Senseless, violent, random “extremism” is not Islamic

Editor’s note: This is a post by my (imaginary) guest author, 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. 

Senator Librul is also justly proud of his expertise in interfaith dialogue, on the basis of which he has explained to the entire world that Islam is the religion of peace, grossly distorted by the non-Islamic Islamic State and other textual deviants. He was recently awarded the Obama Foundation’s cherished award for exemplary political correctness on the basis of his interfaith outreach. We are humiliated 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.


Almost no perpetrators of senseless, random, violent extremism are Muslims. Obama’s war on violent, random and senseless non-Islamic extremism will end the cycle of violence. Soon, all will come to trust and love us.

Here are just a few videos of non-Muslims engaged in extreme and senseless random violence.

The woman who was attacked was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She has only herself to blame and should have known better.

Like the senseless random attacks on Charlie Hedbo and a grocery store in France, this was also the fault of the alleged victim.

Even our best friends can do it.

Finally, here’s absolute proof of my analysis;

Whoops. Wrong video, but there is no proof that these folks were in any way motivated to engage in senseless, extremist and random violence by the religion of peace. Nobody is, and there is not one single word in the Holy Koran, other Muslim Holy texts or in Sharia law that so much as tolerates senseless, random extremist violence!

Besides, others do it too. Obama is absolutely right in not supporting savages like these bloodthirsty cowards in their efforts to murder innocent adherents to the religion of peace!

Senator Ted Cruz is wrong to claim that any senseless random violent extremism is Islamic.


Editor’s comments:

Senator Librul is correct in stating that Islam does not promote senseless, random violence. However, he fails to explain why: Islamic violence is almost always directed against those viewed as enemies of Islam. It is therefore purposeful, not senseless. Nor, for the same reason, is it “random.” And, as I contend here, it is not “extremist.”

Here is a suggestion from one of Senator Librul’s many devoted followers:

As soon as we remove all deer crossing signs directing deer to dangerous places for highway crossings they will find safe places to cross instead. On a parallel theory, as we cease to attribute senseless, random “extremist” violence to Islam, there will be no violence of that type of which we can properly accuse Muslims.

As is his wont, Senator Librul hit the hammer on the head with the nail. The Center for American Progress most likely agrees. Although People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may disagree, Obama’s pup Bo has graciously offered to help.

Obama with Bo

Soon Bo, with Obama leading bravely as always from behind, will end senseless non-Islamic random violence. Then, the world will be a safer and better place in which we will all enjoy peace and happiness in our time. Right?

End random, senseless “extremist” Islamic violence? What’s that? Obama and Senator Librul deem there to be none and they are probably correct. So what’s the rush?

The infinitely wise Dear Leader of North Korea, Kim Chi-un, has proclaimed, “let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms!” “Our very own” infinitely wise Dear Leader Obama is doing His best to beat him to it.

North-Korea mushrooms

Obama’s task of mushrooming* will be easier, and not only because He has no doppelganger to pester Him. Of greatest importance, He already has a tremendous head start.

*To keep in the dark and feed a rich diet of manure.



Posted in Obama, Freedom, Chamberlain, Iran, Kenya, Religion, Ideology, Political Correctness, Humor, Deer crossings, Kim Chi-un, Middle East, Islamists, France, Best friend, Obama's America, Foreign policy, Islamic State, Islamic Caliphate, Sharia law, Religion of death, Islam, Religion of peace, Islamic slaughter, Charlie Hedbo, Ted Cruz, Iran scam, Koran | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

“Extremist” Islam is not extreme.

“Extremist” Muslims believe that the Koran and the Hadith must be taken literally and that Sharia law, rather than “man made” law, must control everyone. Secular Muslims seem to disagree or not to be very interested. “Extremist” Roman Catholics believe that birth control, abortion and pre-marital sex are sinful and oppose governmental support for them. Secular Roman Catholics seem to disagree or not to be very interested. 

“Extremist” Muslims are “literalist,” because they believe that the Koran is the word of Allah as faithfully transcribed by Mohamed, his messenger, and that there is no room for interpretation. The many conflicting verses in the Koran present a problem.

Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses. Most scholars divide the Qur’an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad’s strength grew. [Emphasis added, footnotes omitted.]

Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur’an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be “deficient.” Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself.  [Emphasis added.]

Islamist literalism coupled with abrogation now has temporal, and often fatal, consequences for non-Muslims as well as for “apostate” Muslims because, as Mohammad grew stronger, his words became stronger and more violent toward apostates and other non-believers.

According to an article titled “What is Islam?” Revisited by Father James V. Schall, S.J., posted at Catholic World Report on January 8th,

Islam considers itself the only true religion. It has a “narrative” of itself that all branches of Islam hold, although they differ somewhat on how it is to be achieved. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

In the Quran, there is no mention of the Trinity or Incarnation, except explicitly to deny them. It is blasphemy to believe in them, as well as to question anything connected with the Quran. Allah intends the whole world to observe the Sharia, the Muslim legal code, observing its letter. As soon as it can, this law is imposed in every Muslim land or smaller community, even in democratic states. No distinction between Islam and the state exists. Everyone is born a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, it is because his parents or teachers corrupted him. It is impossible to convert from Islam to another religion, without grave, often lethal, consequences. [Emphasis added.]

It is not against the Quran to use violence to spread or enforce Islamic law. Those Islam conquers, even from its beginnings till now, it either kills, forces conversion, or imposes second class citizenship. The Islamic State, now so much to the forefront, seems to have the correct understanding of what the Quran intends and advocates.  [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Dialogue is looked upon as a sign of weakness unless it can be used to further Muslim goals. In the case of the killings that Coren lists, if they are looked upon as legitimate means, there is no need either to talk about them or to cease their presumed effectiveness in spreading Islam. One cannot really appeal to the Quran to cease these killings, as there is ample reason within it to justify them as worthy means. Had it not been possible to justify these means in the Quran, the whole history of Islam would be different. Indeed, it probably never would have expanded at all. [Emphasis added.]

Similarly, “extremist” Christians can be characterized as “literalist” because they believe, for example, that Jesus was literally conceived immaculately and literally ascended bodily into Heaven. These views now have no deadly temporal consequences for Christians or anyone else.

As for the crusades and the inquisition, which Obama used to try to divert our attention from Islam,

Obama - crusades

Islam is the only religion the textual core of which actively and unequivocally defames other religions.


Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”

To ban “defamation” of Islam —  in reality to ban accurate factual analyses of its core tenets — is to engage in jihad via lawfare with the help of non-Islamic nations, including Obama’s America, while violent Islamic jihad against all religions except “true” versions of Islam continues apace.

Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name. [Emphasis added.]

For example,

Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

. . . .

