Secretary Kerry will now bring Worldwide peace and prosperity

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) friend, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of CCCEB (Climate Change Causes Everything Bad), a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation received substantial Federal grants after President Obama’s approval. 

Obama laughs

We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own brief observations.


Having concluded that his massive but uncluttered intellect should not be limited to the Middle East, Secretary Kerry is extending
his heroically historic efforts to the entire world.

Kerry Salutes

I can see whirled peas from here!

We all desire peace with our neighbors, but petty misunderstandings often get in our way. If a dog salutes your rose bush instead of his owner’s because he is mistaken about property lines, if an army officer becomes upset and shoots others at his workplace, if the undocumented pilot of an airliner flies too close to a World Trade Center tower – perhaps as an act of love toward passengers who might want to take photos — and mistakenly crashes into it, or Palestinians erroneously conclude that members of a Jewish family in Itmar, Israel want post-birth abortions, it’s all the same: excessive thinking leads to cluttered minds which cause simple misunderstandings. This concept applies equally to nations, and under Secretary Kerry’s stewardship our foreign policy has centered around it.

Secretary Kerry’ own thinking has never been cluttered and has therefore always always been clear. He will devote the remainder of his service on behalf of the United States of Obama to the Herculean task of cleansing all remaining trifles of no importance from our foreign policy and to focusing solely on the Big Picture as seen through the lens of magical reality: fiction that integrates elements of fantasy into otherwise realistic settings.” Secretary Kerry’s Israel – Palestinian peace process and the P5+1 negotiations with peace-loving Iran demonstrate the ample benefits of this approach, which he will soon implement worldwide. All debate is over on how our foreign policy is to be pursued.

Islam and the curse of Islamophobia

Islamophobes consider Islam the enemy of civilization. Try, if you can, to stomach this obscene presentation:

As President Obama reminded us during His address in Cairo in 2009, Islam is the religion not only of peace but also of enlightened social and scientific progress. I feel compelled to repeat just a few of His awe-inspiring words before continuing.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Never, during His entire life, has President Obama ever spoken more truthfully, displayed greater candor or better demonstrated the benefits of a totally cleansed mind.

His Supreme Holiness Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, speaks often and passionately of peace. So does Iranian President Rouhani. I have studied with great diligence the approved English translations of their inspired words; no doubt of any sort whatever can be harbored by anyone whose mind is uncluttered that they are totally sincere. Would they lie to us? They probably don’t even know the meaning of the word “lie” because — like President Obama — no adherent to the faith of Mohamed could ever be less than truthful and candid; Islam forbids it. 

It is on these firm and uncluttered bases of magical reality that Secretary Kerry has dealt with the Jewish problem that had for centuries, indeed even millenia, prevented peace in the Middle East. He has dealt in an equally masterful fashion with baseless suspicions that Iran seeks to obtain — and even to use — nuclear weapons against her enemies, including Israel. The rest of the world is next, for Secretary Kerry.


As explained in this article, Secretary Kerry is well on the way to achieving not only an entire Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons but a peacefully re-unified Korea. His success is assured because he is using road maps comparable to those used successfully in the Israel – Palestinian peace process and in  the p5 + 1 negotiations with Iran.


Secretary Kerry has many more heretofore untraveled roads to walk down. He must bring peace to all of Russia including Europe and her appendage, Britain. There are problems in Latin America, notably in Venezuela. There, right-wing extremists (terrorists) are trying to undermine the stability of the democratically elected government of late lamented President Chávez’ brilliant successor, President Maduro. Magic realism must prevail, as well expressed by an article in the Buenos Aires Herald.

In Venezuela, after the death of the charismatic, controversial and populist Hugo Chávez, his hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro, has transformed the image of Chávez into a founding father of a sort, comparable only to the beloved father of Independence, Simón Bolívar. In the middle of a profound economic, social and political crisis, Maduro has confided that he believes that Chávez visits him in the form of a little bird. The opposition in Venezuela also seems to have taken a few things right out of a García Márquez novel. Some of the opposition leaders that denounce the government as dictatorial lack democratic credentials themselves, as they were directly involved in the 2002 military coup attempt.

Cluttered minds, combined with the loss or even diminution of magic realism, would cause mistakes leading to instability in other equally democratic nations throughout the region. With his mind uncluttered by obsolete notions and irrelevant facts and well grounded in the indisputable premise that great strength lies in great weakness, the Peace of Secretary Kerry that passeth all mortal understanding is certain to prevail in Russia and Venezuela. Then, he will move on to other regions, ever onward and upward forever. History will revere him as the Dr. Eisenbarth of foreign policy.

For those whose understanding of German is limited, here’s a partial translation of the song about Dr. Eisenbarth

My Name is Doctor Eisenbarth
TextDilly dally do dum dee!
For curing people I’ve an art,
Dilly dally do dum dee!
My treatment makes the blind men walk,
Dilly dally do dum dee!
And help the lame to see and talk,
Dilly dally do dum dee!

At Potsdam once i cured a man,
King Frederick´s chef i dit trepan
I took my hatchet to his head;
Poor fellow , now he´s lying dead.

At Ulm i gave a jab for pox,
The man´s blood ran right to his socks.
This vaccination stunt’s a hit,

My needle is a roasting spit.
The sexton’s son at Dideldum
I gave ten pounds of opium.
He fell asleep; years passet away,

And still he sleeps until this day.
In Vienna once a man wars ill.
His hollow tooth I cured with skill,
I took my gun and blasted it.

Bless you, Secretary Kerry! May you live long and prosper in your toils for the United States of Obama.

Live long and prosper


Editor’s comments:

Senator Librul has done a masterful job of stating, clearly and succinctly, Secretary Kerry’s librul positions on foreign affairs. Anyone with a third, or perhaps as much as half, of a brain will certainly agree with him.


Posted in 9-11, Abbas, Abortion, Antisemitism, Appeasement, Argentina, Atomic bomb, Cairo, Cairo address, Caracas, Chavez, Cuba, Dr. Eisenbarth, Fantasy, Fogel Family, Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Humor, Ideology, Iran, Islamophobia, Israel, Jews, John Kerry, Khamenei, Kim Chi-un, Korea, Libruls, Lies, Maduro, Major Hasan, Middle East, Muslims, Netanyahu, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Palestinian heroes, Pat Condell, Peace in our time, Peace process, Putin, Russia, Satire, Story telling, Unicorns, United States of Obama, Venezuela | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Bundy Ranch and Our loss of freedom, Part II

There’s always more to say when our freedoms are being forfeited.

