegas !

Yes, there is a Climate of Freedom in Las Vegas !

Patrick Moore, Canadian ecologist and former prominent member of Greenpeace, told the Heartland Climate Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada last week that his former organization is now plumb wrong on just about everything. Saying that concerns about regarding global warming are overblown, and that the opposite may actually soon be occurring. ''I fear global cooling,'' he warned. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace before leaving the so-called environmental group in 1986 and later authored a book titled Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout.

He left at a time when Greenpeace had bizarrely decided that chlorine and all its compounds should be banned outright. They killed millions of people in the Third World with their campaign against DDT and cynically allowed Malaria to run rampant even when it was proved not to cause cancer and other deleterious effects. Fifteen years later, and countless lives, they finally admitted their mistake. Now they want the West shut down on the pretext of preventing global warming that is not happening anyway. Will it be another 15 years before they admit how foolish and irresponsible they were?

In the past, he has outspokenly condemned the new, scientifically illiterate Greenpeace as ''neo-Marxist.  The hard-line Socialists have infiltrated and taken it over to spruik for a New World Order and with themselves as the new Politbureau to dictate economic policy world-wide.'' His own campaigns as the head of the old honest Greenpeace were based on science. He opposed atmospheric nuclear testing because it filled the atmosphere with radioactive dust particles. He opposed whaling because the survival of several species was threatened.

Now Greenpeace, like the governments on which it fawns and on whose taxpayers often involuntary largesse it lives, has abandoned true science in favour of profitable superstition and religious fervour. The Heartland Conference's leader, Lord Christopher Monckton, is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer and columnist. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate sceptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions. The Heartland Conference attracts hundreds of the world's leading climate scientists and researchers every year to discuss the latest state of global warming science. This year, the delegates' speeches showed that just about all the urban  myths of the Climate Communists are false. Here are Twelve:

1.   ''Global warming is happening.''
           No; According to the RSS satellite record, there has been none for 17 years and 10 months.
2.  ''Warming is faster than we thought.''
          No; In 1990 the climate models predicted that global warming would happen twice as fast as it has.....it hasn't. 
3.  ''There's a 97 per cent consensus.''
          No;  Only 0.5 per cent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years said they agreed that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
4.   ''Droughts are getting worse.''
          No;  A recent paper in the learned science journals shows the fraction of the world's land under drought has fallen for 30 years.
5.   ''Floods are getting worse.''
          No;  The U.N. 's panel has said in two recent reports that there has been no particular change in the frequency or severity of floods worldwide.
6.   ''Sea Ice is melting.''
          No;  I t has grown to a new record high in the Antarctic (see Chart right), though the Arctic icecap has been shrinking a little in summer. In the 1930's warm spell it had all but disappeared, but came back.
7.   ''Sea level is rising dangerously.''
          No;  A recent satellite study concludes the rate of rise has actually dropped from a rise of 3.4 mm per year during the 1990s, 2.4 mm per year from 2003-2011, or a slowdown of about 30 per cent.,
8.   ''Hurricanes (typhoons) are getting worse.''
          No;  Their combined frequency, severity and duration has been at or near the lowest in the 35-year satellite record.
9.   ''Global warming caused the recent extreme weather.''
          No;  There has been no warming recently, so it cannot have caused any extreme weather in recent years.
10.  ''Global warming will reduce the number of redheads!''
           No;  This is one of the many silly scare stories about the imaginary effects of warmer weather.
11.  ''The oceans are acidifying''
           No;  The oceans remain decidedly alkaline, and there cannot be much change in its acid-base balance because it is buffered by the basalt rocks in which they lie.
12.   ''It's cheaper to act now, just in case.''
           No;  It is 10-100 ties costlier to try to prevent global warming today than to let it happen and pay the cost of adapting to it the day after tomorrow.  IPCC scientist Professor Roger Jones (photo), admits that any efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would at best cut the world's expected temperature in 2100 by just 0.0038 degrees. And if, as now seems clear, the planet is even less sensitive to our emissions, the difference would be even less.