[T]he Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.” Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

Reforming Islam

Egyptian President al-Sisi — who appears to be a fairly secular Muslim — told Muslim clerics in Cairo on New Years Day (on or about the date when Mohamed’s birthday is celebrated) that Islam needs to be reformed, substantially. He “accused Islamic thinking of being the scourge of humanity—in words that no Western leader would dare utter.” Following his address,

Sisi went to the St. Mark Coptic Cathedral during Christmas Eve Mass to offer Egypt’s Christian minority his congratulations and well wishing. Here again he made history as the first Egyptian president to enter a church during Christmas mass—a thing vehemently criticized by the nation’s Islamists, including the Salafi party (Islamic law bans well wishing to non-Muslims on their religious celebrations, which is why earlier presidents—Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, and of course Morsi—never attended Christmas mass). [Emphasis added.]

(Under the Coptic calendar, Christmas falls on January 7th.)

Obama, who continues to oppose al-Sisi and recently met with supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, ignored al-Sisi’s words and deeds. So did a spokesperson for His State Department which, in January

met with a delegation aligned with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood . . . . It is understood that the group, which included a leading Brotherhood-aligned judge and a Muslim Brotherhood parliamentarian, discussed their ongoing efforts against the current Egyptian government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. [Emphasis added.]

El-Sisi came to power after he deposed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist government in a popularly backed coup. After only one year of Muslim Brotherhood rule, 15 million people came out onto the streets demanding an end to their rule.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is the recreation of an Islamic caliphate, although they follow a policy of the gradual implementation of sharia law. [Emphasis added.]

The Muslim Brotherhood, and “extremist” Islam in general, are Obama’s friends and advisers. They are also now the largest and most destructive enemies of western civilization; Obama assists them at every opportunity.

Meanwhile, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, Hamas, is busily training thousands of youth to attack Israel, the only free and democratic nation, as well as the only outpost of western civilization, in the Middle East.

On February 10th, a Jordanian columnist wrote, consistently with President al-Sisi’s remarks, that

“The escapism that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with those atrocities does not hold water anymore because Wahabism and Islam have become indistinguishable. To understand the crisis of Muslims today, one has to remember that Wahabism exists in several textbooks containing the alleged sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, or books of  ‘Hadith,’ revered by so many. What we must confront is the undeniable fact that it is from many stories found in these books that the unprecedented cruelty of groups such as the so-called Islamic State and Jabhat Al-Nusra emanates. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

“There is obviously a propensity towards eliminating ‘the other’ imbedded deep within Wahabist ideology. It is not only foolish to deny this fact, it is also dangerous, for we would be covering the cancerous tumour with a bandage. What we cannot deny is that many of the Wahabist textbooks are the same operating manuals that Islamist butchers use to justify their savagery. For example, very few people know that while [the Jordanian pilot] Muath was being set on fire in that macabre video, the voiceover was a recitation of an Ibn Taymiyah fatwa deeming the incineration of unbelievers a legitimate act of jihad. Ibn Taymiyah is not some obscure scholar on the fringe of Sunni Islam. In the Sunni world, he is universally venerated with the title ‘Sheikh of Islam,’ elevating him to an almost infallible clerical status. [Emphasis added.]

“If we really want to defend Islam as a religion of mercy, if we really want to be believed when we proclaim the innocence of this religion, we need to do more than just repeat this meaningless mantra about us having nothing to do with [ISIS]. We have to muster the courage to identify the specific texts that actually defame Islam, denounce them and permanently cleanse Islamic tradition of them.” [Emphasis added.]

Until “extremist” Islam reforms itself, as al-Sisi (and a few other Muslims) contend that it  must, Islam in all of its manifestations will remain an existential threat to what’s left of western civilization. If Islam manages to reform itself Obama — who considers Islam to be just peachy now — will, once again, be shown to have been on the wrong side of history.

Nuclear Iran

Unfortunately, Obama’s place on the wrong side of history may become apparent long before Islam is reformed, when Iran gets (or is permitted to keep) and uses “the bomb.” Iran, and perhaps Obama, have availed themselves of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, which

allows Muslims to have a declared agenda, and a secret agenda (Jihad, slaughter, and mayhem) during time of weakness, this is called Taqiyya.” To put it in simpler words, it is the “art” of deception, or more correctly, of deceiving non-Muslim infidels. [Emphasis added.]

Barack Mitsvah

As noted in a Gatestone Institute article titled Iran speeding to nuclear weapons breakout, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

[H]e is one of the two world leaders in the West telling the truth, warning of what is to come (Geert Wilders of the Netherlands is the other). This burden of responsibility for his people (how many of us wish our leaders had even a bit of that?) has earned him only the venom of the Obama  Administration, who see him as trying to spoil their strategy of leading by procrastination. [Emphasis added.]

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration’s policy consists of running after Iran, in order to concede everything it wants, just to be able wave a piece of paper not worth the ink on it, claiming there is “a deal.” Iran, for its part, would probably prefer not to sign anything, and most likely will not. Meanwhile, both sides continue strenuously to claim the opposite. [Emphasis added.]

Iran seems likely to get and use, or to keep and use, nuclear weapons by virtue of the essentially bilateral Iran – US nuclear negotiations. Please see also The Iran scam continues, which I wrote in January of last year. The situation has worsened since then, with substantial concessions to, and few if any of significance by, Iran.

Obama and Netanyahu

The U.S. concessions have, in part, been in exchange for Iran’s “help” in defeating the Islamic State and hence becoming the major power in the Middle East.

Iran would be the hegemon of the Middle East. Some states would ‎accept Tehran’s authority, striking deals and kowtowing in order to survive. Europeans would ‎accommodate Iran, based on its control of the flow of Gulf oil. Israel and Saudi Arabia, nations ‎that Iran’s rulers have threatened to wipe from the map, would be left to fend for themselves.‎ [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Doran cites evidence that in the first year of Obama’s first term, there were more ‎White House meetings on Iran than any other national security concern. Detente with Iran was ‎seen as “an urgent priority,” but the president “consistently wrapped his approach to that priority ‎in exceptional layers of secrecy” because he was convinced that neither Congress nor the ‎American public would support him.‎ [Emphasis added.]

A year ago, Doran further reports, Benjamin Rhodes, a member of the president’s inner ‎circle, told a group of Democratic activists (unaware that he was being recorded) that a deal with ‎Iran would prove to be “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term ‎on foreign policy.” He made clear that there would be no treaty requiring the Senate’s advice and ‎consent.‎ [Emphasis added.]

The president believes that “the less we know about his Iran plans, the better,” Doran ‎concludes. “Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his ‎foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about ‎the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.” ‎ [Emphasis added.]