Gestapo at Bundy Ranch

Were the events at the Bundy Ranch newsworthy? Will whatever happens when the Feds return en masse be newsworthy? Is anything newsworthy that casts overreach by the Obama Government in a bright but foul light? Government by Executive Decree? President Obama’s history and His associates? Benghazi? IRS targeting of conservatives? Ho hum. How about some real news instead: Hillary Clinton’s daughter’s pregnancy? Mrs. Obama’s vegetable garden? Well of course that’s, like, I mean, totally newsworthy.

Two new articles expand on the subject of my Sunday afternoon essay titled The United States of Obama increasingly rejects freedom, domestically and internationally. First, there’s an article by John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute titled The Bundy Paradigm: Will You Be a Rebel, Revolutionary or a Slave?  This quote from John F. Kennedy appears at the top of the article:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable. 

Here’s an excerpt from the article.

Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.

. . . .

What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is — whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens — these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

When law enforcement officials — not just the police, but every agent of the government entrusted with enforcing laws, from the president on down — are allowed to discard the law when convenient, and the only ones having to obey the law are the citizenry and not the enforcers, then the law becomes only a tool to punish us, rather than binding and controlling the government, as it was intended. [Emphasis added.]

This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government — federal, local and state — and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.

That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist? [Emphasis added.]

More and more, Americans are tired, frustrated, anxious, and worried about the state of their country. They are afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and they are worried about the economic insecurity which still grips the nation. And they’re growing increasingly sick of being treated like suspects and criminals. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Unfortunately, the intrepid, revolutionary American spirit that stood up to the British, blazed paths to the western territories, and prevailed despite a civil war, multiple world wars, and various economic depressions has taken quite a beating in recent years. Nevertheless, the time is coming when each American will have to decide: will you be a slave, rebel or revolutionary? [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Whitehead also observes,

[I]n 2009, the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama issued its infamous reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism.” According to these reports, an extremist is defined as anyone who subscribes to a particular political viewpoint. Rightwing extremists, for example, are broadly defined in the report as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

Despite “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” the DHS listed a number of scenarios that could arise as a result of so-called rightwing extremists playing on the public’s fears and discontent over various issues, including the economic downturn, real estate foreclosures and unemployment.

Equally disconcerting, the reports use the words “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be extremist viewpoints is tantamount to being a terrorist. Under such a definition, I could very well be considered a terrorist. So too could John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of these men protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed and would be prime targets under this document. [Emphasis added.]

Vast right-wing conspiracy nonsense?

Or is it a candid recognition that “our” Government has grown far too powerful and perniciously active in opposing non-establishment views? In the prevailing Government view, only the Government — acting through its unelected (and probably unelectable) bureaucrats — can violate with impunity the laws it imposes on us. We lesser folk must sit down, shut up, and stop doing whatever we are told to stop, whenever we are told to do so, regardless of the legality and/or morality of what we say and do.

If we rejected leftist dissent and sought to have it punished criminally, wouldn’t we also be rejecting our own dissent and enabling the Government to punish it criminally as well? When those on the left reject our dissent and seek to have it punished criminally, aren’t they doing that? I disagree with much claimed and demanded by the left. Does that mean that I should try to have them silenced and sent to jail? No, and that rarely happens these days. Those on the right are “targeted.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., a criminal because he opposed and violated segregation laws, is now revered as an icon of the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks, also a criminal because she opposed and violated segregation laws, is also an icon of the civil rights movement now.

On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake‘s order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. Parks was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Others had taken similar steps, including Irene Morgan in 1946, Sarah Louise Keys in 1955, and the members of the Browder v. Gayle lawsuit (Claudette ColvinAurelia BrowderSusie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) were arrested months before Parks. NAACP organizers believed that Parks was the best candidate for seeing through a court challenge after her arrest for civil disobedience in violating Alabama segregation laws though eventually her case became bogged down in the state courts.[2][3]

Parks’ act of defiance and the Montgomery Bus Boycott became important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement. She became an international icon of resistance to racial segregation. She organized and collaborated with civil rights leaders, including Edgar Nixon, president of the local chapter of the NAACP; and Martin Luther King, Jr., a new minister in town who gained national prominence in the civil rights movement.

Obama on bus pretending to be Rosa Parks

President Obama pretending to be Rosa Parks.
He isn’t.

Perhaps some fine day Mr. Bundy and his “accomplices” will be similarly feted. At my age I am unlikely to see it, but some day it may happen. If and when it does, it will be due to a “radical transformation” of the United States entirely unlike the transformation about which President Obama brags.

The other pertinent article that I noticed today is by Victor Davis Hanson, writing at PJ Media in an article titled Cliven Bundy and the Rural Way. He takes a similar but different approach and appears to arrive at a more pessimistic conclusion than does Mr. Whitehead.

In a practical sense, I . . . know that if I were to burn brush on a no-burn day, or toss an empty pesticide container in the garbage bin, or shoot a coyote too near the road, I would incur the wrath of the government in a way someone does not who dumps a stripped stolen auto (two weeks ago) in my vineyard, or solvents, oil, and glass (a few months ago), or rips out copper wire from the pump for the third time (last year). Living in a Winnebago with a porta-potty and exposed Romex in violation of zoning statutes for many is not quite breaking the law where I live; having a mailbox five inches too high for some others certainly is. [Emphasis added.]

So Mr. Bundy must realize that in about 1990 we decided to focus on the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen and to ignore the felony of the lawbreaker. The former gave law enforcement respect; the latter ignored their authority. The first made or at least did not cost enforcers money; arresting the second began a money-losing odyssey of incarceration, trials, lawyers, appeals, and all the rest. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Bundy knows that the bullies of the BLM would much rather send a SWAT team after him than after 50 illegal aliens being smuggled by a gun-toting cartel across the southwestern desert. How strange, then, at this late postmodern date, for someone like Bundy on his horse still to be playing the law-breaking maverick Jack Burns (Kirk Douglas) in (the David Miller, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Abbey effort) Lonely Are the Brave. [Emphasis added.]

But the interest in Mr. Bundy’s case is not about legal strategies in revolving fiscal disagreements with the federal government.

. . . .

[A] few thousands unelected employees — in the BLM, EPA, Defense Department, and other alphabet soup agencies — can pretty much do what they want on the land they control. And note, this is not quite the case in Silicon Valley or Manhattan or Laguna Beach. The danger can be summed up by a scene I see about once a month on a Fresno freeway: a decrepit truck stopped by the California Highway Patrol for having inadequate tarps on a trailer of green clippings, just as a new city garbage truck speeds by, with wet garbage flying over the median. Who will police the police? [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[T]his administration has a long record of not following the law — picking and choosing when and how to enforce immigration statutes, depending on the particular dynamics of the next election; picking and choosing which elements of Obamacare  to enforce, again depending on perceived political advantage; and picking and choosing when to go after coal companies, or when not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, or when to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, or when to allow Lois Lerner to destroy the credibility of the IRS for partisan advantage. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the Obama administration regularly breaks the law as it sees fit.

