Obama is scaring people, even Democrats
I didn’t watch Obama’s press conference, but I’ve seen the reports:
He’s a remarkable man, in all the wrong ways. He is the apotheosis of progressivism, the avatar and godling that is the living embodiment of all their cowardices, lies, hypocrisies, self-flatteries, and stupidities.
One self-flattery they’re fond of is claiming they have “evidence-based” reasoning, not ideology-based reasoning, and that their minds are supple things that readily incorporate new information and plot new strategies accordingly.
Obama is the ultimate exemplar of this fiction. He claims that he’s always interested in “whatever works” and he’s constantly engaging in high-level cognition about the world, and yet no matter what the news, no matter how badly his strategies and ideological priors have been shown to fail, he clings to them with the devotion of a child to his woobie.
The 8-strikes-a-day “strategy” to defeat ISIS? Complete failure. So we’re sticking to that.
Bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees, despite having no way to vet them and despite two such refugees participating in the Paris attacks? Complete failure. So we’re sticking to that.
And on, and on, and on.
And all he can do is repeat the rote words, “twisted ideology” and “wrong side of history.”
This is progressivism’s greatest mind showing all its supple neuroelectric brilliance?
He summoned up his greatest ire, not for the perpetrators of the Paris attacks, but for those Republicans who dare criticize him.
A few of the saner Democrats were not all that pleased with Obama, either.
I’ve noticed something as well, although I don’t know whether it will last or what it means. A couple of my liberal friends seem to have been thrown, not only by the Paris attacks themselves, but by Obama’s insistence on business as usual and the same old same old. They seem disoriented and uneasy about it.
In the past, I’ve been fooled several times into thinking that sort of thing represents a real change and disillusionment, or at least the beginnings of real change and disillusionment. But I’ve been wrong. So this time I’ll just remark on the fact that I’ve observed it, and not try to over-interpret the phenomenon.
We’ve grown accustomed to certain basics where presidents are concerned. After all, protection of the country itself is one of the main functions of the federal government, with a president as its executive head. Even some erstwhile Obama supporters have noticed that Obama seems curiously blasé about the threat from an implacable and heinous enemy that fully merits being called evil.
“. . . about the threat from an implacable and heinous enemy that fully merits being called evil.”
You mean Barry’s ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran, right? Right?
3,000 people murdered on US soil = BUSH KEPT US SAFE!!!!1!!!
150 people murdered on foreign soil = WORSTEST. PRESIDENT. EVUH.
It is with some temerity that I follow the remarkably cretinous comment of Occam’s Rusty.
But
Obama is evil. The Democrats who support and defend him in DC are evil. None of them is stupid.
Irony: socialists claiming anyone else is “on the wrong side of history.”
I don’t think you’re imagining it. I’ve noticed the same myself with a few of my lib friends.
I’m not convinced that these convulsions will lead to anything, either. One thing I’ve learned from the libs is the desperate persistence of folly. But we can hope!
Hey, I got converted by the second Clinton administration, and that was *nothing* compared to this disaster.
They just need a few more minutes of MSNBC and the NYT; that will get their minds right, again.
Occam:
911 attacks planned for years under Bill Clinton. No attacks here during the rest of GWB’s term.
Paris 11-13 was conducted by ISIS; a state that arose during the seven long years of Obama and for which he has done nothing to stop. Obama allowed ISIS to become strong and flourish.
Obviously people are able to change. Unfortunately, a vast majority of those who self – identify as ‘liberals’ are so deeply invested in their desire to be in with the in crowd it is close to impossible for them to wake up and smell reality. Their “evidenced based” emotional lives are based on invented evidence. Their worship of CO2 global warming is just one example out of hundreds.
Neo:
They’re the target audience and this is the situational opening for it:
Set the record straight with them on the actual ‘why’ of OIF in order to restore the paradigm of American leadership that was manifested with OIF, break the taboo that justifies Obama’s restriction of American action for the War on Terror, and discredit anyone who has asserted the demonstrably false narrative of OIF.
Show them they were bamboozled. Then connect the dots of the false narrative of OIF, its proponents, and its compounding harms, to their “disoriented and uneasy” feelings about events with Obama as Commander in Chief – particularly the crisis in the Middle East he inflamed with his decision-making in accordance with the false narrative of OIF.
Do it now before the situational opening passes and they’ve rationalized their way back to narrative conformity.
Your liberal friends who’ve shown promise by being capable of being “thrown” are one of the top target audiences I had in mind with the way my OIF FAQ is structured and the cited authorities I emphasize.
It’s clear that progressives like Obama have a well constructed idea of what they want the world to be like – reality be damned. Add to that a narcissistic personality who has a gift for gab. He actually believes that he can speechify his ideal world into being. Those peasants and barbarians who don’t get it just make him angry. If it wasn’t so calamitous, it would be hilarious.
An analogy:
A policeman’s close friend has just had several members of his family gunned down. The policeman has been trying to disarm the shooters for six years, but he has placed severe restrictions on his options for disarming the bad guys. When someone asks him why he didn’t go after them with more vigor, he becomes angry that the questioner doesn’t recognize his brilliant and principled efforts. The deaths of his close friend’s family members are just a setback to his plan to disarm the bad guys, which he assures us will take a long, long time. And that what he won’t do is go all out to bring the bad guys down………..because history.
Neo:
… Obama seems curiously blasé about the threat from an implacable and heinous enemy that fully merits being called evil.
It’s as if he’s waiting for something.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Yeats
A lot of my friends who are dyed in the wool Republicans turned on GWB at about this point in his second term also. Isn’t 7 years the most common point for divorces among married couples who divorce?
Eric,
A majority of voters will quickly tune out your insistence upon rehashing OIF. That is not the way to reach them and shake them out of their short attention spans. Images of 9/11, Boston marathon, Benghazi, Madrid, Paris, etc. will capture their attention. Fear is a great motivation. Everyone understands fear for their own preservation and that of their children and grandchildren.