Obama’s plans may well blow up in His face and, of greater importance, ours. Iran, particularly with the help of Russia and North Korea, will be able to do it. Here is a

short animated film being aired across Iran, [which] shows the nuclear destruction of Israel and opens with the word ‘Holocaust’ appearing on the screen, underneath which a Star of David is shown, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Tuesday.

Don’t worry; be happy

Obama what me worry kid

Here’s the Revolting Truth from Andrew Klavan, which debunks everything bad ever said about Obama. Sort of.

Oh. And He’s not a narcissistic jerk either.

ALL of My policies are the best ever

ALL of My policies are the best ever

Posted in Obama, Free Press, Freedom, Cairo, Israel, Appeasement, Iran, free speech, Christians, Politics, Abortion, Humor, Palestinian heroes, Birth control, Roman Catholic Church, Netanyahu, Nuclear weapons, Congress, Egypt, Atomic bomb, Muslim Brotherhood, Choom gang, Freedom of religion, Middle East, Islamists, Andrew Klavan, P5+1, Obama's America, Peace in our time, Hamas, Foreign policy, Islamic Jihad, Department of State, Iraq, Islamic State, Obama Nation, Islamic Caliphate, Sharia law, Religion of death, Human rights, Islam, Religion of peace, Islamic slaughter, Iran scam, Koran | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Brian Williams should replace Secretary Kerry

Although it would be hypocritical for NBC to fire Mr. Williams for mis- speaking  lying, it would enhance his chances of becoming our next Secretary of State. Like Hillary Clinton, Williams sorta told some truth when he admitted to lying for a dozen years. Hillary became Obama’s Secretary of State in 2009. Williams, also a very good liar, deserves no less this year. After that? Perhaps “our” next President.


Here is a timeline of the progression of Williams’ tall tales, based on a Stars and Stripes article:

In late March 2003, the New York Daily News reported that “the one (helicopter) carrying Williams and (Retired General and current NBC consultant Wayne) Downing landed” after another chopper ahead of them had been hit by “a rocket-fired grenade.” Even this early report appears to have been exaggerated. Larry O’Connor at Truth Revolt, reacting to Williams’ on-air statement Wednesday night, noted that Williams was really “in an aircraft that followed the one hit by RPG fire by an entire hour.”

Several days later, USA Today reported that Williams “was stranded in the Iraqi desert for three days.” That hardly appears to be the case. In a comment at an NBC Facebook page, a clearly frustrated Lance Reynolds, the flight engineer on the helicopter that was hit, wrote: “I remember you guys taking back off in a different flight of Chinooks from another unit and heading to Kuwait to report your ‘war story’ to the Nightly News.”

By 2007, the helicopter that was hit was, according to a Williams blog entry, “the chopper flying in front of ours.” A University of Notre Dame press release in 2010, the year he gave the commencement address there, referred to how “the lead helicopter was shot down.”

In March 2013, Williams told Alec Baldwin of “being in a helicopter I had no business being in in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe,” and, after prompting, said that he “briefly” thought he would die.

Later that month, Williams crossed the fairy-tale Rubicon, telling David Letterman that “two of the four helicopters were hit by ground fire, including the one I was in,” and that after that, the problem was how “we figure out how to land.” We?

Finally, on January 30, Williams, applying even more mustard, told the nation on Nightly News that “the helicopter we were travelling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.”

The indispensable Kristinn Taylor at Gateway Pundit has found that “speech promotional bios touted Williams’ bravery in returning to Iraq after he claimed being under fire.”

Here’s a video of Williams’ 2013 love feast with David Letterman. His Iraq narrative begins at 2:50.

According to Sharyl Attkisson, Presidential Candidate Clinton [like Brian Williams],

never fully explained how she could have made such a mistake as saying she had ducked sniper fire when there hadn’t been a sniper in sight. Initially, she stated “I was sleep deprived and I misspoke.”

But as my report below (“Clinton Doubles Down”) shows, Clinton told varieties of the embellishment over a long period of time, not just when she was sleep deprived.

Had Clinton somehow convinced herself that it had all really happened? Or did she knowingly advance a false story?

“So I made a mistake,” Clinton also stated at one point. “It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.”



In the next video, Mr. Williams and a guest from NBC discuss Clinton’s Bosnia adventures, Senator Obama’s candidacy and their anticipated consequences for her 2008 Democrat presidential nomination. Note the apparent puzzlement about why Clinton confessed to having “misspoken.”

Clinton didn’t get the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008 but was confirmed as Obama’s Secretary of State in 2009. Doesn’t Williams deserve a promotion comparable to what Clinton got (from failed Presidential Candidate to SecState)? Shouldn’t he be held to the same standard?

Williams had seen what happened to Clinton just weeks earlier, yet kept telling his own fish tale. To paraphrase one of his own NBC colleagues, this isn’t Little League, it’s a nightly news anchor with an audience of millions. Will he be held to the same standards to which NBC and the rest of the media held Clinton?

What standards were those then and, of more importance, what have they been since? She still “deserves” to become “our” next President.

Tom Brokaw, also of NBC, contends that Williams should go. Perhaps, however, NBC will forgive and forget.

The Los Angeles Times, quoting anonymous NBC News execs, reported that Williams’s on-air apology has been accepted internally and that he’s expected to face no disciplinary action for his serious journalistic lapse, which included showing video of a combat-damaged helicopter and representing it wrongly as the Chinook on which Williams had been a passenger.

As noted by Howard Kurtz at Fox News,

When it comes to the NBC franchise, Brian Williams is too big to fail. He’s the face of the network, he hosts the top-rated network newscast, he guest-hosts “Saturday Night Live.” He’s a bankable asset. And in fairness, Williams has a pretty unblemished track record.

Oh well.

Reality is often unpleasant and hard to deal with, so we need a creative Secretary of State who will continue to reject reality, base policy on fantasy and do so with impunity for a decade or more.

Clinton, a likely Presidential Candidate for 2016, did her “best.”

Obama does what Obama does and gets away with it. According to an article at Breitbart, the seven Muslims at a recent White House meeting on domestic and foreign policy issues have been named.

According to a White House statement on the President’s meeting, the domestic issues discussed were the “Affordable Care Act, anti-Muslim violence and discrimination, the 21st Century Policing Task Force, and the upcoming White House Summit on Countering Violence Extremism.” On the foreign policy front, “the President discussed the need to continue countering ISIL and other groups that commit horrific acts of violence, purportedly in the name of Islam,” while also congratulating Muslims on their “remarkable contributions” to America. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Comedian and left-wing pundit Dean Obeidallah revealed that he was one of the fifteen Muslim-American “leaders” brought to the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

“The No.1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America,” Obeidallah said of the meeting with the President. Their chief collective concern was not the rise of the Sunni Islamic State, nor the expansion of the Caliphatist Shiite Iranian regime and its messianic drive towards nuclear weapons, but instead, “anti-Muslim bigotry in America.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

The Detroit Free Press also revealed that senior Obama advisers Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes were present in the Muslim leaders’ meeting. [Emphasis added.]