. . . .

Bundy, for all his contradictions, is a throwback to a different age.

. . . .

To understand Bundy’s fatalism is to appreciate the rural way and its polite contempt for the softer world of the city and the mush that now passes for making it. Losing nobly was preferable to winning badly . . . .

So we are not threatened by the likes of Cliven Bundy. Instead, the scary lawlessness extends to the bureaucracy itself, given that under Obama the government is becoming tainted and an ideological tool of social transformation.  After just six years, we shrug that, of course, the IRS is biased. The Justice Department is politicized; ask Dinesh D’Souza or the AP reporters. No need to mention the NSA. The EPA makes laws up as ideologically required. No one believes the State Department that in the weeks before the election a video-caused “riot” led to expert jihadists zeroing in with their GPS-guided mortars on a CIA annex in Benghazi. And so on.

Bundy is just different from what is now America — he looks different, talks differently, and dresses differently. These are the superficial veneers to someone who lives mostly through different premises from those of Pajama Boy nation, the world of Jay Carney and his cute Stalinist posters, the cosmos of Anita Dunn and her Mao gushes, or the metrosexual networking that is the gospel of Silicon Valley or the DC beltway.  Few of us rely on human muscle anymore to survive one more day. Fewer of those who do combine that with horse-power, and its world of leather and wood and rope. Bundy is self-employed, without an SEIU union, a PERS pension, or a GS-15 health plan.

Given all that, I suggest Cliven Bundy is far more endangered than is the desert tortoise, and that his kind will be gone shortly in a way the federally protected tarantula and Gila monster or delta smelt will not. He, not they, is in the federal crosshairs. So, yes, I can make some allowances for the nihilism of Cliven Bundy. We could not live in a modern, high-tech world only of Cliven Bundys, but perhaps we cannot live in a world without a few of them now and then to remind us of what we have become. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Mr. Bundy is no Rahm Emanuel, Al Gore, or Jay Carney. He is no Jay-Z or Sean Penn. He is a world away from the Kardashians and the BMW meets Mercedes crowd of the California coastal corridor or the psychodramas of brats at Dartmouth. Bundy does not have the white privilege that those who have it — mostly liberal, wealthy, and seeking an apartheid existence — damn in others. [Emphasis added.]

Money is not Bundy’s point.  Pleasing Harry Reid or the federal bureaucracy is not either. Making a living from the scrub of a desert by providing people good food probably is.

Grant him that. He’s our past, Harry Reid and the bunch in Washington our future. To paraphrase the ancients, sometimes we’d rather be wrong with Cliven Bundy than right with Harry Reid — and the SWAT teams that will revisit Mr. Bundy and his clan very, very soon to enforce a dispute over grazing fees and insensitivity to a tortoise. [Emphasis added.]

Are Mr. Bundy and his ilk only relics of our past soon to be gone and forgotten, while “Harry Reid and the bunch in Washington” are our future? Not if we have enough to say, and to do, about it. We need the Bundys, and the remaining individuals like them, to remind us of what we are losing and have lost. And maybe, just maybe, to help us regain some of it.

These criminals were violent “terrorists” and “extremists,” behaving as they did realizing that they would face death. They tried to help Ireland get her freedom and many were hung or shot for their crimes.

They still hold a place of honor in Irish hearts. Mr. Bundy and his “accomplices” have not responded violently to governmental oppression but nevertheless faced the possibility of violent death. Will history remember them? How? It all depends on who writes the history. I hope it isn’t these people:

Maybe this gentleman will write some of our history. Can we — will we — try to arrange it?


Posted in Obama, Democracy, Freedom, Conservatives, Media, Protests, Clinton, Limitation on Authority, Administrative Agencies, Abuse of Power, the Basics, Ideology, Politics, Dep't of Information, Elections, Democrats, Constitution, History, Civil War, Headlines, Government reliance, Cultural differences, Marines, Government and individual choices, Racism, New Deal, Federal Agencies, Illegal immigration, Right wing conspiracy, Democrat National Convention, Choom gang, Libruls, Conspiracy theories, Gun control, Executive Decree, Declaration of Independence, Cult of personality, Duty, Honor, Integrity, Bill of Rights, PJ Media, IRS, Nanny state, Obama's America Now, HHS, Obama's America, Unified State of Obama, Brain washing, Cows, Left, Obamaphilia, BLM | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The United States of Obama increasingly rejects freedom, domestically and internationally

As the United States of Obama allows less individual freedom, we need to reaffirm that democracy without individual freedom is tyranny. Until we reaffirm that, and refuse to accept tyranny, our “leaders”
will continue to demand not only more of the same from us but also
that more world “leaders” emulate them.

Overview — Our foreign and domestic problems are intertwined.

The phrase “salami tactics” is well explained in the following video. When watching it, please consider that salami tactics can be used not only by international aggressors but by domestic aggressors as well — by governments that want to destroy individual freedoms over the objections of their subjects who insist, “subversively,” on keeping and even expanding their freedoms. Salami tactics, a few small steps, followed by more similarly small steps, seem unlikely to provoke hostile responses.

Bad things have often happened slowly and incrementally. In the aggregate they have been and continue to be disastrous.

The will of the United States of Obama to oppose tyranny abroad has already disappeared or is at least doing so according to Caroline Glick, with whose analysis I substantially agree.

The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it. [Emphasis added.]

In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, the America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades.

. . . .

The administration has staked its reputation on its radical policy of engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The administration claims that by permitting Iran to undertake some nuclear activities it can convince the mullahs to shelve their plan to develop nuclear weapons.

This week brought further evidence of the policy’s complete failure. It also brought further proof that the administration is unperturbed by evidence of failure.

In a televised interview Sunday, Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akhbar Salehi insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 90 percent. In other words, he said that Iran is building nuclear bombs.

And thanks to the US and its interim nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian economy is on the mend.

The interim nuclear deal the Obama administration signed with Iran last November was supposed to limit its oil exports to a million barrels a day. But according to the International Energy Agency, in February, Iran’s daily oil exports rose to 1.65 million barrels a day, the highest level since June 2012.

Rather than accept that its efforts have failed, the Obama administration is redefining what success means.

As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz noted, in recent months US officials claimed the goal of the nuclear talks was to ensure that Iran would remain years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent remarks, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the US would suffice with a situation in which Iran is but six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In other words, the US has now defined failure as success. [Emphasis added.]