The Way I See It.....the Stupidity rolls on.  Just about everything the mainstream news media say about global warming and its supposed dangers is the opposite of the truth. The more extreme media, such as the British and Australian Broadcasting Companies, are so determinedly one-sided that they train their reporters to go out of their way to avoid allowing climate sceptics to be interviewed or take part in on-air discussions of the topic.  The excuse for this prejudice is that climate sceptics are a ''fringe'' group and that only one point of view to support the ''consensus'' is permitted.

The climate extremist movement, backed by the thousands of scientists with their noses in the trough of government grants, now almost exclusively confined to profiteers of doom among the world's ruling elite and the media that fawn upon them, is aiming to get the world's governments to sign up to a binding and irreversible climate treaty at a conference in Paris late next year. Most of the steps toward creating what is in effect a world government  have already been quietly put in place as a result of decisions by earlier annual U.N. climate conferences.

But one thing can stop them. Write to your MP, congressman and your senators and tell them to press for the inclusion of an escape clause in the Treaty of Paris that will permit any State to resign from its obligations by giving a few months notice to the depository State. That way, as the world continues to fail to warm anything like as fast as predicted, nations can break free from the regime of terror by stealth that has been furtively planned.

From JFK to Obama: Democratic Presidents Have Shown Weakness in Facing Aggression !

Ann Coulter, famous author and journalist writes, ''It's pointless to pay attention to foreign policy when a Democrat is president, unless you enjoy having your stomach in  knot. As long as a Democrat sits in the White House, America will be repeatedly humiliated, the world will become a much more dangerous place -- and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it.'' The following stroll down lane is but the briefest of summaries. For a full accounting of Democratic national security disasters, please read Ann Counter's insightful book, ''Treason; Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''


J F K:   John F. Kennedy was in the White House for less than three years and, if you think he screwed a lot of hookers, just look what he did to our foreign policy.
              Six months after becoming president, JFK had his calamitous meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna -- a meeting The New York Times described as ''one of the more self-destructive American actions of the Cold War, and one the contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.'' (The Times admitted tis a half-century later. At the time, the newspaper lied about the meeting.)

              For two days, Khrushchev batted Kennedy around, leaving the president's own advisers white-faced and shaken. Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Defence Paul Nitze called the meeting ''just a disaster.''  Khrushchev was delighted to discover that the U.S. president was so ''weak.''  A Russian aide said the American president ''seemed very inexperienced, even immature.''  Seeing he was dealing with a wimp, Khrushchev promptly sent missiles to Cuba. The Kennedy Myth Machine has somehow turned JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis into a brilliant foreign policy coup.  The truth is: (1) Russia would never have dared move missiles to Cuba had Khrushchev not realized that JFK was a nincompoop; and (2) it wasn't a victory.

              In exchange for Russia's laughably empty threats about Cuba, JFK removed our missiles from Turkey -- a major retreat. As Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs: ''It would have been ridiculous for us to go to war over Cuba -- for a country 12,000 miles away. For us, was was unthinkable. We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along, security for Fidel Castro's regime and American missiles removed from Turkey.''

L B J:   Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, famously escalated the war in Vietnam simply to prove that the Democrats could be trusted with national security.

              As historian David Hallberstam describes it, LBJ ''would talk to his closet political aides about the McCarthy days, of how Truman (another Democrat) lost China and then the Congress and the White House and how, by God, Johnson as not going to be the president who lost Vietnam and then the Congress and the White House.''  LBJ's incompetent handling of that war allowed liberals to spend the next half-century denouncing every use of American military force as ''another Vietnam.''

CARTER:  Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their ''inordinate fear of communism'' and claimed to have the intuition to deal with communists. His most inspired strategic move was to abandon the Shah of Iran, a loyal U.S. ally, which gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we're still dealing with today. By allowing the Shah to be overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeni in February 1979. Carter handed the Islamic crazies their first state.

             Before the end of the year, the Islamic lunatics had taken 52 Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days. The hostages were released only minutes after Ronald Reagan's inauguration for reasons succinctly captured in a Jeff MacNelly cartoon. It shows deadshit Khomeini reading a telegram aloud: ''It's from Ronald Reagan. It must be about one of the Americans in the Den of Spies, but I don't recognize the name. It says 'Remember Hiroshima.''

CLINTON:  Bill Clinton's masterful handling of foreign policy was such a catastrophe that he had to deploy his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to steal classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 to avoid their discovery by the 9/11 commission. WHY?  Because twice, as president, Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. but unfortunately, these offers came in early 1996 when Clinton was busy ejaculating on White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton rebuffed Sudan's offers.

               According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA for many years, Clinton was given eight to ten chances to kill or capture bin Laden but refused t act, despite bin Laden's having murdered hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks around the world. Would that one of those opportunities had arisen on the day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment! Instead of pointlessly bombing Iraq, he might have finally taken out bin Laden.

OBAMA:  When Barack Obama took office, al-Qaida had been routed in Iraq -- from Fallujah, Sadr City and Basra. Muqtada al-Sadr -- the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- had waddled off in retreat to Iran. The Iraqis had a democracy, a miracle on the order of flush toilets in Afghanistan.

               By Bush's last year in office, monthly casualties in Iraq were coming in slightly below a weekend with Justin Bieber. In 2008, there were more than three times as many homicides in Chicago as U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq War. (Chicago 509; Iraq 155).  On May 30th, The Washington Post reported: ''CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays al-Qaida as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world.''  Even hysterics at The New York Times admitted that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had nearly disappeared from Southeast Asia by 2008.

              A few short years into Obama's presidency -- and al-Qaida is back! For purely political reasons, as soon as he became president, Obama removed every last soldier from Iraq, despite there being American troops deployed in dozens of countries around the world. In 2004, nearly 100 soldiers, mostly Marines, died in the battle to take Fallujah from al-Qaida. Today, ISUS's black flag flies above Fallujah. Bush won the War....and Obama gave it Back !

The Way I See It.....Obama couldn't be bothered with preserving America's victory in Iraq. He has put some 200 soldiers back into Bagdad just to protect the U.S. Embassy from attack. He finally put drones in the air, but not to directly hit the columns of ISUS butchers heading down the roads capturing more towns. Showing no remorse he sent John Kerry into the fray to publically assert that it's an intersectarian war and the Shiite government must accommodate the Sunni demands for more involvement in governing the country. Meanwhile  ISUS marches on and proclaims a new Caliphate over the Iraqi land that they now occupy and the areas they control in Syria as well.

So now, another Russian leader is playing cat-and-mouse with an American president -- and guess who's the mouse? Vladimir Putin has taunted Obama in Iran, in Syria and with Edward Snowden. By now, Obama has become such an object for Putin's amusement that the fastest way to get the Russians out of Crimea would be for Obama to call on Putin to invade Ukraine. Turn off the gas here and arm the militants there and a wimpy president and a wimpy European Union doesn't offer much deterrent.

AMERICA: Obama is Not Finished with You Yet !

More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America's decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he's deliberately or even directly causing it. You have to admit that it's outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many, me included, have been warning about it for years now. It's gratifying that others -- albeit belatedly -- are waking up.


There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?



As for the first, many get hung up on the semantics of whether Obama is trying to destroy America. Few are willing to believe anything sinister of a twice-elected president. It's an easier sell to say that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or decries the very idea of nationalism and prefers to consider Americans all citizens of the world. His Marxist upbringing has him believing that  capitalism yields unfair results, which leads him to desire a redistribution or wealth within the U.S.A. So he is pursuing an agenda that will bring America into line with the rest of the world, which is to say, he is making America weaker and less prosperous.



I also happen to believe he has a grudge against America through the brainwashing of his Commie-loving mother and his drunken womanizing, anti-colonialist father and wants to bring America down to size. But in his bizarre world, that's not destroying America; it's making it fairer and more just. Whatever that means in a world watching the rise of Vladimir Putin territorial ambitions, China's building up its Navy to claim long-lost territory and the Middle East jihadists warning that ''that we'll be seeing you in New York soon!''

Concerning the second issue -- whether Obama's presidency is falling apart -- it's important that we are clear on what I mean by this.


Most seem to agree that Obama's honeymoon with the American people has degenerate into a serious martial difficulties, as evidenced by his nose dive in approval polls, especially after his trading of five high-value Taliban scumbags for one deadshit army deserter. Some consider this data, along with his multitudinous scandals, and conclude, ''His presidency is imploding.'' Yet, he doesn't seem to care. He has already proved that he fully able and willing to act unilaterally on a wide range of issues, both domestic and foreign, without constitutional authority or congressional approval.



This is nothing new. He and his advisors had said many times that he intended to liberally use executive orders and other tricks to advance his warped agenda at every opportunity. He also made clear his willingness to act lawlessly and encouraged his administrative agencies to do likewise. Nor will anything deter his enabling Democrats in Congress to assist and provide him with cover to place their party's interests above those of the nation and above the law. He wasn't bluffing when he smugly declared, ''I've got a pen, and I got a phone.''



As for his propensity for lawless unilateral action, remember when he admitted he didn't have the authority to pas the DREAM Act on his own and then two weeks later went ahead and issued an executive order implementing important provisions of it?  Everyone has watched hi whimsical, arbitrary and capricious granting of Obamacare exemptions. He intervened militarily in Libya without even consulting Congress, much less obtaining its approval to overthrow and benign dictator holding down tribal rivalries. The consequences are still costing America dearly. His Environmental Protection Agency, doing his bidding, has issued far-reaching and damaging emissions standards.



How can one forget how the IRS was fulfilling his nasty aims in criminally targeting conservative groups for punitive treatment under the tax code. His subordinates Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were carrying out his direct orders in falsely blaming a Internet video for the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Oh yes, and he abused his recess appointment power to appoint a National Labor Relations Board president when the Senate wasn't in recess, for which the Supreme Court surprisingly slapped his hand. I could continue with more of this litany of executive power usurpations.



The Way I See It.....if you chose to believe that Obama's presidency is imploding, I hope you understand that this doesn't mean he no longer represents a threat to America as founded or is impotent to do ant further damage. It's silly to write all this off with a wave of a hand, saying, ''This is America. One man can't do that much damage.'' Well, he has help, by way of a greedy incompetent Democratic Party, the many socialists inhabiting the White House's inner circle of advisers and the many likeminded minions infesting every government agency inside and outside of Washington, DC.

If you don't believe enormous damage has already been done in the past six years, we are on different planets. Look at the latest quarterly economic report, which shows a 2.9 percent shrinkage in the gross domestic product, with no end in sight. The number of people, and now the hordes of Latin Americans infesting the country, on food stamps and dependent on other government programs. The labor participation rate, the debt, the explosive costs and abominable failures of Obamacare are reprehensible! It seems like Obama is in another dream world with not a care in the world.

I could see that this July 4th was bitter-sweet for many Americans. Their patriot zeal was tempered be a feeling they were trapped on a sinking ship with a deluded captain and crew with no lifeboats and surrounded by political sharks of every stripe. It's a shame to know that regardless of whether Obama has the political clout to pass major legislation and reform now or in the remaining (God help us!) two and half years, his executive powers alone -- including those he has usurped and corrupted - are not enough to stop the downward spiral for spending yourselves into bankruptcy. I feel at times like the old biblical prophets crying out; Oh America, what would the World be without you ?