Dean Obeidallah also revealed that Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, was behind the effort to get Muslim leaders to the White House.

Muslim Advocates reveals on its website that its three main objectives are to “end profiling,” “strengthen [Muslim] charities,” and “counter hate.” Its Press Center section is filled with posts demanding intelligence organizations, such as the New York Police Department and federal agencies, end their “Muslim Suspicionless Spying Program,” while also dictating to the media that it should “Report Accurately on Muslims.” Another post reads, “What You Need to Know About the New Federal Racial Profiling Policy.” Review of Muslim Advocates’ press releases reveals that the only foreign policy issue with which the group has concerned itself over the past year was urging Sec. of State John Kerry to ensureMuslim “Americans are able to safely perform the annual religious Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.” [Emphasis added.]

Keep up the good work, Big Guy, Insha’Allah.

Fantasy Island Obama

Kerry has bravely continued the march.

Williams, who should be rehabilitated as quickly as was Senator Clinton, could not be worse and might even be better than Kerry. Then, his path to the presidency should be clear even if he (unlike Obama) is candid in public on rare occasions.

Hey, Grandpa! I need some of that stuff.



Posted in 2016, Benghazi, Bill Whittle, Brian Williams, Democracy, Elections, Estblishment, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Freedom, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Iraq, Israel, John Kerry, Leftists, Media, Military, NBC, Obama, Obama Nation, Politics, Reality, Snark | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

How to deal with enemies, foreign and domestic

Editor’s note: This is a post by my (imaginary) guest author, 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 has received substantial Federal grants. 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.


As the anointed leader of my Librul kingdom, countless methods for dealing with “enemies” are at my disposal. I, along with my loyal Secretary of Slyness (SOS) Sir Ketchup, bring happiness to all. Many “enemies” of my kingdom have yielded to my wisdom without even knowing that they have. I owe everything to my dear leader Obama, my rock of ages in the past and hope for years to come.

Ketchup Kerry

Example One

When my kingdom was threatened by wolves and foxes, which intended to eat all of my free range chickens, I bravely sent Sir Ketchup to deal with the problem. At my direction, he immediately put half of my chickens into secure coops and invited the invaders to do as they desired with the rest. That satisfied them only briefly, so he dispatched half of my remaining chickens to be eaten. The process continued until I had only one chicken left.

Here’s why I can humbly wear the label “The Won,” along with my dear leader Obama. The invaders, stuffed pleasantly full of chicken and amazed at my brilliance, resolved not to attack my kingdom again until my chicken population had been restored and it was once again worthwhile to invade. Unfortunately for them, a single chicken cannot reproduce, so they will never again have any reason to return.


Example Two

A few weeks later, my kingdom was again invaded by “wild and vicious” packs of wolves and foxes. They divided their attentions between slaughtering each other and slaughtering and eating my sheep. I solved the problem by giving ample sheep to both packs and explaining to them that they were neither wild nor vicious, but simply misguided in attacking each other. Their mistake lay in believing that the traditions of their ancestors mandated such activities, even though it is not true. As a widely acknowledged expert on the traditions of wolves and foxes, I understand these matters far better than they do. Hence, I was able to convince them that with reality-based understanding such as I possess, they too would seek the beauties and benefits of unity permitting them to slaughter and eat my sheep peacefully and together.

Some who do not fully understand the inherent beauty and fairness of multiculturalism might contend that my actions were unfair to the sheep. They would be wrong. Sheep are gentle creatures and have been good to me; I have always ensured that they have plenty to eat and I have fleeced them only to provide for their well-being. We are as one and, to the extent that I am able, these benign practices will continue.

However, it is far more important to bring happiness and unity to creatures which have suffered for ages because of their erroneous but stereotypical characterization as evil. There is no evil and there is no good; all is relative. Who are we to declare that sheep are good and that wolves and foxes are evil? Don’t we also kill sheep and eat mutton? Wolves and foxes are neither better nor worse than human carnivores and it is prudent to act only on the basis of what is best for all.

My plan was successful. Happy with their full bellies, the wolves and foxes departed my kingdom in peace, promising to return together and in harmony only when they need my sheep. In the interim, they will devote their attentions to visiting neighboring farms in hopes that the owners will see the justice in my methods and adopt them. I promised to help my neighbors to adopt my enlightened multicultural views and to accord wolves and foxes every courtesy. As wolves and foxes come to understand the beauty and benefits of true multiculturalism, they will cease to be significant threats to anyone. That is a hope for change we can — and must — believe in.


In fairness, I must acknowledge that my dear leader Obama demonstrated the efficacy of this solution several years ago when, with remarkable success, He persuaded diverse groups of Muslims to unite against America to force her to reject her old ways of dealing with what she wrongly characterized, not only as enemies, but even as evil enemies. Since then, we have made great progress in defeating the Non Islamic Islamic State (NIIS) and others allegedly intent upon endangering our national security. The world be a far better place now if President Roosevelt had fully accepted Nazi Germany, not as an evil enemy or even as an enemy, but as a friend and a humanitarian force for peace and enlightenment of civilization. Had my dear leader then been our President, that would have happened and there would have been no more war.

Example Three

This year, representatives of the Non-Islamic Taliban (NIT) sought to use several acres of my kingdom for an insurgent training camp. They explained that since my dear leader Obama has declared that they are not foreign terrorists, I should have no objection. On that basis, I saw no problem in dealing with them. They offered to pay me $5,000 per acre per week and I accepted, subject to the requirement that they wear Girl Scout costumes rather than their traditional attire so that none of my Islamophobic neighbors would be offended irrationally. The deal was struck.

Since they had not stated which part of my kingdom they wanted to use, I provided land on which my free range unicorns frolic. I assumed that they would not notice, and they didn’t. Only truly superior beings, like our own glorious dear leader Obama, myself and unicorns can communicate with unicorns; the NIT members couldn’t even see them.


I promptly advised my dear leader of my findings, and He stated that He will soon dispatch brigades of well trained unicorns, under the command of Brevet General Bowe Bergdahl, to do battle with both NIT insurgents and NIIS terrorists. When the unicorn brigades triumph, dear leader Obama will be able to proclaim yet another grand mission accomplished and demonstrate, once again, that we stand firmly, shoulder to shoulder, behind our gallant friends and allies who have been harmed by our dastardly non-Islamic enemies. No longer will we be viewed as impotent.