Ms. Glick cites many additional examples; the few noted above are merely illustrative. She might also have mentioned that Iran has defined deceit as candor and has defined P5+1 failures induced by purposeful blindness as success. Following Iran’s lead, so apparently have the P5+1 negotiators.

We need to understand why all this is happening. More than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to give milk. In other words, more than Iran wants a deal — and it wants a deal — the world wants to give Iran one so it won’t have to do any dirty work. Iran wants to rehabilitate its economy, Iran wants to end its isolation, it wants cooperation with the West. [Emphasis added.]

But along the way Iran also wants a bomb. Iran does not miss an opportunity to lie, as it did recently pertaining to its oil exports, but who is really bothered by this?

See also Iran’s Exercise in Deceit.

Mark Steyn agrees substantially with Ms. Glick’s arguments and elaborates by showing how facially unrelated U.S. foreign and domestic policies and problems are intertwined. The principal purpose of my current article is to expand as best I can upon Mr. Steyn’s thesis.

If Putin closes down a transgender nightclub a week before the Special Olympics, he can get America’s attention. When he annexes neighboring states, not so much. Under Nato, the US has collective-security treaty obligations to the Baltic States, but if I were Estonian I wouldn’t bet on them. Not unless the Russians make the mistake of bombing a gay wedding in Tallinn.

Only Islamists can jail and murder gays and heretics without objection. Ditto “honor killings.” Perhaps President Obama’s love of Islam is pertinent:

The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” [Emphasis added.]

Many “stereotypes” are accurate, Mr. President.

Back to Mr. Steyn’s linked article,

David Goldman, meanwhile, is weary of the admiring line that that Putin guy is some kind of genius. He doesn’t have to be when we’re idiots.

. . . .

~Perhaps Americans will get the quiet life they long for if they let the world go its own way. But oddly the less power the United States projects around the planet the more it turns on its hapless citizens right here at home. I write often about the utterly repulsive paramilitarization of the American bureaucracy, most recently with regard to the snipers deployed by the Bureau of Land Management in a cattle-grazing dispute. [Emphasis added.]

In 2009, President Obama promised us a civilian national security force.

That is one promise that He seems to be trying to keep.

Today in America there are over 120,000 armed federal agents who work for 40 different agencies.
FOX News reported:

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement — have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most Americans know agents within the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board employing armed officers might come as a surprise.

The incident that sparked the renewed interest and concern occurred in late August when a team of armed federal and state officials descended on the tiny Alaska gold mining town of Chicken, Alaska.

The Environmental Protection Agency, whose armed agents in full body armor participated, acknowledged taking part in the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force investigation, which it said was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.

Gestapo at Bundy RanchArmed federal agents at the Cliven Bundy ranch
in Nevada, April 2014. (Natural News)

That article is mainly about the Feds, but the militarized Federal attack on Mr. Bundy’s ranch was hardly unique in other respects. According to John Fund, writing an article titled The United States of SWAT at the National Review Organization,

“Law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier,” journalist Radley Balko writes in his 2013 book Rise of the Warrior Cop. “The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.” [Emphasis added.]

The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Since 9/11, the feds have issued a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team. The number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year today. [Emphasis added.]

Once SWAT teams are created, they will be used. Nationwide, they are used for standoffs, often serious ones, with bad guys. But at other times they’ve been used for crimes that hardly warrant military-style raids. Examples include angry dogs, domestic disputes, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. In 2010, a Phoenix, Ariz., sheriff’s SWAT team that included a tank and several armored vehicles raided the home of Jesus Llovera. The tank, driven by the newly deputized action-film star Steven Seagal, plowed right into Llovera’s house. The incident was filmed and, together with footage of Seagal-accompanied immigration raids, was later used for Seagal’s A&E TV law-enforcement reality show. [Emphasis added.]

The Washington Establishment treats “domestic terrorists” – those who responded to grossly excessive Federal Bureau of Land Management force at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada – as no less dangerous than Islamist Jihadists. Perhaps they and their kind are viewed as even more dangerous to the Washington Establishment, few members of which acknowledge Islamists as our common enemy. That may explain the contempt the Establishment has for the Bundy Ranch “domestic terrorists” and everything for which they stand.


Is more of the same coming? Courtesy of the Forest Service in New Mexico? Perhaps not until Federal overreaches at the Bundy Ranch have been forgotten sufficiently for salami tactics to work. Will all be well when the United Nations authorizes and supports continuing land grabs pursuant to Agenda 21 “environmental” dictates? If the International Community demands “it,” whatever “it” is must be good. After all, it’s the International Community — not a bunch of rabidly violent conservative terrorists.


A perceptive article at PJ Tatler summarizes President Obama’s current relations with Russia’s Putin. It begins,

Oh yes, they’re the great pretenders! Though seemingly at odds, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have much more in common than it appears, both having become lost in a world of self-delusion.  Putin pretends he hasn’t alienated the entire civilized world with his barbaric aggression against smaller neighbors, and Obama pretends his failed policies haven’t been key in giving Putin the chance to do so. [Emphasis added.]

A remarkable report in the New York Times reveals that Obama has now decided to “write off” America’s relationship with Russia and embark upon a new cold war, focusing on the time-honored principle of containment to guide it.

The article ends,

Putin has total control over Russian TV news, and with no opposition from Obama he is rapidly creating a neo-Soviet surveillance state he can use to control every aspect of Russian society.  As a result, even though the Putin economy is headed for disaster and the nation is increasingly isolated from the civilized world, Putin’s poll numbers remain lofty.

Putin may have “total control” over the Russian media. However, the “legitimate” media in the United States of Obama have relinquished very substantial control to President Obama and He seems to be getting more. The thoughts expressed between the beginning and end of the PJ Tatler article are also well worth considering – and not only in the context of Russia.


The United States of Obama tries very hard, and often successfully, to dictate what Israel must do internally through the Obama-Kerry “peace process.” It demands that Israel appease her Palestinian enemies by making major concessions merely to have the process continue. “Peace process” appeasements by Israel, like Iran nuke process appeasements by P5+1, have themselves become goals rather than ways to achieve their ostensible goals.

Appeasement is an old story but we tend to ignore history. As we do so, the Gathering Storm intensifies; it does not ignore us, no matter how blissfully we try to ignore it.

Largely because of demands made by President Obama and Secretary Kerry that she support the “peace process” by appeasing those who desire only her death, Israel has already released many convicted Palestinian terrorists. Unlike the Bundy Ranch Bunch, they are real terrorists, who murder others to achieve their religious/ideological goals. They have concealed neither their motivations nor their goals; they are proud of them and will persist until their dream of a Palestine including all of Israel, sans Jews, Christians and all other heretics, has been achieved.