@Cornhead, neo did say it was only some of the saner Democrats who Obama was starting to worry. It was actually nice of Occam to do his little drive by and emphasized the point that the sane do not constitute the majority of Democrats.
Here’s one reason why Obama is the worst President EVAH! Just one reason; there are so many to choose from.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/27/going-the-distance-david-remnick
“I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.
‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,’ Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. ‘I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.’
‘Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.'”
Translation: the short-sighted idiot was lecturing us in January 2014 that the safe havens the “J.V. team” ISIS was carving out for itself in the territories of Syria and Iraq were really none of our business because they didn’t pose a direct threat to us.
Now the short-sighted idiot is lecturing us that the millions of refugees he let ISIS create by letting them have that territory in Syria and Iraq, along with all the fighters they’ve been able to train in those safe havens, don’t pose a direct threat to us.
He’s insane
When is the last time we’ve heard a Democrat disagree with another Democrat? The President, no less. Feinstein’s statement regarding ISIS is significant. Even though she stuck with the term ISIL.
Al Qaeda and Hamas are the intellectual and actual offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
When President Obama forced President Mubarak out of office, he strongly supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Morsi. That was a total disaster. Muslim Brotherhood mobs massacred Coptic Christians, destroyed their churches, and created mayhem. President Obama stood silent. When the Egyptian people rose up against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the military ousted Morsi, President Obama was out-raged and cut off military aid to Egypt.
Colonel Gaddafi ruled Libya with an iron fist. When Saddam was captured, Gaddafi gave up his secret nuclear program to the US. He was contained and more likely to be useful in suppressing radical Islamists rather than supporting them. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton decided Gaddafi had to go. After he was gone, Libya descended into chaos. We had the Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and those who tried to thwart the attack. We still don’t know what happened there, or even why Stevens was there. There are hints that it was to do with arms shipments to Syria. The radicals took over Libya. Is that the result President Obama wanted? Sure looks that way.
The Syria debacle is turning into a catastrophe. Everything President Obama has done has helped ISIS. His unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, his refusal to aid the Kurds, his refusal to save the Yazidis from genocide, and his great desire to import 100,000 unvetted Syrians into the US tell me a lot. Sure, the US has conducted air-strikes against ISIS. But they seem to be pin-prick strikes designed to satisfy the public rather than destroy ISIS. His Pentagon wants to take the A10 out of service. That aircraft is the best weapon to use against the likes of ISIS. It flies low, can loiter around the battlefield, and can destroy anything that moves, including ISIS fighters in their Toyota pick-up trucks.
Then we have the Iran deal. President Obama has blessed Iran’s nuclear weapons program. There is no other way to look at it. The foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world gets billions of dollars and a free-pass, thanks to President Obama.
When I look at that history, the only conclusion I can come to is that President Obama is sympathetic to radical Islam. He sure isn’t on the side of America.
“I’m not convinced that these convulsions will lead to anything, either.”
Well, no.
Except the destruction of the Democratic Party.
(To be sure, the faithful will remain faithful.)
File under: The Old Guard dies but never surrenders.
Two replies – first to Occam’s minimization, and then to intriguing evidence supporting Neo’s observation.
Occam’s Rusty Razor Blade minimizes Paris impact compared to 9/11.
3,000 dead on 9/11; but only 130 to 150 in Paris? Perhaps the issues is about apples to oranges versus apples to apples.
This is made difficult – given that 9/11 involved using planes as missiles to bring down multiple buildings – and thus is unprecedented, compared with machine gun bullets and failed suicide bombs going off outside a stadium. Remember, the Washington, DC, primary target was the soft Capital building, not the hardened Pentagon – so that total was lower than it would have been otherwise.
Had the three suicide bombers not been late to the stadium, then the 500 casualties achieved could well have doubled to 1,000. And they appear to have aimed to assassinate a head of state, analogous to the decapitation of US government had 9/11 hit their primary target.
As it happens, 500 casualties for a nation of 60 some millions is very proportional to 3,000 for 300 million of 9/11.
What is worse, now is that not only has ISIS consistently made good on their past threats, but now Jihadis have a road map to successfully hit the bigger US target, and improve upon a failed massacre at a stadium target.
Thus, imagine Paris done correctly in the US, simultaneously in a half dozen cities, at pro-football or university stadiums? Or a dozen?
The latter could double 9/11 blood and much more widely throughout the land. And now, for motivated Jihadis with enough training, there is no real defence but collective vigilance.
We are now that vulnerable to getting devastatingly whacked by record-setting terrorism.
To sum up, Occam’s “cleaver” inversion is refuted by a more comprehensive account of the facts relevant to an honest threat assessment.
Now, to Neo’s uncertainty, is the unified denialism of threats like these by the Left changing?
Late Monday evening in the Rockies, this question occurred to me, too. I watched Hannity’s take down of Obama’s morning conference – having already heard “delusional” rebukes from his radio show and Hugh Hewitt.
After Sean’s FNC opener, some 20 minutes in, I turned to Charlie Rose interview program on PBS. He had a panel of four (or five) people, who I didn’t know, save for France’s Bernard Henri-Levi and NYTime’s Roger Cohen.
Here’s the guest list:
It may be a day or two before streaming video of this is up online (http://www.charlierose.com/). Nonetheless, I found it surprisingly revealing for finding the pulse of the establishment Left, because it was eye-openingly critical of Obama’s denial. It was also constructively detailed about how Obama ought to proceed with intervention to take down ISIS. In short, I did not hear the equivocation, rationalizations, and demurs that I had expected.
Mind you, I missed the first 20+ minutes, and saw only the remaining 35 minutes. (Therefore, I’m compelled to see it again, soon.)
Bernard Henri-Levi also appeared on Rose’ program after Charlie Hebdo attacks, too.