It may be true that, until now,

Nothing in all that standing together has been potent enough to stop these barbaric, brutal, heinous beheadings of American and British and Japanese citizens.

Brevet General Bergdahl and his brigades of unicorns will change that!


I have many more inspiring stories to tell, but must leave immediately to chair a meeting of my Meretricious Relations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Former President Clinton, the principal speaker on “How to lie with impunity,” will be accompanied by his lovely wife and confidant, Saint Hillarion, also a long recognized expert on that topic as well as concerning infamous right-wing conspiracy theories.

Their talents, like those of our current dear leader Obama, are much needed in dealing with our domestic enemies, evil right-wing terrorists all!

I look forward to serving under Saint Hillarion when she becomes our next dear leader, just as I have served under dear leader Obama.



Editor’s comments

Senator Librul words of wisdom will be of great assistance to Obama in His war on non-Islamic terror and insurgency. Ideas such as the Senator’s are badly needed because in the aggregate they are far better, and hence far more likely to bring success, than what Obama has tried thus far.


If the spirits shine brightly and in copious quantities upon us, we may be able to believe that even before Obama’s son Trayvon II becomes our President, our enemies will have ceased to be our enemies and unicorns will again be able to frolic in peace throughout the entire world, Insha’Allah.

Posted in Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Appeasement, Bergdahl, Chickens, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Girl Scouts, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Islam, Islamic State, John Kerry, Leftists, Libruls, Military, Obama, Pigs, Politics, Satire, Unicorns, Wolves | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Obama, His Attorney General nominee and the Congress

Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar, constitutionalist and liberal in the old fashioned sense, considers Obama the most anti-Constitution President in recent memory. Excerpts from his prepared testimony on Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, are provided below.

Note that at the conclusion of his prepared testimony, Mr. Turley argues that in considering a nominee, the Senate should solicit the nominee’s views on the department’s past behavior and seek firm commitments to reform what needs to be reformed. Based on what I have read of the confirmation hearings, the present nominee’s answers have been less than forthcoming and her commitments have been, at best, evasive. If she does not satisfy the Senate that she will be diligent and effective in changing the path taken by the Holder Justice Department, she should not be confirmed.

That Ms. Lynch would be our first Black female attorney general should be a ground for neither confirmation nor non-confirmation. Unfortunately, I suspect that it will be seen as a compelling basis for confirmation, on both sides of the aisle.


Mr. Turley’s blog of January 29th provides a link to his prepared testimony before the Senate, which is considering Obama’s nomination of Loretta Lynch as the replacement for Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Turley approves of some of Obama’s policies, but deplores the unconstitutional means He has chosen to implement them. Mr. Turley also considers General Holder to be a terrible attorney general, who has done more than any other attorney general in recent memory to elevate the power of the Executive over both the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government as established by the Constitution. Here are a few excerpts. All bold print emphases are mine, and I have omitted the lengthy footnotes. All twenty-six pages, single spaced and in PDF format are well worth reading.


Mr. Turley’s prepared remarks:

As my writings indicate, I have been concerned about the erosion of the lines of separation in our system (and specifically the erosion of legislative authority) for many years. However, this concern has grown to alarm in the last few years under President Obama, someone whom I voted for and someone with whom I agree on many policy issues. We are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system in the rise of a dominant Chief Executive, a type “uber presidency” that has evaded the limitations imposed by the Framers in our system. It certainly did not begin with President Obama, and I was previously critical of the action of President George W. Bush with regards to the loss of legislative authority. However, it has reached a dangerous constitutional tipping point under the current Administration. That aggrandizement of authority could not have occurred without the active support and catalytic role of the United States Justice Department.

The Justice Department, as an institution, has poorly served not just institutional but constitutional interests in the last decade through its consistent effort to expand executive authority. These policies often appear inherently hostile to fundamental principles contained within our constitutional systems from the separation of powers to federalism, privacy, due process, press freedom, free speech, and international law.

The implications of this trend are obviously chilling. However, the most serious threat is found in the controversies over the inherent power and limitations applicable to the presidency. Some of these conflicts are the manifestation of policies that can be undone, but the more fundamental attacks on separation principles threaten to change the very system under which our rights (and our future) are guaranteed. In my view, Attorney General Holder often appeared untethered by the constitutional moorings in the Vesting Clauses. As a result, he steered the Justice Department far outside of the navigational beacons in Article II. The question is whether Ms. Lynch will (or can) tack back to calmer constitutional waters to the benefit of not only the integrity of our Constitution but the Department itself.

. . . .

Our government requires consent and compromise to function. It goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a nation, less tends to get done. However, such division is no license to “go it alone” as the President has suggested. You have only two choices in our system when facing political adversaries: you can either seek to convince them or to replace them. This is obviously frustrating for presidents (and their supporters) who want to see real changes and to transcend gridlock. However, there is nothing noble in circumventing the Constitution. The claim of any one person that they can “get the job done” unilaterally is the very Siren’s Call that our Framers warned us to resist. It is certainly true that the Framers expected much from us, but no more than they demanded from themselves. Regrettably, we have failed that test in recent years as evidenced by the growing imbalance in our tripartite system of government.

. . . .

[The Bergdahl exchange, pp 4 – 6]

The position of the Obama Administration in violating the law showed a distinct lack of good faith or even a credible denial. While some argued that President Obama was now claiming that the law was never valid due to his inherent power as Commander in Chief, the defense of the swap came not from the Justice Department but from the National Security Council spokesperson, Caitlin Hayden. She explained that “[b]ecause such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President, and could even raise constitutional concerns, we believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances.” The argument was rather bizarre on its face. Congress allowed for no waivers under the notice requirement—unlike other provisions under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. As both Democratic and Republican leaders indicated in the aftermath of the swap, such a reading of the law is facially absurd to the point of being insulting. Notably, even if the President were acting under his inherent authority, Section 1035 does not, itself, prevent the transfer of prisoners but rather requires disclosure of such transfers. Likewise, the very touchstone of congressional authority is the power of the purse. Section 8111 exercised that authority in barring the use of funds for a purpose deemed by Congress inimical to the national interest. The President’s claim that he could simply disregard the law and then spend money expressly prohibited by federal law captures the new reality of our constitutional order. Admittedly, there are arguments that these laws did intrude upon Executive Authority and some academics consider the rise of a dominant president as not just an inevitable but also a positive development. However, President Obama was effectively claiming both the right to ignore a disclosure provision as well as an appropriations limitation. Such a position could effectively negate a host of environmental, labor, and other laws by the same logic. The signature of a president or enactment of a law could no longer be viewed as an assurance that federal law would be recognized or enforced.