Remember the Fogel Family? Most Israelis do and non-Israelis who reject tyranny should as well.

The Palestinians who bravely slaughtered the Fogel family were considered great heroes.

Here’s a link to an article about another Palestinian hero, Issa Abd Rabbo, who was convicted of murdering two Israelis, about which he bragged in this video.

A “political prisoner,” beloved of his fellow Palestinian “peace loving” heroes and their many admirers, he was unjustly deprived while in jail of his human right to collect postage stamps efficiently – clearly a disproportionate penalty for merely murdering a couple of Israelis. According to a Palestinian Media Watch translation,

he Al Hayat al Jadida, a PA daily newspaper,  in an April 8 interview, ‘I’m proud of the stamps I collected in prison, but it was difficult for me to pursue [my] hobby in prison, because there were many restrictions, few letters arrived, and the quality of the stamps. Prison also affects our hobbies, and I had no special albums to put the stamps in properly, so I put them in an envelope — the same one that left prison with me.’”

“I have resumed my hobby of stamp collecting with enthusiasm, to make up for what I lost during my time in prison…” Abd Rabbo continued.

“I asked each prisoner to save the envelope for me so I could cut out the stamp or stamps attached to it. During my long time in prison, I collected 100 stamps, which accompanied me whenever I moved between nearly all of the occupation’s prisons…”

Abd Rabbo and other released murderers were welcomed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas  as “heroes.” [Emphasis added.]

In an article titled Peace without normalization is not peace, Anne writes from Israel,

Well-meaning do-gooders (and plenty of not-so-well-meaning meddlers) constantly prod Israel to talk to the Palestinians and concede huge tangible assets for the sake of a peacepiece of paper. They try to encourage Israel by saying that “you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends”. But this is not true. You make peace with your enemies after they have decided to stop being your enemiesafter they have given up attempting to destroy you, and after they accept your right to exist as a free and independent nation, and not while they are still trying to delegitimize you. [Emphasis in original.]

These are just two small examples of all that is wrong with the lopsided “peace” negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.  These are besides the preposterous demands made by Abbas for him to agree to continue talking.

There is lots more to cover: Britain and multiculturalism for example:

The Muslim Brotherhood in American politics? Seems like a great idea.

New “hate speech” bills pending in both houses of the Congress — why not? And, of course, the politics of race.


This article is already too long so I’ll stop after one more video:

“Our” Government can and will do whatever pleases it, unless we stop it from transforming “our” country – and others – to conform to President Obama’s warped notions of “fairness” and “social justice.” We, and to the extent that they are able like-minded citizens of other nations, had better try very hard to make it stop, soon. It will become increasingly difficult later, until it eventually becomes impossible.

Doing anything important on November 4th? There might be something helpful to do on that day. It should at least be worth trying. If not now, When? If not us, who?

Posted in Afterburner, Allen West, Antisemitism, Apathy, Appeasement, Atomic bomb, Bill Whittle, Blacks, BLM, Cairo, Chamberlain, Churchill, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Cows, Cult of personality, Culture, Democrats, Elections, Emasculation, Fogel Family, Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Freedom, Government reliance, Gun control, History, Holder, Ideology, Integrity, Iran, Islamist rage, Israel, Jewophobia, Jews, John Kerry, Left, Libruls, Media, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims, Nanny state, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's America Now, Obamaphilia, P5+1, Palestinian heroes, Peace process, Political Correctness, Politics, Principles, Racism, Republicans, Shari law, States' Rights, Unified State of Obama, United States of Obama | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Media asked to be even more respectful of Islamist sensitivities

Being  respectful toward the sensitivities of Islamists should be easy for the “legitimate” media. They are normally more than respectful toward the sensitivities of the Obama Administration.

An April 15th post by Jonathan Turley argues, gently, against catering excessively to Islamic sensitivities.

Lawrence Pintak, dean of the Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, has written a controversial guide for journalists on how to cover stories without insulting Muslims. “Islam for Journalists” is an effort to educate reporters on the sensitivities of Muslims to avoid triggering protests or violence. Pintak writes that “Across the Muslim world extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen . . . can be just as lethal.” That line captures the controversy because it seems to suggest that reporters are a cause of violence when they fail to adhere to the demand of religious values or orthodoxy in their publications. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

My concern about the “how to” guide is that it is part of a quiet move in the West to accommodate religious demands while publicly declaring fealty to free speech. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.

Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech.  We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard. (Emphasis added)

In a satirical video posted back in 2011, Andrew Klavan explained how and why not to offend Islamists.

Dean Pintak and Mr. Klavan take slightly different approaches, but the results would be little different.

A similar tendency of the “legitimate” media to avoid offending the sensitivities of the Obama Administration, by investigating and reporting on matters that might be seen as offensive, is well expressed in this recent video of an interview with former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.

If less than the desired respectful attitude were shown toward the Obama Administration by investigating and reporting matters it hopes to conceal, the response might well be injurious to the wealth of the guilty media. Integrity? What’s that? Appeasement requires less effort than investigative reporting, will not precipitate charges of “racism” and is better for the bottom line. Appeasement through reporting propaganda as fact has become the accepted answer.

Do the legitimate media believe that the Obama Administration must, like Islam, be treated with great deference because otherwise the consequences would likely be adverse? Might the problem go even beyond that? An article posted on April 9th by Gatestone Institute offered this:

The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” [Emphasis added.]

Think about that. It’s really quite astonishing. I would say that if a president made that comment about Judaism or Christianity most of us would say, “That’s really quite bizarre. It is actually not his job.” [Emphasis added.]

To pick out and isolate Islam as the one religion, criticisms of which he has the responsibility to correct, is actually amazing. [Emphasis added.]

Assuming that President Obama was candid when He said that I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” did He thereby advise the legitimate media to be respectful toward Islam? Or else?

There’s at least one more point to be made. On April 13th, in an article titled Truth, lies and conspiracy theories, I dealt with the media tendency to appease, rather than investigate and report candidly concerning, the Obama Administration. My thesis was that since the Obama Administration lies more far often that not, and the legitimate media regurgitate its lies for us to swallow, even far-out conspiracy theories gain relative credence. If, some happy day, the Obama Administration were to advise us candidly on a matter of political significance, would we believe it? Remember the story of the boy who cried “Wolf!”? Who could trust him? Who, for the same reason, can trust President Obama or His legitimate media?