I was struck by Henri-Levi’s importuning Obama to be the flexible man of his first term in office instead of the second, and able to be other than simply a pacifist – something that Hollande of France has had to shake off, himself, he maintains.
Henri-Levi mentioned that his son was a lawyer like Obama, and his son’s buddy died at the Bataclan theater in Paris in these terror attacks.
Twice, Henri-Levi smiled charmingly appealed to a different Obama, to Obama the pragmatic realist, and once with this pointed pith: “No boots on the ground there [in ISIS-land] means more blood on the ground here.”
And the idea that ISIS, which acts like a state and plans like a state, but is not a state, was disabused.
If this kind of critique is sustained and reaches Obama regularly, say, through the NYTimes – the only newspaper that matters to him – it is just possible that my hopes to shame and goad the Narcissist-In-Chief into the defense of American self-interest might not be impossible.
Charlie Rose closed the panel discussion by saying that there would be more programs on the subject about what to do after Paris.
If there’s that, and if the NYTimes yields to substantial criticism of Obama, could the Walls of His Jerricho be vulnerable?
So, WOW.
Now, I am not so completely pessimistic that empirical criticism of Obama cannot breach His Above It All ego-centric defenses.
You all might want to read Monica Crowley on this. She has some excellent sources inside the FBI, Washington more generally.
1. Hillary — and, alas, the Republicans (which explains why they didn’t pin her down when she testified) signed off on Obama’s plan to run guns and weapons to AQ/ISIS via Qatar from Benghazi.
2. Obama will NOT move against ISIS. They serve a purpose for him — their civil war provides the perfect excuse to inject millions of moslems into Europe and the US. Because, “poor refugees,” and all that BS. He wants to hurt/islamize the West.
3. As he’s a full-on Marxist, he wants to take America, the Great Enemy (because we’re that shining City on a Hill of Free Men), apart joint from joint, and burn us at the stake. He’s delighted that the French were killed. Glories in the deaths of Christians in the Middle East. Keeps them out of America, and imports the islamic poison at a horrifying rate.
Do the Leftists think they can ride the moslem tiger? Obviously. But they may meet the fate of the Lady from Niger in the limerick. Of course, that would be too late to save Christendom.
As for the Useful Idiots waking up — I hope everyone uses this opportunity to enlighten any such folks you know on one or two key points. I used the occasion to send my niece and nephew Daniel Greenfield’s article about the truth about islam. Also to point out to a liberal friend some truth about the Crusades (limited, defensive war against the huge-arse moslem invasion of Europe and Christendom).
These rare moments when the brainwashed/indoctrinated liberals, especially the young, are open-minded to pro-American information, however temporary, are priceless chances to get in there and plant a seed of deep doubt. They don’t forget, though you many not see the fruit for quite some time.
Remember, too, that it’s an unnatural, miserable state for any human to denigrate his own home team and root for the enemy. I suspect they’re actually relieved and grateful to hear the case FOR America for a change. Hell, we have to try.
Occam’s Rusty Razor Blade Says:
November 16th, 2015 at 9:03 pm
3,000 people murdered on US soil = CLINTON KEPT US SAFE!!!!1!!!
150 people murdered on foreign soil = WORSTEST. PRESIDENT. EVUH.
FIFY
The entire anti-terroist structure of this nation was still being run by Clinton’s appointee : Richard A. Clarke.
And everyone was working under the restraints crafted by Clinton and Jamie Gorelick to hide his personal corruption — selling high tech secrets to the Red Chinese.
That Chinese Wall ( ironic term — certainly Bill chuckled ) was THE reason the FBI could not get access to NSA and CIA intel. All of the above was established by the 9-11 commission — with Jamie Gorelick a member of that very commission.
{ She’s the Typhoid Mary of Clintonian corruption — also tied directly into Black Hawk Down — and the implosion of Fredie Mac. Needless to say, she’s an acolyte of Reno and Clinton. }
The Clinton administration just owns 9-11. Period.
Cornhead Says:
November 16th, 2015 at 10:48 pm
Occam:
911 attacks planned for years under Bill Clinton. No attacks here during the rest of GWB’s term.
Paris 11-13 was conducted by ISIS; a state that arose during the seven long years of Obama and for which he has done nothing to stop. Obama allowed ISIS to become strong and flourish.
&&
ISIS is Barry’s proxy army and he is supplying it with TOW missiles.
He is only authorizing drone punishment against jihadis that wander “off mission.”
Most particularly, he puts the hammer down on media personalities — and jihadis connected to the West. He does NOT want to disturb the rest of ISIS, and hasn’t.
Raqqa has not been bombed. That’s like skipping Berlin or Tokyo. Sort of hard to miss this glaring omission, no ?
If ISIS is not Barry’s proxy army — then explain how al Nusrah and ISIS keep obtaining fresh TOW missiles — and uploading their TOW shots to YouTube.
He could easily nix the uploads.
He could easily stop supplying TOW.
He could stop talking about shipping ManPADS. (Stingers !)
ISIS is supplied entirely through our NATO ally: Turkey — by Barry’s best buddy Erdogan.
Is an image pulling into view ?
While I’ve never thought Obama was eloquent or a gifted speaker, he seemed particularly off this time. Some of it had to do with no teleprompter (so you get the “uhs”), but something else really jarred me: he could barely get through a single sentence without an uncomfortably long pauses.
He was grasping for words and phrases that should have rolled off his tongue if he had been immersed in national security for the past 6+ years (but it’s been reported he attends daily intelligent briefings ~40% of the time). There’s also the accusation from intelligence analysts that the reports Obama gets have been doctored to not include any unwelcome bad news. Obama didn’t just look inflexible, he looked completely caught unaware. On this occasion, no amount of arrogance or repetition of the key words and phrases he’s uttered for years could hide just how unprepared for dealing with a reality that so sharply diverges from what he wants. I’m biased, but the press didn’t seem particularly impressed with his performance, either.