[Federal agencies and departments, the “Fourth Branch,” pp 6 – 8]

Many scholars have described with approval the emergence of the “Age of Regulation” in the system of federal agencies. As I have previously written, these agencies now exercise sweeping discretion and authority in the regulation of every aspect of American life. The sheer size of these agencies puts the vast majority of their activities under self-regulation rather than direct congressional oversight. The degree of the range of inherent authority now claimed by agencies is evident in the well-known controversies over health care and immigration.

. . . .

The rise of both a dominant president and the Fourth Branch has shifted the center of gravity of our system—much at a cost to legislative power. That is a particularly dangerous change because it is in Congress that the disparate factional disputes are ideally transformed into majoritarian compromises. The pressure to compromise is only present in the system if the legislative system remains the sole course for bringing substantial change to federal laws and programs. If there is an alternative in unilateral executive action, the legislative process becomes purely optional and discretionary. The real meaning of a president claiming discretion to negate or change federal law is the discretion to use or ignore the legislative process. No actor in the Madisonian system is given such discretion. All three branches are meant to be locked in a type of constitutional synchronous orbit – held stable by their countervailing gravitational pull. If one of those bodies shifts, the stability of the system is lost.

[The Holder Justice Department, pp 8 – 20]

The Justice Department has played a key role in facilitating the erosion of legislative authority and the rise of executive power over the years. This is particularly the case under Attorney General Eric Holder, who can accurately be described as leaving one of the most damaging legacies in terms of separation principles. Indeed, General Holder has opposed some of the most fundamental exercises of congressional authority and litigated what are some of the most radical claims in federal court. While prior Attorneys General avoided court challenges in areas like executive powers and privilege, Holder has litigated with comparative abandon. In so doing, Holder has racked up serious losses in federal court in advancing extreme claims of unilateral executive power. The role of the Justice Department, however, goes beyond its direct confrontations with Congress. Many of the most controversial agency actions are filtered through the Justice Department in anticipation of litigation. The Justice Department works behind the scenes of many controversies in anticipating potential litigation and serving as a gatekeeper in the release of policies that could implicate constitutional powers.

The Department has advanced a comprehensive attack on separation principles that is unprecedented in its scope. While presidents such as Richard Nixon were known to advocate an “Imperial Presidency” model, no Administration has been nearly as active in the pursuit of such unilateral authority as the Obama Administration. The number of such disputes would be difficult to present in a testimonial format. However, they can be divided into two categories of separation violations: the obstruction of legislative authority and the usurpation of legislative authority.

. . . .

[Fast and Furious]

The reason that Fast and Furious is particularly illustrative is for a couple of salient factors. First, no one (not even General Holder) defends the Fast and Furious operation, which proved as lethal as it was moronic. It is a prototypical example of a program that is legitimately a focus of congressional oversight authority. A federal agency was responsible for facilitating the acquisition of powerful weapons by criminal gangs, including weapons later used to kill United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010. Congress has investigated not only the “gunwalking” operation, but also what it saw as concealment and obstruction, by the Administration, in its efforts to investigate the operation. Second, Congress had ample reason to expand its investigation after the Justice Department sent a letter on February 4, 2011 stating categorically that no gunwalking had taken place. It was not until December 2011 that Attorney General Holder informed Congress that it had been given false information and the letter was formally withdrawn. Congress responded by expanding the investigation into the false information given to it by the Executive Branch and the months of delay before Congress was informed of the misrepresentation of the facts underlying Fast and Furious. Finally, the position of the Justice Department on withholding documents has, in my view, been facially invalid and lacking in any credible good-faith interpretation of the executive privilege.

It is worth noting that the Administration in litigation over these claims presented the most extreme possible claims: not only refusing documents to investigatory committees in violation of legitimate legislative authority but contesting that a court can even rule on such a conflict in rejection of judicial authority.

. . .

The Administration in the case gave full voice to a vision of an imperial presidency where the Chief Executive was accountable to literally no one in such disputes. Indeed, in what is strikingly poor judgment in litigation management, the Justice Department has continued to make this extreme argument despite previously establishing precedent against itself in prior years.

After its admission of giving false information to Congress, the Justice Department’s position has been conflicted and, in my view, incoherent from a constitutional standpoint. After the House issued a subpoena for documents generated before and after February 4, 2011 only a partial production of documents was made by the Justice Department. Rather than recognizing the added burden of disclosure following its admitted false statement to Congress, the Department refused to produce clearly relevant documents. Then, in a June 20, 2012 letter, Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, informed Congress that the President had asserted executive privilege over documents dated after February 4, 2011. The stated rationale was that their disclosure would reveal the agency’s deliberative processes. That position was clearly overbroad and unsupportable given the scope of documents withheld. Giving false information to Congress runs to the core of oversight duties. Whatever the definition of deliberation may be for a court, lying to Congress and then knowingly withholding unprivileged documents is not within any reasonable definition of that term. Indeed, the Justice Department seemed hopelessly or intentionally unclear as to the scope of deliberative privilege, particularly in the distinction between this exception under FOIA and the common law versus its meaning under constitutional law. Moreover, the invocation of executive privilege on the day of the hearing over the contempt of Congress deepened the confusion.

. . . .

This confusion deepened further when the Department later admitted that virtually all of the documents withheld for months were unprivileged. On November 15, 2013, the Attorney General stated in court filings that he was withholding documents responsive to the Holder Subpoena that “do not . . . contain material that would be considered deliberative under common law or statutory standards.” Congress has a legitimate question of why the documents were withheld when they clearly were not privileged. The notion of a deliberative process privilege claim over non-deliberative documents was also made in the letter of General Holder to President Obama seeking a sweeping claim of executive privilege: “[b]ecause the documents at issue were generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department’s responses to congressional and related media inquiries into Fast and Furious, the need to maintain their confidentiality is heightened. Compelled disclosure of such material, regardless of whether a given document contains deliberative content, would raise ‘significant separation of powers concerns.’

. . . .

Blocking Contempt Prosecution. One of the most troubling aspects of the Fast and Furious investigation was not just the withholding of non-privileged material but the later refusal of the Justice Department to submit the alleged violation to a grand jury— despite a historic vote of the House of Representatives finding General Holder in contempt. The decision to block any prosecution was a violation of a long-standing agreement between the branches and represents a serious affront to the institutional authority of this body.

. . . .