Posted in Obama, Free Press, Freedom, Appeasement, Conservatives, Media, publishing ethics, free speech, Ideology, Politics, Islamist rage, Political Correctness, Government reliance, Reporting, Racism, Propaganda, Principles, Story telling, Benghazi, Libruls, Conspiracy theories, Integrity, Islamists, Andrew Klavan, Jonathan Turley, Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT), Trust, United States of Obama, Brain washing, Islamophobia, Reality | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Truth, lies and conspiracy theories

The Federal Government lies as a matter of policy and habit. Occasionally  “legitimate” media detect and dissect the lies, but they more often simply report them as true. The resultant “conspiracy theories” are often more believable than the Government lies which spawned them. 

Ketchup Kerry

From Benghazi to ObamaCare to the Israel – Palestinian “peace process” to the Iran Scam to the Bundy Ranch standoff and beyond, “our” Government has lied to us repeatedly and there have been no signs that it intends to stop or even to slow down. The lies have rarely been for legitimate national security reasons and have far more often been to promote the political security of the party in power. This from the “most transparent” administration in history:

Was there even a scintilla of candor in President Obama’s remarks about the transparency of His administration? More recently, was there a scintilla of candor in His administration’s remarks that the need to preserve desert tortoises required Bureau of Land Management (BLM) actions on the Bundy Ranch? It soon developed that the BLM had several years earlier euthanized many of the same species of “endangered” tortoises because there were too many of them.

Eventually, some relatively old but at best lightly reported news surfaced and “went viral” on the internet. It was about relationships of Senator Harry Reid (D. NV.) with the BLM and those of his son with a Chinese solar entrepreneur — who is alleged to have had arrangements to get the land where Mr. Bundy’s cattle had long grazed for a massive solar energy installation. According to a post at Alex Jones’ Infowars,

The federal government backed down and ended their siege against Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy less than 24 hours after an Infowars exposé connecting the land grab to Harry Reid and a Chinese-backed solar farm went viral, becoming the biggest news story on the Internet.

I generally regard Mr. Jones as a conspiracy theorist. However, when the Government spews lies and then tries to cover up its lies with the connivance of the “legitimate” media, we have to rely on conservative blogs for credible information. In some cases, we also have little choice but to rely on conspiracy theories. Then, even facially credible conspiracy theories become more believable than Government propaganda. That may be unfortunate if, occasionally, the Government tells the truth about important matters and few believe what it says.

Do we all “belong to the Government” to the extent that we have to believe its propaganda?

Would most who enjoy “belonging” to the Government feel that way about belonging to a family, co-op or criminal gang that badgered them with lies as consistently as has the Government administered by the Obama Administration? That seems unlikely.


Here’s a video of Sharyl Attkisson, late of CBS, explaining why she no longer works there. Her story probably is not unique. Hat tip to Last Refuge.

Posted in 2014, 2016, Abuse of Power, Apathy, Benghazi, BLM, Brain washing, Congress, Conservatives, Conspiracy theories, Corruption, Cows, Democrat National Convention, Democrats, Facts, Foreign policy, Freedom, Government reliance, Gun control, Ideology, Iran, Israel, John Kerry, Libruls, Lies, Media, Nanny state, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Owned by Government, P5+1, Palestinian Authority, Political Correctness, Politics, Protests, Reality, Right wing conspiracy, States' Rights, United States of Obama | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Bundy Ranch: the “truth” shall make you . . . ?

The reports, such as they are, from the Bundy Ranch have been confusing. The Feds have contributed to the dearth of verifiable information, suggesting that there are things it would be inconvenient for us to know.

I don’t know what’s happening at the Bundy Ranch because, aside from conservative bloggers and occasionally Fox News, there is very little information, verifiable or otherwise. According to Mr. Bundy, on Friday he

barely recognized the land during an airplane flyover earlier in the day.

“I flew down along the river here, and I’d seen a little herd of cows,” he told a gathering of supporters. “Baby cows. They was grazing on their meadow and they was really quite happy.

“I then flew up the river here up to Flat Top Mason, and all of a sudden, there’s an army up there. A compound. Probably close to a hundred vehicles and gates all around and vehicles with armed soldiers in them. [Emphasis added.]

“Then I’m wondering where I am. I’m not in Afghanistan. I think I’m in Nevada. But I’m not sure right now,” he said to applause and defiant shouts.

Federal officials said that BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to statements Bundy made which they perceived as threats.

“When threats are made that could jeopardize the safety of the American people, the contractors and our personnel; we have the responsibility to provide law enforcement to account for their safety,” National Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover said to reporters Sunday.

A good collection of links is available at Nebraska Attitude.  Here’s a video from one of the links:

Would the video be more effective if the protesters were more multiculturally diverse and hence politically correct?

Here’s a video of a speech by a fellow rancher:

“It’s a Hell of a lot bigger than Clive Bundy?” Yep, it is. Many neighboring ranches have been vacated over the years due to the BLM, and the Bundy Ranch is one of the very few remaining. Were it not for Mr. Bundy and his supporters, there would be no story to hear about BLM encroachments on our freedoms.

A leftist version of the story is provided at Think Progress in an article titled Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Descend On Nevada To Help Rancher Defy Court Order. Obviously, the Feds are right and those who oppose them are, therefore, wrong. Right?

Due to the declaration of a no-fly zone in the area, the “legitimate media” would not be able to take aerial photographs or otherwise provide coverage from helicopters even if they wanted to do so; they probably don’t want to, because such coverage might well conflict with the official narrative and there could be unfortunate consequences. Might there be a “Waco massacre” when the Bundy family supporters arrive to defend them? Might the BLM enforcers stop and go away? According to this report,

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so. 

According to this report,

BUNKERVILLE (KSNV – The gathering of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle in northeast Clark County has been stopped by the director of the Bureau of Land Management.

The BLM announcement came as Bundy was meeting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie about the week-long dispute.

The BLM had been using contract cowboys to round up Bundy’s 900 head of cattle that have been grazing over 600,000 square acres in northeast Clark County for more than 20 years without his payment of grazing fees.

As of Friday they had secure 389 cattle from the Gold Butte area, nearly 90 percent of them marked with the Bundy Ranch brand.

All of the public land closed for the cattle roundup have been reopened, the BLM said today.

New BLM Director Neil Kornze made the following statement this morning:

“As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders, a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

If the reports are accurate, will the BLM agents re-group to return in greater force after the protesters have left and publicity giving the BLM (and the Obama Administration) a bad image has ceased? Maybe, but don’t look for many verifiable details from the “legitimate media.”

Here are some photos from an earlier time, accompanied by the song Home on the Range.

Just look at the anti-social jerks in the old photographs! Some of them might even have had unregistered firearms. There were no Federal agents to guide them by ensuring approved health care, child happiness and welfare, social justice or any of the plethora of “benefits” for which we now told to rely upon our benign Government.