I believe that Obama is both a fool AND knave, and this attack has thrown a monkey wrench in his plan to arm Iran, ignore ISIS/AQ/Muslim Brotherhood, alienate our allies, fill America with illegals and refugees and then leave the whole mess for the next guy. I don’t think it occurred to him he might have to deal with any mess himself.
To repeat:
Those jihadis shooting off TOW missiles HAD to have received them from us.
Yet the Kurds go without.
The Iraqi Army is denied !
Why is it that every talking head refuses to acknowledge the obvious: ISIS is Erdogan’s puppet. Erdogan is 0Bomba’s BFF.
ISIS can’t get ANYTHING without Turkish support.
The Kurds were attacked at Kobane by ISIS because Erdogan wanted the Kurds dead.
ISIS blew up Erdogan’s political opponents — because Erdogan requested the ‘hit.’
ISIS can ONLY sell oil to Turkey.
Such sales are used to fund operations — but are insignificant revenue. Just try and run a wartime economy on $ 1,250,000 per day.
The crazy idea that ISIS is selling relics — ’tis to laugh.
ISIS blows relics up — as a matter of principle.
ISIS is getting paid by Qatar and KSA, for both see ISIS as a proxy force to bleed their mutual dire enemy, Iran.
Why is such an obvious connection not comprehended ?
Can’t you folks see why the 0Bomba wants this dribble war to continue ?
That ISIS stands as an excuse to permit ex-mercs from Libya entry into Europe…
That ISIS stands as an excuse to permit White Balkan Muslim criminals motive to play their game…
That ISIS stands as an excuse to hide Erdogan’s heavy involvement … kicking Syrians up the line towards Europe … as a pressure point against FRANCE — traditionally his No. 1 nemesis WRT entry into the Euro Zone
Good grief.
This is a battle between the rabbits and the wolves.
The wolves will win. (r/k)
parker:
“That is not the way to reach them and shake them out of their short attention spans. Images of 9/11, Boston marathon, Benghazi, Madrid, Paris, etc. will capture their attention.”
“Capture their attention” is not by itself a solution. It’s just a step in our decision-making process.
Their attention has been captured by the events you’ve named. Nonetheless, the American range of action that’s necessary to solve the problem – which was sufficient following 9/11 – has been restricted under President Obama with the acquiescence of the entire political establishment, even in the face of the evident growth of the problem and evident insufficiency of American leadership in response.
Clearly, something down the chain from “capture their attention” in our decision-making process has been broken.
Yet it wasn’t broken under President Bush. In response to the 9/11 attacks, we did follow “capture their attention” with sufficient action, especially with OIF. Afghanistan was not the pivotal contest for America to seize the lead in the War on Terror; Iraq was the pivotal contest.
OIF, most of all the COIN “Surge”, epitomized the kind of American action that’s necessary to win the War on Terror. Thus, falsely characterizing OIF and thereby stigmatizing the paradigm of American leadership that was manifested with OIF has restricted the American range of action that’s needed for the contest.
On 9/11, the “capture their attention” step worked properly in our decision-making process. Since then, the Russians/Left/Democrats have engineered the preconditions and premises to establish the condition in order for “capture their attention” to stop working properly.
The part that has been broken by the false narrative of OIF is deeper down inside the engine than “capture their attention”. We need to fix that part at the premise level in order for “capture their attention” to work properly again in America’s decision-making process.
parker:
“A majority of voters will quickly tune out your insistence upon rehashing OIF.”
Yet it must be done.
I’m counting on Neo of all people, with her particular ‘change’ origin story as a blogger, to understand why it must be done.
From my perspective, along with anyone else who served in the military in the latter part of the 20th century, I appreciate the enduring debilitating influence of the Vietnam War stigma that permeated throughout our national security doctrine and decision-making.
The institutional-cultural taboo derived from the Vietnam War stigma was the product of a deliberate enemy strategy. Current day, the enemy has prosecuted the same strategy by stigmatizing OIF to serve as the current-day heir to the Vietnam War stigma. And the fresh taboo has been bolted onto our decision-making process.
The taboo derived from the Vietnam War stigma didn’t go away on its own. Compounding harms followed in its wake. Its influence was metastatic, like the taboo derived from the freshly engineered OIF stigma.
It’s simply necessary. The taboo derived from the false narrative of OIF must be broken in order to fix our nation’s decision-making process and restore the American range of action that’s needed to win this fight.
Actually its getting interesting and somewhat fatalistically entertaining..
Just remember that most of the “students” are women, as the men are not there and diluted by foreign students… and so the policies under title IX, and tons of other stuff is from feminists and women studies…
NOW is starting the things i said a long time ago would happen and always happens when people support an ideology that lied to get what it wants and doesnt really care about the women at all.
now why would a white girl be angry arent the nasty people going after her potential mates the evil white men? (forgetting that 50% of births of white women are men, meaning get rid of them and no more white men!!!)
“We support them, but we’re here to learn,” said one senior who declined to give her name. “There’s a divide among students. People who are not willing to walk out are seen as not supporting the movement.”
im sorry, women are army rangers now, its not our problem, your equal and you marginalized and went against your own society calling it evil and forgot you were a part of it.
pretty much all the comments are from fearful women.. the men are just keeping their heads down if they are there, otherwise they are in the basement playing nintendo waiting for welfare payments from the very wealthy women who get the top jobs.
[they just fired a woman here for being one of the most horrid managers i have ever worked with in 35 years, she is now a vice president at Chase banks cause they want to use her to show they give jobs to women in STEM]
anyone want to publish her address and tell the folk she wont prosecute cause she loves them?
its gonna get interesting when she walks down the street and she doesnt have her i love black folk who steal button tatooed to her forhead…
JJ tried an analogy. Here’s one:
We’re in a hellacious off-road race.
We’re in a car that can win. After starting the race behind and hitting some obstacles, we adjusted and pulled in front. But now the car just isn’t operating right anymore, and we’ve fallen behind.
Since the mid-stage changeover of the driver, the new fool or knave of a driver is part of the problem. But it’s not just him.
Complaining about the car’s deteriorated performance, most of the crew point to the cracks, rises, dips, rocks, fallen trees, etc, on the course the car is struggling over.
I’m pointing to the boot on tire.
Teaching “Whiteness” as a Disease
to what other purpose is feminist womens studies and black studies courses but to make protestors who will force others to comply as they cant get jobs with those degrees and they certainly can be bought by forgiving them the cost of their own self paid programming.
eventually, the breeders of the evil will be on the chopping block, not just their full grown children…
Neo: I caught most of the Insanity on Steroids Obama presser yesterday at work. Even after nearly 7-years of this Moral Midget, he can still leave me breathless. Absolutely Orwellian. IF I say It and Repeat It…They’ll Buy the Swag/Lies. Horrrrific.
Side Note: Just saw on Drudge that the Demo-Governor of N.H. says ‘NO Syrian Refugees Here”.
_____________________________________
Occam’s Doofus: IQ of a gnat…Nope, that insults tiny critters. Focus, Lout: MOST of this is The Aftermath/Consequences/Payment for His Infantile Majesty’s ABANDONMENT & Retreat from our(Led by George W. Bush)massive and costly VICTORY in Iraq.
From the Cairo Blather-Speech in 2009 forward Obama has consistently broadcast and demonstrated WEAKNESS. What has History taught us about WEAKNESS, Occam’s Doofus?? Answer: WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATIVE.
The fearful ones are not real leftists.. they are people following the ad copy they read and have not bothered to know history in enough detail to realize that in ideology there is no law against false advertising.
they are the dups that the chatechism of the revolutionary sees as stock to be used up and never let know what the truth is.
they are usually proteced from seing the truth and their part in things by the fact the world is large enouh and complex enough that ignorance can shield anyone from such conclusions if that is what a person wants.
but their confusion reminds me of the history of the CPUSA when the molotov rippetrop pact was revealed and they had to turn on a dime..
the mindless ones who do what the cause required and are full in had no problem, the thinking ones who side for “reasons” are the ones that could not change false reasons the way one changes underwear in the morning.
NeoConScum:
“MOST of this is The Aftermath/Consequences/Payment for His Infantile Majesty’s ABANDONMENT & Retreat from our(Led by George W. Bush)massive and costly VICTORY in Iraq.”
Yep. This point isn’t just to respond to folks like Occam’s Rusty Razor Blade.
It’s even more important for folks like parker on the other side to understand the point and its significance.
Again, OIF was the paradigm of American leadership that’s necessary to win the War on Terror. The OIF paradigm of American leadership must be restored for us to compete sufficiently again.
The way to restore the American leadership that’s necessary to win the War on Terror starts with setting the record straight on OIF at the premise level of the zeitgeist and discrediting the proponents of the false narrative of OIF, who are the same folks who continue to restrict American action by using the taboo derived from the false narrative of OIF.
parker says people will tune out a re-litigation of the decision for OIF. Yet notice that in the Democratic debate on the day after the Paris attacks, they made sure to again refresh the stigma of the false narrative of OIF.
The Russians/Left/Democrats continue to rely on the false narrative of OIF as a foundational premise to restrict American action. Yet folks like parker refuse to challenge it despite that the false narrative of OIF is easily challenged because it’s demonstrably false.
What I find discouraging is that my liberal friends on Facebook are sharing quotes and posts that are supportive of more refugees from Syria. I don’t get these people. Yes, I can feel sorry for true refugees, but are these people so blind that they cannot see what happened in Paris and its direct connection to these refugees?
I also have trouble with the idea that strong, healthy young men are ‘refugees.’ As I recall from the Vietnam days, most of the refugees were children and women or at least intact families. And some where children without parents.
This not what we are seeing with the Syrian refugees. I have a problem with young men who refuse to fight and leave a country (and their mothers, daughters, wives?) in a dangerous place. Doesn’t make sense. This is not what we have seen in other refugee crises.
Anyway, I was confused and sad to see people post such things. They are either ignorant, naive or stubborn (as in, they don’t want to admit their liberal ideology and what Obama is telling them to be wrong).
To relate the point I’m driving at to ArtfldgrsGhost’s tangent:
A basic component of the Left’s activist MO is to normalize/stigmatize.
Versus their competition, they stigmatize traditional masculinity, stigmatize traditional masculine-feminine and family relations, stigmatize traditional Western culture, stigmatize Western chauvinism, stigmatize traditional Western religious mores, etc – all designed to detach foundational pieces that are necessary to uphold the competing paradigm of American and Western society.
The same basic MO has been applied by the enemy in the War on Terror.
The OIF paradigm of American leadership is necessary to win the War on Terror, and the Russians/Left/Democrats have successfully stigmatized it.
In the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, the OIF paradigm of American leadership must be re-normalized in order for us to compete to win the the War-on-Terror activist game.
Black Lives Matter activists are very upset about recent events in Paris, and have been taking to Twitter to voice their displeasure.They’re upset because the Islamic State succeeded in stealing the spotlight from their important movement – just as it was gaining traction.Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos captured some of the tweets, notinv that they “fell broadly into two categories of stupid” Friday night: Paris and Mizzou are equivalent: both represent “terrorism.”
K-E Says: I don’t get these people. Yes, I can feel sorry for true refugees, but are these people so blind that they cannot see what happened in Paris and its direct connection to these refugees?
no, they are tne most selfish narcissistic bunch who has taken to the public forum to declare something they think will never touch them as a show of their goodness, and their willingness not to blame anyone for anything.
it has nothing to do with blindness, it has to do with how thye think others think of them, and they wont condemn a popular good looking nazi if that makes them think others think well of them
as i said a long time ago when huxley was around, the people who try to be reasonable in all things are the really dangerous ones, as they never pick a side, and wait till some point as a means of showing their false selves and have a record of it for the world.
the bible called them hippocrites who wanted their rewards for the good they told everyone they did while the really good did so without reward except in heaven for not saying so.
Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart. Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart; when he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart; though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.
if throwing jews into ovens was the popular momentary right thing to do, your amoral friends who try to ingratiate themselves to others making statements they need not make at all, would be manning the oven tossing catapults to prove they are on the side of the states goodness.
K-E Says: I also have trouble with the idea that strong, healthy young men are ‘refugees.’ As I recall from the Vietnam days, most of the refugees were children and women or at least intact families. And some where children without parents.
according to the reports from the french there were women and children coming.. but the islamic men threw them overboard and killed them to give themselves more room on the ships, so only the young men survived to reach shore..
Occam’s Rusty Razor Blade
Just because Razor boy here wants to sample the houri sex slaves of Islam, doesn’t mean Hussein will keep Razor boy here safe from the non aligned factions.
Beverly
You’re on the right track. But that merely means that society will reject your pov.
Most people are too conscious to use efficient processing to deal with reality. It’s like the person that tries to consciously control every muscle in the legs, minor and large, to run. It is not as efficient as allowing the competent brain cores to run the computation.
The human consciousness, self awareness, is like the incompetent micromanaging boss a lot of times. So society wants to “control” a lot of things, but all it ends up doing is suppressing people like Beverly that can compute things effectively.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
K-E,
If any of your liberal friends cite the WW2-era Jewish refugees comparison, respond that the solution to that problem was our full commitment in WW2 that defeated the Nazis and their allies across the oceans and Europe, Africa, and Asia over there and a homeland over there, something like this:
President Obama, 2011:
State Department (US Embassy in Baghdad), 2011:
With the COIN “Surge”, OIF was the sufficient solution to the problem. Then pivotal changes were made to the American approach around 2011 that sabotaged the solution.
Your liberal friends have seized on the mass refugee option because the sufficient solution to the problem, ie, the OIF paradigm of American leadership, has been made taboo.
By presuming the taboo, they’ve restricted the options to a binary choice.
Your response should be to reframe the issue by re-normalizing the sufficient solution – ie, the OIF paradigm of American leadership – in order to add and advocate for the sufficient solution that’s outside of their binary choice.
Beverly, I think you are right about now being the time to put some truth (reality) in front of our liberal friends and family. On Saturday, I sent this link, letting people know I sent it to my son (a Marine Security Guard) back in Sept. 2014:
http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001
I also included in the email this:
From an article on Jefferson & the Muslim Pirates:
But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Beverly:
“Also to point out to a liberal friend some truth about the Crusades … I suspect they’re actually relieved and grateful to hear the case FOR America for a change.”
Sharon W:
“I think you are right about now being the time to put some truth (reality) in front of our liberal friends and family.
… I also included in the email this: From an article on Jefferson & the Muslim Pirates”
If your goal is to make “the case for FOR America for a change” to your liberal friends and family, then citing the Crusades and the Barbary Wars is not persuasive in a way that’s directly connected to current events and thus relevant to persuading their advocacy for America to do what’s needed to win the War on Terror.
For the case for America (for a change) that is directly connected and relevant to current events, explain to your liberal friends and family that on the facts, the decision for OIF was correct according to the actual law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Eric, My intention was to point to the historical position of Islam and prove that their belief and aims haven’t changed. As the saying goes, “those who don’t learn from history will be destined to repeat it.” In this case we have a good lesson of how to deal with it.
Obama and his retinue are an emanation of the voters.
More mysterious to me is what are the Repubics’ motivations.
I suspect merely cash.
As it is, this country doesn’t deserve to survive.
Sharon W: “In this case we have a good lesson of how to deal with it.”
The COIN “Surge” in Iraq that defeated AQI is the directly connected and relevant lesson of how to deal with ISIS and the other AQ derivatives.
G6loq–The saying “follow the money” does in fact apply here. Beginning with the flood of “children” that were brought into our country, I know for a fact that millions of taxpayer dollars were given to facilities meant to serve our citizens. It was extremely lucrative to those signing the government contracts. And oh how we are repeatedly excoriated as conservatives for being “greedy”.
Sharon W
The counter Left has been developed resistance protocols.
Here’s a video of one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=vY-ueR0OLlQ
Obama: Delusional or something worse?
David Kupelian examines the president’s stunning denial of reality
http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/obama-delusional-or-something-worse/
For the past seven years, sane Americans have been trying to explain Obama, evoking various hypotheses — including the possibility that he’s a genuine sociopath, that is, without conscience.
Fox pundit, long-time ABC News personality and Pulitzer-winning columnist George Will described “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy — his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth.”
[snip]
Here’s a typical description of “sociopathy,” so let’s see how it fits: “Sociopaths are often well-liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments.” Seems like a pretty good fit, but let’s continue.
One veteran forensic psychiatrist I know — an expert witness in thousands of court cases, whose expertise is sizing up criminal/antisocial people and determining what makes them tick — has described Obama to me in terms of “malignant narcissistic personality disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signifies the version of “narcissistic personality disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.
Is Obama metnally unwell or psychotic?
This possibility was broached in October in a few places in the blogosphere, and after his bizzarely revelaing presser in Turkey on Monday, it just got a huge boost during an interview with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earlier this hour on the Sean Hannity radio show.
Gingrich’s comments left me shaking and unable to accurately transcript them – but they are so shocking that I’m sure a clip from the third hour, 15 to 22 minutes (or earlier for the Obama montage) will shortly surface (eg, American Thinker blog seems one likely place to find commentary, shortly).
Before I recap, the entire matter suggests that perhaps that an Amdenment 26th removal of the President is called for on the grounds of incapacity for office.
The mid October headline was this: “Report: EU Government ‘Believes Obama Is Quite Mentally Unwell’, Inquires About Impeachment.”
It was sourced to a tweetby the prominent ex-NSA spook, John Shindler, who blogs and writes on security affairs.
Kristinn Taylor at Gateway Pundit has the story:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/report-eu-government-believes-obama-is-quite-mentally-unwell-inquires-about-impeachment/#st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/U5BnIefHzK
The possibility of needing to invoke Amendment 25, namely the president’s incapcity to fulfill his duties and replace him, goes mentioned.
In hour three of Sean Hannity’s radio show, the opening interview was with former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich. The subject was Obama’s presser in Turkey on the Paris terroist attcks by ISIS. The Speaker waxed prolix about Obama’s detachment from reality, his inabilty to take in facts about the world, and his dangerous psychosis in denying new threats after Paris, all in an obvious effort to preserve his own world view at the expense of national security.
But here’s what I typed (and badly transcribed):
This segment left me personally stunned and my body shaking, unable to accurately transcribe Gingrich comments.
At any rate, I consider Obama’s performance in Turkey so bizzare that this may be the direction that critical commentary may go – and if you don’t find this unnerving and shocking like me, then I don’t know what to say.
I hope others read this and it is worthy of your consideration, especially after the Hannity-Gingrich segment is posted somewhere online.
TO commenters Beverly, Sharon, Eric:
Glenn Beck’s new book “It Is About Islam” at Amazon posts up the first chapter on the page, there.
The subject of the first chapter is how the fountainhead of tolerance in the New Republic, Thomas Jefferson, gets schooled into discovering Islam’s absolute intolerance towards tolerance – and therefore what today manifests as Salafism or “Radical Islam” (which animated Al Qaida, and now ISIS). And hence, Jefferson came to prosecute the Barbary States Wars.
http://www.amazon.com/It-IS-About-Islam-Caliphate/dp/1501126121
Beck’s point to take the reader on a similar “mugged by reality” conversion throughout the book. (Full title: “It IS About Islam: Exposing the Truth About ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, and the Caliphate”)
I don’t know if Beck succeeds, not having read it yet. But I find this all promising and highly relevant to importuning and educating our political opponents, now and next year.
45-50k immigrants won’t make any dent on changing the US. I figure this is a priority for the left as a possible campaign tool. Try to find reasons to call those opposed bigots or idiots… like Cruz suggesting Christians be let in is a ‘religious test’ (dumb) and not what it is… Christians are victims with nowhere to go so they should be considered.
That and there is some lefty groupthink. They’ve really played up the whole Muslim vic oppressed people’s card so much many progressives I know will do or say anything to defend them… People who bash Christians as extremists and idiots are liking facebook posts about the beauty of the Koran…. people I know first person…
Orson,
The further history is relevant. I don’t mean to imply that the subject matter Sharon W and Beverly shared with their liberal friends and family is irrelevant.
Rather, it struck me that for the contest we are engaged in right now, the Barbary Wars are the closest “lesson” that Sharon W saw fit to cite when the best “directly connected and relevant lesson[s]” (me) are from OIF, particularly the COIN “Surge”, and the material is abundant and close at hand.
I presume she skipped over the best, most recent material due to the stigma that the Russian/Left/Democrats have successfully plastered over the best subject matter we have for the current contest.
As I said to parker, “capture their attention” (parker) is not by itself a solution. It’s just a step in our decision-making process.
Subject matter about the Crusades and the Barbary Wars may capture their liberal friends and family’s attention as far as teaching them something about the nature of the enemy.
But, while it may aid diagnosis, that kind of reference will do little to break the taboo that is limiting our prescription and restricting the solution, ie, the American range of action for the War on Terror.
Once again, the taboo is derived from the stigma from the false narrative of OIF.
So Beverly and Sharon W trying to teach something about the enemy to their liberal friends and family is a step in the right direction. I don’t mean to discourage that.
But we urgently need to break the taboo that’s restricting American action, and by the same token, we need to discredit the taboo’s proponents.
Therefore, I suggest to Beverly and Sharon W that they work on their liberal friends and family to re-normalize the paradigm of American leadership that manifested with OIF. The way to do that is setting the record straight on the actual ‘why’ of OIF and, in doing so, discrediting anyone who has promoted the false narrative of OIF.
It’s not either/or. They can and should break the taboo restricting American action and teach about the enemy.
Is it safe to admit that ideologues of progressivsm aren’t all that smart to begin with, even though they think themselves as brilliant?
‘Folks’ like parker understood the rationale for OIF. I supported the effort to destroy SH’s regime. What I did not support was the failure to dictate to the Iraqis exactly what form of government they would be allowed to establish. That along with bho’s abandonment of what gains GWB made resulted in our current predicament in Syria/Iraq.
However, ‘folks’ like parker also understand that rehashing OIF is best assigned to historians 20-50 years from now. There is nothing to be gained in the here and now by whipping that comatose horse. Its futile and a waste of breath and energy. Its like explaining to the voters that Goldwater was the best candidate in 1964 (which was true but that is so much water under the bridge) while they scratch their heads over what is gold water (?).
Ask one million people what was the legal rationale for OIF and you might find 3 or perhaps 30,000 who can respond with a cogent answer. What a brilliant strategy for changing hearts and minds, and keeping hrc out of the Oval Office.
parker: “There is nothing to be gained in the here and now by whipping that comatose horse.”
Did you miss that stigmatized OIF was raised in the Democratic debate while they discussed the Paris attacks?
You obviously don’t get the significance. Why do you think they refresh a “comatose horse”?
Your criticism of some aspect of the OIF episode is interesting but it misses the point because I’m talking about norm/stigma with the OIF paradigm of American leadership. It’s more than an episode for them. It’s thematic. It’s an active premise.
Consider the vast investment the Democrats/Left made in the false narrative of OIF and all the profit they’ve gained from it, including the Presidency. For the 9/11 generation of leftists, it’s their version of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
I’ll break down the effect on the war effort again.
“Catch their attention” is just a step in the decision-making process. It’s not a solution by itself.
The shock of a terrorist attack, like the Paris attack, causes a reaction that goes to diagnosis. Formulating a prescription is another step. Applying the treatment is another step.
Prescription should follow logically from diagnosis. It did under Bush. Yet under the current President, the American leadership response has fallen short of the problem.
Cornhead summarized Fiorina’s remark on the matter. The President always uses a false-choice fallacy of do nothing or full scale war to justify insufficient action.
The image for the ‘full scale war’ taboo is stigmatized OIF.
Not-like-Iraq has been a constant in Obama’s ME policy. The sloppy Libya regime change was explicitly not-like-Iraq. The Iran deal is not-like-Iraq in its contrast to UNSCR 687. His sham red lines for Syria were not-like-Iraq. His course change with Iraq was not-like-Iraq.
When Obama sarcastically challenges detractors (ie, Republicans) for ‘better ideas’, he knows the better ideas run up against stigmatized OIF. He knows they won’t be a threat because Republicans have conceded the stigma of OIF.
As an active premise, stigmatized OIF underlies the issues that “catch their attention”. It’s not a “comatose horse”. Past diagnosis, the restrictive effect of the taboo on prescription has been pervasive. We see the insufficient treatment as a result.
In order to restore the necessary American range of action and leadership, the OIF taboo must be broken. That means de-stigmatizing OIF and re-normalizing the paradigm of American leadership manifested with OIF.
parker:
“Ask one million people what was the legal rationale for OIF and you might find 3 or perhaps 30,000 who can respond with a cogent answer.”
Bingo. Enemy propagandists have exploited that gap. To their credit, they’ve mined a lot of gold from it.
Yet their reliance on our ignorance opens the opportunity because the false narrative they chose relies on premises that are demonstrably false, not just conjecturally disputed.
The decision for OIF is a simple fact pattern. The primary sources are straightforward. Once you pick up the controlling law and policy and determinative fact findings, you’ll be impressed by the audacity of the false narrative.
To go back to your concern, this goes to the underlying premise level, not the issue level. So yes, you’ll still have to do the work you saw in the first place. The goal is to set the condition to achieve a better result from the work.
Their logic is we were wrong to go, so it was right to leave, so it’s wrong to double-down on the mistake.
Our logic is we were right to go, so it was wrong to leave, so it’s right to correct the mistake.
Setting the record straight on the decision for OIF flips the 1st part of the sequence. The 2nd part (the disengagement) may not need to be addressed. The 3rd part is the work you saw in the first place, but now with a better condition.
parker:
“keeping hrc out of the Oval Office”
Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton).
Eric: AMEN to Nov.17/10:34am & Nov.18/3:35am!!! Thank You.
_____________________________
There’s been so much lying/short-memory koolaid consumed that—to my ongoing horror—even vast numbers of Repubs think OIF was a.)A Failure…b.) A Mistake…c.)Swallow the sop mantra that Americans are sooooooooo tired of war…etc, blah-blah-blah.
Personally, at the time, I couldn’t have given a bigger s*** whether WMDs were a factor or not. That seething, festering, terror supporting cancer in the MIDDLE of everything had to GO. Period.
NeoConScum,
It’s not just for debating opponents. It’s even more important for supporters like you and parker to learn the actual law and policy, fact basis (the case) for OIF if you would set the record straight for yourself and others.
Why? Because the arguments by most supporters have been conjectural in nature. Thus, they’ve tended to leave openings for the premises of the false narrative. Or worse, they’ve presumed false premises and, thus, effectively stipulated the false narrative even while the supporter believed he was arguing for the mission.
That’s not to say that a supporter’s conjectural reasoning is necessarily wrong or not compelling in its own right. But when he doesn’t anchor his otherwise compelling reasoning in the controlling law and policy and determinative facts of the decision for OIF, he’s likely missing a full and accurate conception of the ‘why’ of OIF.
As parker pointed out, that society-wide condition is the gap that enemy propagandists have exploited to establish the false narrative of OIF, bamboozle the American people, and handicap our nation in the contest.
Setting the record straight with the actual law and policy, fact basis of OIF closes the gap at the premise level. It’s not a cure-all, but it is a necessary foundation-setting step.
Yes, indeed, and some rarely mentioned books like Richard Butler’s, “The Greatest Threat” and Dr. Khadr Hamza’s memoir, “Saddam’s Bombmaker”.
Eric,
Nothing, nada, zilch about OIF will mean anything to ‘independents’, And, of course the people who always vote for the (D) candidate can never be swayed by any effort to rehabilitate the image of Chimp Bush, Darth Cheney, or Bush lied people died OIF.
With much respect for your ability to marshall facts about OIF, facts are often antithetical to conducting a successful propaganda campaign. Respectfully, you are titling at windmills.
parker,
It’s basic Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game.
I get it. It’s not your cup of tea. You excuse yourself from playing the game, regardless that it’s the only social cultural/political game there is. You’ve rationalized that you can’t win the game and only they can. That’s not true – you can win if you play. But you’re right that it’s a hard game to win.
Be that as it may, the “catch their attention” that goes to diagnosis is insufficient. Under the current President with the current zeitgeist, the diagnosis to prescription process has been corrupted. There’s a taboo restricting the American range of action.
The taboo needs to be broken and the necessary paradigm of American leadership needs to be re-normalized. If you have a better way to do that, good. Do it. But simply counting on “catch their attention” is not a solution. That goes to diagnosis, not prescription.
Eric,
While you are correct its not my cup of tea, if I thought it would yield 10,000 critical votes in Ohio, I would subscribe to your crusade. However, IMO its a dead end street.
We simply have to disagree. I choose to use my energy and time to support my local desires in Iowa do my small part to deliver our few votes in the Electoral College to the lesser of evils. You seek to a promote a grand strategy. More power to you. I remain committed to the ground game on home turf… yard by yard, run by run.