[T]he Administration (with the guidance of the Justice Department) first invokes overbroad executive privilege claims and then, when Congress seeks contempt prosecution, it cites its own overbroad executive privilege claims as the basis for refusing to give the matter to a grand jury. I have had criminal defense clients who would only envy such an ability to cite the basis for a criminal charge as the defense to a criminal charge. What is particularly breathtaking is that the Administration itself would confirm the non-privileged status of documents wrongly withheld from Congress but still insist that no grand jury could find such conduct the basis for a contempt charge. The current status of contempt powers in Congress is clearly untenable. To put it simply, the Justice Department has created a constructive immunity from congressional contempt through its expansive privilege claims. Indeed, it has taken roughly 200 years since Anderson v. Dunn, but the Justice Department has achieved in statutory criminal contempt what the Court feared with regard to inherent contempt: “the total annihilation of the power of the House of Representatives to guard itself from contempts, and leave . . . it exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”

. . . .

Usurpation of Legislation Authority.

Where the controversies over subpoenas and contempt involved the resistance of legislative authority to investigate the Executive Branch, other controversies involve the intrusion into legislative authority. Once again, the Justice Department has played a critical role in such expansion in areas ranging from online gambling to educational waivers to immigration deportations to health care decisions.

Health Care

Once again, I support national health care and the goals of President Obama. There have been dozens of changes in deadlines and other provisions under the ACA. Again, I happen to agree with some of these changes but that does not change the fact that they are in direct conflict with legislative text. For example, Congress originally mandated that non-compliant policies could not be sold after October 1, 2014. That provision was unpopular with certain groups and the Obama Administration unilaterally ordered a two-year extension that allowed insurance companies to sell non-compliant, and thus unlawful, policies until October 2016. Another such change occurred with regard to the deadline for private employers with more than 50 full-time employees. This deadline was viewed by some as a critical element of the law and was arrived at after considerable debate. The Act expressly states that these provisions would become active on January 1, 2014. However, the Administration moved unilaterally to set its own deadline and thereby suspend annual penalties that would have brought in huge revenues in sanctions to the extent that businesses did not comply. It simply stated that the employer mandate and its reporting obligation “will not apply for 2014.” That change cost the government an estimated $10 billion in annual revenue. Then on February 10, 2014, the Administration again altered the statute by exempting employers with between fifty and ninety-nine full-time employees from all aspects of the employee coverage requirements until 2016.

In the resulting litigation, the Justice Department has advanced the same extreme interpretations of executive authority in defending the changes to the ACA. I would like to focus on one such controversy that is currently before the United States Supreme Court in King v. Burwell and before the D.C. Circuit en banc in Halbig v. Burwell. The focus of these cases is the interpretation of portion of the ACA governing state and federal exchanges. Congress established the authority of states to create their own exchanges under Section 1311. If states failed to do so, federal exchanges could be established under Section 1321 of the Act. However, in Section 1401, Congress established Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code to authorize tax credits to help qualifying individuals purchase health insurance. In Section 1401 expressly links tax credits to qualifying insurance plans purchased “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311.” The language that the qualifying exchange is “established by the State” seems quite clear, but the Administration faced a serious threat to the viability of the Act when thirty-four states opted not to create exchanges. The Administration responded with an interpretation that mandates that any exchange—state or federal— would now be a basis for tax credits. In adopting this statutory construction, the Administration committed potentially billions in tax credits that were not approved by Congress. The size of this financial commitment without congressional approval also strikes at the essence of congressional control over appropriation and budgetary matters.


Confirmation hearings necessarily raise not just the credentials but also the policies to be pursued by a nominee, particularly when there is an impasse with Congress and the agency. Indeed, such hearings often force commitments for changes or policies to assure the Senate that a candidate is prepared to respect the basic conditions of interbranch relations and privileges under the Constitution. Recently, I read with some interest the statement of former Solicitor General Charles Fried who noted that he was expressly asked for assurances on his future actions in offices and felt duty bound to fulfill those promises. Confirmation hearings allow Senators to confirm new commitments and direction for departments. In so doing, past conflicts can be reduced or, in the very least, directly addressed between the branches.

. . . .

Given the discretion afforded agencies (which are protected in the judicial system under such decisions as Chevron, Dominion, and Lane), the confirmation of agency and sub-agency heads is one of the most direct ways for Congress to try to influence or curtail decisions of the government. Congress’ direct hold over agency and sub-agency heads is limited to the critical decision of confirmation. While Congress may engage in informal consultation, it does not have a formal voice in the selection of a nominee and retention of a confirmed official. As Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, “[t]here will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. . . . [T]hey can only ratify or reject the choice [the President] may have made.” Obviously, Senators are free to vote on any basis for the confirmation or the rejection of a nominee. They can vote for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. However, Senators in the past have demanded assurances on how a Department will perform its duties going forward as a condition for confirmation. For example, the past obstruction of oversight committees and failure to defend federal laws can be viewed as fundamental breaches in interbranch relations that demand resolution before confirmation.

More than any other department, the Justice Department has played a key role in facilitating the attack on congressional authority. The confirmation of an Attorney General necessarily raises the question of not just whether she will lead a federal department but what department she will lead. The Justice Department was once viewed as an apolitical institution that rose above political infighting and maintained a principled approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly in deference to the separation of powers. In recent years, it has become both overly antagonistic and litigious with regard to the exercise of well-established legislative powers.






Posted in Congress, Constitution, Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Executive Decree, Federal Agencies, Federal budget, Freedom, Ideology, Immigration, Jonathan Turley, Law and Order, Leftists, Legislation, Limitation on Authority, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Obama Nation, ObamaCare, Politics, Sgt. Bergdahl | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Obama and cognitive dissonance

It has been argued that Obama’s cognitive dissonance is demonstrated by His dealings with Iran and His other disruptive efforts in the Middle East.  Perhaps the contrary is more accurate.

Basis of His foreign policies?

Basis of His foreign policies?

An article at Front Page Magazine by Bruce Thorton is titled The Dangers of Obama’s cognitive dissonance. It argues that Obama mistakenly believes that Iran and “we” want many of the same things and that He acts on that belief.

The heart of this mistake is the belief that whatever their professed beliefs, all peoples everywhere are just like us and want the same things we want. Since our highest goods are peace and prosperity, we think other nations’ privilege the same things. If peoples behave differently, it’s because they are warped by poverty or bad governments or religious superstitions, and just need to be shown that they can achieve those boons in rational, peaceful ways, especially by adopting liberal democracy and free-market economies. Once they achieve freedom and start to enjoy the higher living standards economic development brings, they will see the error of their traditional ways and abandon aggression and violence, and resolve conflicts with the diplomacy and negotiation we prefer. [Emphasis added.]

The Islamic Republic of Iran most likely does want peace and prosperity, but on its own terms.

Iran hangings by crane

Iran wants Islamic “peace” — the peace of universal submission to (a Shiite?) Allah — and at least sufficient prosperity to force its will on others who do not want “peace” of that sort. If Iran gets (or gets to keep) nuclear weapons, along with increasingly longer range missiles, it will be in an increasingly improved position to do that.