Sometimes turning to fiction can be helpful in comprehending “reality.” I have been reading a frightening novel, Foreign Enemies and Traitors by Matthew Bracken, published in January of 2011. It is frightening because, although it depicts situations that now seem impossibly worse than anything yet seen — or likely to be seen — in the United States, the story is becoming incrementally plausible. It is set in a time when the United States are in turmoil, its citizens are arrested and murdered or “disappeared” because they oppose a no-longer accountable Government.

A series of environmental disasters had damaged the economy severely enough to provide a crisis that had to be set right, for the People, according to the Fed’s own lights. Food and other necessities were scarce and Federal moves to ensure “social justice” were implemented. Those who failed to abide by the Federal version of social justice became enemies of the state. Rural Southerners were the principal targets and a Federal Rural Pacification entity was formed to deal with the problem. Civilian firearms were banned but the bans were very difficult to enforce in the rural South.

In a small Tennessee village, Saturday markets attracted nearly all residents to barter or, if they had any of the new Federal currency, to buy things they needed to survive. A few had small gold coins, the possession of which was a capital offense, with which to buy what they needed. The whole concept of a free market was antithetical to the Federal concept of social justice, so one Saturday afternoon hundreds of market participants were arrested, taken to a ravine and shot. Rural pacification was a “black operation.” Since it did not officially exist, any stories of its actions were deniable and hence untrue.

If you have an opportunity, please read the book. Far fetched? Of course it is. It might — or might not — nevertheless suggest where the United States of Obama may be headed. Will “We the People” try to keep the situation from getting worse, or will we be content simply to “think progress,” to wait until we are personally affected and to hope for change?

Elections are coming in November. Please vote for our freedoms and against those who would destroy them “only” a few at a time as we enjoy the intervening periods of what passes for “normalcy.”

Sheep eating


Things may not be quite as they seem. According to a post at Maggie’s Notebook,

After being told the BLM would stand-down this morning, it appears nothing of the sort is happening. InfoWars was streaming live, right at the spot where the cattle were, when the feed was cut, and apparently InfoWars is not the only one to lose communication. Cell phones are working and Alex Jones was talking by cell to David Knight who says someone there has threatened to shoot the activists. The area is heavy with armed police and other officials. Traffic has stopped on the interstate, honking in support of Bundy. David Knight says there are “soldiers” hiding behind cars with AR-15s. Amid the reporting, Bundy’s cattle will not be returned to him. More as information becomes available.

I don’t consider Alex Jones’ InfoWars a reliable source. However, there seem to be very few of them and he may be correct.


From PJ Media, a post titled Breaking: Bureau of Land Management Won’t Enforce Court Order Against Bundy Cows claims that

The Bureau of Land Management announced that it would not enforce a court order to round up cows owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, effectively ending the siege at the southern Nevada ranch.

But did it?

When government chooses to intimidate instead of negotiate in good faith, they should expect this kind of resistance. I’m not sure it’s necessarily a good thing for citizens to threaten government officials, but the situation would never have gotten to this point if the government had treated its people as citizens instead of subjects to be bullied and pushed around. [Emphasis added.]

The BLM may wait for things to die down and then return to enforce the court order. If they try the same tactics, it’s likely they’ll meet the same resistance. “It’s about the freedom of America,” said another of Bundy’s sisters, Margaret Houston. “We have to stand up and fight.” If the only thing they accomplish in the end is put the government on notice that citizens won’t sit still for this kind of bullying, something positive will have come out of this mess. [Emphasis added.]


Posted in 2014, Abuse of Power, Administrative Agencies, Apathy, Army, BLM, Brain washing, Civil War, Conservatives, Conspiracy theories, Constitution, Corruption, Cows, Democracy, Democrats, Department of Domestic Tranquility (DDT), Duty, Executive Decree, Fantasy, fear, Federal Agencies, Free Press, Freedom, Good stuff for everone free, Government and individual choices, Government reliance, Gun control, Ideology, Law and Order, Libruls, Media, Military, Nanny state, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's America Now, ObamaCare, Owned by Government, Politics, Power, Protests, Reality, Right Wing, States' Rights, U.S. Military, United States of Obama, War on antisocial conduct | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

The United States of Obama are imploding

What, if anything, do “we” now stand for and why?


An article published on April 9th by the Gatestone Institute International Policy Council is titled U.S.: The Great Problem that Needs to be Solved. Written by Elliot Abrams, it contends that the problem has at its center the world view of President Obama. His world view is based primarily on ideology rather than reality; its bases are evident in all that He and His minions do and fail to do.

The problem also impacts domestic policy, implemented by Executive Decree when He “won’t wait.” If the Democrats control neither house of the Congress following the November elections, there will likely be increasing numbers of Executive Decrees. There will also probably be more Executive refusals to enforce Federal laws the Obama Administration does not like. Attorney General Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee on April 8th that

There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and, more specifically, that an attorney general has . . . .  But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people. [Emphasis added.]

Whose values are “our values?” Which “American people” are to be protected from what and whom?

Executive Decrees and the increasing dominance of Executive “values” over those on which our laws are based are among the consequences of elections, about which President Obama once bragged but now complains. When weak, He has to appear to His followers to be strong in asserting their values. Our RINOs frequently oblige by cowering before Him.

This article, however, is about foreign policy – an area in which He evidently considers American weakness more effective than American strength in bringing and keeping peace. It is not.

According to the Gatestone article,

When the Iranians started building a nuclear weapons program, it was the United States that said — three presidents have said — “You are not permitted to do that.” There was at least someone saying, “No, this is not a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’: there are certain rules here that everyone will live by, and we, the United States, will enforce them.”

This started a long time ago — certainly after World War II, when the U.S. effected these rules against the Soviet Union. Obviously that is not the way the current U.S. Administration views the Middle East or its role there.

. . . .

You hear this from the president over and over again. “Global citizen;” “new era of engagement.” He used that line in about 10 different speeches starting with his first State of the Union “reset.”

In the Administration’s analysis of the world situation, there seems to be a great problem that needs to be solved; and the problem is the United States. It needs to break and overcome these old habits. Some of you might think instead that we have a great problem with Islamic extremism. That is not the  president’s view. The president made this really quite remarkable statement in his Cairo speech: “I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” [Emphasis added.]

Think about that. It’s really quite astonishing. I would say that if a president made that comment about Judaism or Christianity most of us would say, “That’s really quite bizarre. It is actually not his job.” [Emphasis added.]

To pick out and isolate Islam as the one religion, criticisms of which he has the responsibility to correct, is actually amazing. [Emphasis added.]

You look at the Administration’s policy: what is the goal here? What is he trying to achieve? It is certainly not a human rights policy; he seems remarkably indifferent to human rights everywhere.

Start with June 2009 in Iran: completely indifferent to the uprising that could conceivably have overthrown the Ayatollahs. Maybe it could not, but we shall never know. Or China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first trip there. When she was asked, “Why don’t you say more about human rights?” she said, “We know what they’ll say in response.” So much for human rights in China, for human rights in Russia.

. . . .

One of the things that have changed in this administration is that people who are fighting for democracy in places such as Turkey, Russia or China, do not feel that they have any moral or political support coming from Washington, in a way that they have over the years. [Emphasis added.]

They are just not interested. On the humanitarian side, also not interested. When the president visited Africa, there were a fairly good number of articles in the newspapers talking about how disappointed Africans were. After all, they had gotten a lot of attention from President Bush. Now they had an African American president. Surely the amount of attention would be doubled, tripled. Instead, of course, it had largely disappeared. [Emphasis added.]

The key job for humanitarian activities in Africa is the Africa desk at USAID, the Assistant Administrator for Africa. It has been vacant for over a year and a half. The president did not even bother to fill the job.

What is he interested in doing? Military strength? Clearly not.

The Gatestone article is long but well worth reading and considering.

The Israel – Palestinian “peace process.”

Kerry SalutesPeace has to be out there somewhere.
I’ll find it using my magic Process!

On April 3rd, in an article titled Secretary Kerry and his Israel – Palestinian “peace process,” I argued that the process has become more important than peace, which will not in any event be among its results. Secretary Kerry, evidently backed by President Obama, consistently maintains that any failure of the process will be mainly the fault of Israel — not of the Palestinians and certainly not of the process.

During hearings on April 8th before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Kerry

performed a post-mortem on the recent collapse of the Middle East peace talks. According to Kerry, the Palestinian refusal to keep negotiating past April and their decision to flout their treaty commitments by returning to efforts to gain recognition for their non-existent state from the United Nations was all the fault of one decision made by Israel. [Emphasis added.]

That “fatal” decision was to announce seven hundred new apartments for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem. “Poof, that was the moment,” Mr. Kerry said. 

[T]o blame the collapse on the decision to build apartments in Gilo—a 40-year-old Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem that would not change hands even in the event a peace treaty were ever signed and where Israel has never promised to stop building—is, to put it mildly, a mendacious effort to shift blame away from the side that seized the first pretext to flee talks onto the one that has made concessions in order to get the Palestinians to sit at the table. But why would Kerry utter such a blatant falsehood about the process he has championed? [Emphasis added.]

The answer is simple. Kerry doesn’t want to blame the Palestinians for walking out because to do so would be a tacit admission that his critics were right when they suggested last year that he was embarking on a fool’s errand. The division between the Fatah-run West Bank and Hamas-ruled Gaza has created a dynamic which makes it almost impossible for Abbas to negotiate a deal that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn even if he wanted to.

Or perhaps it’s necessary because Kerry sees the making of increasing demands as the proper function of the Palestinians and bowing to those demands, with her destruction to follow, as the proper functions of Israel. That is the view which the Palestinian Authority demands as its price for pursuing the process. At some point, however, Israel cannot continue to yield to increasing demands and the process fails. That appears to be where things now stand.

Or perhaps the underlying delusion is necessary due to President Obama’s Cairo promise, one of the very few that He meant and has kept:

I consider it as part of my responsibility as president of the United States is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

“Negative stereotypes” or reality?

The P5+1 nuke farce

a1  Obama and Kahameni -building a toaster

The Iran Scam continues and is likely to get worse. During the testimony of Secretary Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 8th, Chairman Menendez (D-N.J.)

panned a recent Wall Street Journal headline: “Obama Administration Shows Optimism on Iran Nuclear Talks.”

“I’m trying to glean where that’s from,” he said. “…With no sanctions regime in place, and understanding that every sanctions that we have pursued have needed at least a six-month lead time to become enforceable, and then a greater amount of time to actually enforce, that the only option left to the United States to this or any other president, and to the West, would be either to accept a nuclear-armed Iran or to have a military option.”

Kerry dismissed breakout as “just having one bomb’s worth, conceivably, of material, but without any necessary capacity to put it in anything, to deliver it, to have any mechanism to do so, and otherwise.”

He then admitted that “our goal” is not eliminating nuclear capability as much as “proving that this is a peaceful program.” [Emphasis added.]

He said WHAT?

He said WHAT?

Did he really say that? Was it a Freudian slip? What ever it was, it appears to reflect Obama Administration policy: start with assumptions that with “moderate” Iranian President Rouhani now in charge (he isn’t; to the extent that anyone is, it’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) and that his charm offensive was and is sincere (it wasn’t and isn’t). Those assumptions easily evolve into sufficient “proof” for the P5+1 process that Iran has and wants only a “peaceful program.” Is the P5+1 farce, like the Israel – Palestinian “peace process,” all about the process? It seems to have little to do with keeping Iran from having, getting or using nuclear weapons.


Foreign policy under President Obama and Secretary Kerry is a mess. The policy is to negotiate regardless of the costs, and to require the only reasonably free and democratic nation in the region, Israel, to negotiate with Palestinians who “merely” desire to eliminate her. Israel does not even have a recognized part to play in the P5+1 farce. If something — anything — works, good; Obama – Kerry will claim the credit. If negotiations fail, if there is another Intifada and/or if Iran gets (or keeps) and uses nuclear weapons resulting in many thousands or millions of deaths? Oh well, Obama – Kerry tried real hard so it couldn’t be their fault. Perhaps they will get Nobel Peace consolation prizes

The “peace process” and the P5+1 scam are only two of many available examples of the implosion of the United States of Obama as a principal force for international good –stability and democracy with freedom. As she continues to implode and to create a vacuum, something(s) will take her place. Stability may eventually come, but with neither democracy nor freedom. That seems to be the direction in which the United States of Obama are themselves headed.

UPDATE: April 11, 2014

Putin Declares All-Out Cold War on America

Obama continues to bite his fingernails and watch as Putin gorges himself on Eastern Europe.  A big part of the reason, of course, is that he’s afraid Americans will start remembering his “reset” policy, where he lectured Republicans about having misunderstood Russia and assured us that if treated with proper respect Russia would be a valuable partner in international affairs.

Yep. Why shouldn’t Russia see President Obama much as the rest of the world does?

Posted in Abbas, Abuse of Power, Appeasement, Congress, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrats, Elections, Executive Decree, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Freedom, Ideology, Islamists, Israel, Jerusalem, John Kerry, Khamenei, Libruls, Netanyahu, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's America Now, Obamaphilia, P5+1, Palestinian Authority, RINOs, U.S. Military, Unified State of Obama, United States of Obama | Tagged , , , , , , , | 9 Comments