Obama may well have very similar goals for Iran. His demands that the P5+1 process continue despite Iran’s persistent refusals to make significant concessions, even as it continues to enhance its nuclear war machine, and His disposition to give Iran whatever concessions it wants, suggest that His and Iran’s objectives are similar. There is support for an alternative, that Obama is simply delusional. However, unless His closest, most trusted and therefore most important advisors are at least equally delusional, that alternative makes little sense. Although she appears to be a despicable person, Valerie Jarrett seems quite competent at what she does on His behalf. Others fall on their swords, fall into line and salute or leave.

Obama’s “extraordinary disconnect” in foreign policy was recently highlighted on CBS’ Face the Nation.

John Bolton said much the same.

Is it more likely that Obama merely fails to understand what’s happening, or that He understands and likes it? His State of Union address was full of foreign policy nonsense, much of it about Iran. However, it seems to have worked quite well with the large segment of the American public which neither understands nor cares about foreign affairs (except amusing affairs of a salacious nature) and believes that He strives mightily to give them the “free stiff” they believe they want, without understanding the economic hardships it has brought and will bring to them. If members of the public who already worship Him (and that includes most of the “legitimate news” media) continue to do so, it may well make little if any difference to Him or to His closest advisors whether those who disagree with Him still like, or continue to like, Him.

Leftist beliefs

After all, as we learned at the Democrat National Convention that nominated Obama for a second term, “we all belong to the Government,” it’s “one big happy family” and Obama is the head of “our family.”

In the final analysis, it may make little difference whether Obama is incompetent and delusional or is competent, understands His plans for Iran and the rest of the world far better than the rest of us and has perverse conceptions of evil and good.

Both theories are worth considering because both can help us to understand what He does, why He does it and what He intends to accomplish. However, delusional actions and intentions are difficult for those who are not delusional to understand and therefore to challenge. Actions and intentions that are, instead, based on a rational thought process — but one that views evil as good and good as evil — are easier to understand and therefore to challenge.

As I have watched Obama and His accomplishments over the years, I have come to lean toward the notion that He is competent, evil, understands what He is trying to achieve and likes it.


Posted in Ambassador Bolton, Chamberlain, Executive Decree, Fantasy, Foreign policy, Freedom, Government reliance, Iran, Iran scam, Islam, Islamic Caliphate, Leftists, Media, Middle East, Muslim supremacy, Nanny state, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Obama Nation, Politics, Sharia law, SOTU Address | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Obama’s perverse view of the presidency

During His State of the Union address, Obama clearly stated His view of the purpose of His presidency.

to follow the Constitution.  It's to old and too slow.

to follow the Constitution. It’s too old and too slow.

Here it is: “to do what I believe is best for America.” He presumably means an America as she would be after His radical transformation has been completed. He constantly tries to transform her in His own image.

Obama-State of Me

Following the Constitution — not trying to evade Article II limitations on the Executive Branch and not trying to diminish the Article I role of Congress — is best for America. A dictator would feel otherwise. The Constitution was designed to prevent the rise of dictatorships in America. Obama’s efforts to diminish the constitutional framework of governance are indicative of His dictatorial aspirations.

Power Line‘s Steven Hayward, in an article titled The tyrant and the statesman, made the point quite well:

Remember when Obama remarked that “it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.It turns out? He just figured that out when he got to the White House? What closet did Valerie Jarrett stuff the hapless fellow who broke the news? [Emphasis added.]

Obama’s impatience with the Constitution—a document that went unmentioned in last night’s State of the Union address—was on full display. Ken Masugi notes over at the LibertyLawSite:

Evidently no one heard Obama declare,  “My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I’ve had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol — to do what I believe is best for America.” No, he swore an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” What he feels “is best for America” may well differ from faithful execution of his office and guardianship of the Constitution. So Obama admits he is a law unto himself. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

By contrast, take in these two paragraphs from the 1987 SOTU of Ronaldus Magnus:

Over the years—I won’t count if you don’t—nothing has been so heartwarming to me as speaking to America’s young, and the little ones especially, so fresh-faced and so eager to know. Well, from time to time I’ve been with them—they will ask about our Constitution. And I hope you Members of Congress will not deem this a breach of protocol if you’ll permit me to share these thoughts again with the young people who might be listening or watching this evening. I’ve read the constitutions of a number of countries, including the Soviet Union’s. Now, some people are surprised to hear that they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional? [Emphasis added.]

Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you, but it’s so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the Government tells the people of those countries what they’re allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others. Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters and government is their servant. And you young people out there, don’t ever forget that. Someday you could be in this room, but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best—because here in America, we the people are in charge. [Emphasis added.]

Notice several striking wholesale differences from Obama, starting with the polite deference to Congress before he offers his instruction on the Constitution. But above all there is the reminder that the “We” in constitutional government should always be followed by “the people,” whereas when Obama says “we” (or “I”), he means our betters in Washington, who are our masters rather than our servants as Reagan made them out. [Emphasis added.]

Another substantial, albeit diminishing, difference between the U.S. Constitution and those of many other nations — Venezuela, for example — is that while their constitutions have fine phrases about multiple freedoms and constitutional governance, they ignore them in practice. How far will we follow their paths to dictatorship?

Some of the blame lies with the Congress, and Obama has gone well beyond taking full advantage. Legislation such as ObamaScare tends to be lengthy, with numerous  opportunities granted to multiple Federal agencies, commissions and departments to expand upon it, without regard to congressional intent, or even clear statutory language, when following it would foil their own inconsistent objectives. Phrases such as “and such other *** as the Administrator shall decide” are common. The judiciary then compounds the problem by giving undue deference to agency interpretations, findings of fact and alleged expertise.

Congress could do much to avoid future executive branch interference by writing clearer legislation with fewer opportunities for executive branch revisions. It is doubtful that it will, because that would require substantially more work, thereby interfering with what many Congress critters appear to consider their most important functions, fund raising and getting reelected to continue to suck on golden teats.

Ted Cruz got many points right in the following video of a recent extemporaneous speech to a bunch of “tea party terrorists.” We need a constitutional conservative as President, not a “Progressive” in Republican clothing.

Can we do it? Will we do it?

Posted in 2016, Abuse of Power, Administrative law, Campaign contributions, Chavez, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democracy, Democrats, Domestic policies, Elections, Executive action, Executive Order, Federal Agencies, Foreign policy, Freedom, Illegal immigration, Justice, Leftists, Legislation, Limitation on Authority, Nanny state, Obama, Obama Nation, Politics, Power Line, Republican establishment, TEA Groups, Ted Cruz, the Basics, Venezuela | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment