Sunday, September 28

Team Obama until last week: "Yemen is a model of our successful policies." This week: evacuate embassy.

Until last week or so Team Obama and the Dems had been touting Yemen as a model of how their brilliant, brilliant foreign policy was succeeding.  But then a funny thing happened:  Yemen’s capital was largely taken over by Shi’ite rebels.  The U.S. evacuated our embassy and urged all Americans to leave the country.

Seeing some contradictions, a couple of courageous reporters decided to ask Team Obama about the situation.  The result--predictably--was a fountain of obvious doublespeak gobbledygook.
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: In terms of decisive action by the president, how can you cite as a success Yemen when the country is falling apart?
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE press secretary:  Because, Ed, what we have seen is the effective deployment of counter-terrorism strategy that involves building up the capacity of local forces, on occasion backed by American military forces, to counter extremist threats that are emanating from that country.
Is that sorta like "actualizing the paradigm shift"?  Or "reinforcing the ideation of the protagonists"?  Wait, I know:  It's "emphasizing the dialectic contradiction with the proletariat," right?
HENRY: If it has been so successful why are we pulling our embassy personnel out of there?
EARNEST: Ed, what we have been focused on is mitigating the threat from extremists and denying them the kind of safe-haven that would allow them to plot –
Oh yeah, baby!  We're "denying them a safe-haven"--by inviting them to take over Yemen, thus falling right into our trap!  Which we will now spring by...leaving the country.  Brilliant!
HENRY: The embassy said we are pulling out. We have to get our people out of there.
EARNEST: Ed, what we have seen in Yemen is the effective deployment of a counter-terrorism strategy to put continual pressure on extremist groups that seek to do harm to the United States.
"Pulling out"?  Heavens no!  We're merely executing the "effective deployment of a counter-terrorism strategy to put continual pressure" on 'em.  We are advancing, comrade.  Quibbling over the exact direction of this bold advance just shows you to be a bourgeois counter-revolutionary, and you'd be well advised to get your mind right lest you incur the emperor's wrath.
HENRY: If there is so much pressure why are we leaving?
EARNEST: What that has done is it has prevented those extremist groups from having to plot and plan and carry out, successfully, attacks against the U.S. homeland. That requires vigilance. If we take a day off, they could build up capacity in such a way that would be very dangerous to the U.S. or our interests around the globe.
Yeah, baby!  Our crafty emperor--military expert that he is--has "prevented those extremist groups from having to plot and plan and carry out--successfully--attacks against the U.S. homeland."  And boy are we ever vigilant!  When those fragmented, disorganized al-Qaeda remnants took over the capital we knew it within 30 minutes.

And 30 minutes after that we had strategically destroyed all our files and crypto and started our strategic advance to the rear.  Cuz, like, we never take a day off because the other side--which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam--could contravene the dialectic of the paradigm, actualizing the normative deconstruction and endangering the frumious bandersnatch.

Oh and by the way:  To those of you who may have heard that ISIS is a threat, you can be reassured that your emperor has sent 1,600 U.S. troops to Iraq to stop the advance of ISIS.

And to those Democrats who are concerned about rumors you may have heard that over a thousand U.S. troops have been ordered back to Iraq, you may safely dismiss any worries on this score.  I mean, your president received the Nobel peace prize, remember?  Now, would they have given that prestigious prize to someone who would send troops into another country?  Of course not!

Plus, you know the Constitution says only congress has the authority to declare war, right?  And you didn't hear anything about congress doing that, right?  So how could those rumors of U.S. troops be true if congress hasn't declared war?  Huh?  Huh?  Answer that, smarty!

Besides, you silly Fox people:  If the president had sent U.S. troops back to Iraq, don't you think the New York times would be screaming bloody murder?  Wouldn't there be dozens of anti-war demonstrations with thousands of howling participants?  But you haven't seen that, right?  So how could that be true?  Huh?

Don't believe the rumors spread by the Rethuglicans and their wingnut supporters.  Instead believe your emperor, the NY Times, the WaPo and the television networks.  You'll have SO much less stress that way.

Yemen is a success just like Libya.  Egypt’s a success.  Iraq is a success.  Iran is a success.

Because words mean exactly what Democrats want them to mean.  Nothing more and nothing less.

Leftist MSNBC host claims anyone who connects beheading of Oklahoma woman to Islam is...

In the previous post I you saw the core of Andrew McCarthy's piece concluding that Team Obama and the Democrats are doing everything possible to ridicule the notion that radical Islam could possibly be a threat to Americans.  They want Americans to believe that anyone who thinks Islam poses a threat is a wacko Islamophobe.

And as Exhibit 1 I give you one Melissa Harris-Perry--a thorough racist, but a black woman angry at whites.  Yesterday on her network show Harris-Perry weighed in on the beheading of an Oklahoma grandmother by a Muslim convert who witnesses said was shouting Islamic slogans as he killed the poor woman.

So without further ado, here's one of Team Obama's premier propagandists:
September 27, 2014
HARRIS-PERRY: I would be remiss not to bring up the story out of Oklahoma. It is a story that I read as workplace violence story.  But I want to play just a little bit of the sound from the press conference that followed a gentleman who beheaded a woman in the context of his having been fired.  Then he goes back to the plant. He stabs several people. One of the women, her head is severed.  [Notice the passive voice:  It's as if her beheading occurred spontaneously, rather than the "gentleman" murdering her.]  But then this gets said at the conference. Let’s listen for a moment.

Video of police spokesman: ...[in?] conducting interviews with co-workers of Nolen information was obtained that he recently started trying to convert some of his coworkers to the Muslim religion.

HARRIS-PERRY: And then that’s it. And now this is somehow about Islam.

Muslim comedian DEAN OBEIDALLAH: You know what’s funny? Just so it is clear to everyone, there is nothing in the Quran that says if you get fired, go back to your workplace and kill people.  [You're right, dude, that's a fucking laugh-riot!]
   I want everyone to know that.  It is not in the Quran. You know, anything that is bad, a bad crime, I don’t know about you, but my reaction is please don't let them be Muslim. That’s all I think. Please. So this guy's name wasn't Muslim then I read he converted and I knew instantly it will be used.
   I mean, it’s a gruesome crime and you have to feel for the family of the woman who was killed. But the idea to turn this into  -- and we are seeing right wing media use this, continuing the narrative. Look Muslims are here in America, they’re committing Jihad. The man just came over here last year. There was over five hundred work place killings last year. We don’t know about their religion of any of those murders. But if someone is Muslim it’s got to be a terrorist.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, right. The idea that that is the relevant piece of information. So, I mean, it may be that some ideology, right wing, left wing, is taking this. But at that moment in that press conference I don't think someone is like representing right wing ideology. They literally just believe. Right? And I think this to me is that there is a belief that at the core--I can also probably have breakfast that morning but we don’t think any of those things are relevant. But we do think that his conversion--jailhouse by the way-- conversion is what is relevant.

NEGIN FARSAD: And that I think is the biggest problem. There should be a cultural paradigm shift in which it is not okay to create that linkage immediately. We already know that it is not okay to equate all white men with school shootings. We can’t do that. It’s not okay.

HARRIS-PERRY: Because it just doesn’t even happen in anyone’s mind. It doesn’t even occur.

FARSAD: Exactly. But we’ve gone on and on and on creating this language between Muslims and violence and we need to have a counter-narrative. We don’t. So what we need -- that is what we are trying to do.

HARRIS-PERRY: Muslims are funny.

FARSAD: Muslims are funny. That’s the new stereotype. Pass it around. Muslims are hilarious.
This, folks, is pure, unadulterated propaganda.  Notice how the Perry and guests imply that people just "created this linkage" between the killer and Islam out of thin air.  It's not like an unknown person killed someone and everyone immediately assumed the killer was Muslim.  Instead, the guy had a) tried to convert co-workers; b) had told co-workers that women who committed "offenses" should be stoned to death, per Sharia law; c) was shouting Islamic slogans while he was murdering the woman.

So no one concocted the linkage out of thin air.  Rather, there were three indicators that the killer was a committed Muslim.  Yet they want us to believe we're all knuckle-dragging simpletons too dumb to make legitimate connections.

They then push the approved meme:  Muslims are funny.

Yeah, fucking hysterical.

Obama for the last year: al-Qaeda is a JV group. Obama this month: They're a threat, but still JV.

Andrew McCarthy nails Obama on the president's many lies about al-Qaeda.  (I've put some edited highlights below, but click for his full article.)

For six years Obama has done everything possible to convince you to believe two core things about al-Qaeda:  First, he claims his policies have put an end to the threat from this group.  As he put it, they're "on the run" and "fragmented;" merely "jayvees"--not a threat.

Second, he asserts that any threat these weak, defeated, fragmented groups pose is totally unrelated to Islam.  As he tells it, Islam is intrinsically peaceful.

But reality has a way of confounding liars and those given to wishful thinking as a substitute for reality.   As the fragmented "JV" groups have now taken over huge chunks of Syria and Iraq and executed thousands of disarmed prisoners, the president has apparently been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.”

Instead, contrary to his lies, the JV team is defeating every force it meets.

Obama told Americans that supporting so-called "moderate" Islamic revolutionaries was the path to security and stability.  Hell, he even threatened airstrikes in support of the rebel groups.  The revolutionaries smiled, happily took every weapon and dollar the president sent, and then went right on killing everyone who wasn't part of their group.

Great plan, Barack!

Now, to avoid admitting that his earlier strategy was either utterly stupid or merely incompetent, Team Obama has invented a new group of Islamic...pardon, not at all Islamic--hostiles called the Khorosan Group--which is now the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize..

You say you hadn't heard of the Khorosan group before yesterday?

There's a good reason: it doesn't exist.  It's a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the border region between Pakistan and ​Afghanistan — would sound like an authentic jihadist group.  They knew no reporter would call bullshit on the president.

The “Khorosan Group” is just al-Qaeda.

Team Obama couldn't be seen as going to war against al-Qaeda because the Emperor had repeatedly claimed al-Qaeda was no longer a threat--"on the run"--"JV."  To now be seen as ordering U.S. airstrikes on "al-Qaeda" it would make it hard to avoid the conclusion that his earlier claims were bullshit.

So as administration officials have it, Zawahiri isn't really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”  Which is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”).

That al-Qaeda is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”

Claiming these groups are substantively different enables Team Obama to continue the charade that they're only jayvees, not really jihad.  Not really a threat.

The Muslim belief in Islamic supremacy unites the parts into a whole — a movement rooted in Islamic scripture that overtly seeks to conquer the West.  Naturally the emperor does not want you to see this--or to believe there's a real threat.

The radical Left--and given Obama's known history there can be little doubt he's in that group--believes terrorism is a consequence of American arrogance and aggression.  For Leftists, America has to be the villain.  By contrast, Islam--despite its fundamental pathologies, which we had no role in cultivating, must be the victim, never the cause.  Obama’s Islamist allies--often Democrat activists--constantly scream that the problem isn't Muslim terrorism--never!--but “Islamophobia.”

Because this is such a total distortion of reality, the Left has to do some very heavy lifting to get Americans to believe it.  Since the Islamic-supremacist ideology that unites the jihadists is not only written in the Koran but also widely shouted by scores of Islamic leaders, the Left has to convince you that it's an illusion.  Thus jihad is carefully re-defined to mean not conquest but "the internal struggle to become a better person.”  All claims of Islamic supremacism in the Koran must be removed from the materials used to train our national-security agents, and any instructor who doesn't go along with this program must be discredited and/or reassigned.

As a vital part of this strategy the global terror network must be atomized into separate, disconnected, unrelated cells whose members are moved to violence simply by local political or territorial disputes.  The Left can't let anyone believe there's any overarching unity or hegemonic ambition.  That way the problem can be dismissed as a one of law-enforcement rather than as a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.

The president has been telling us for years that he handled al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden. He has been telling us for weeks that the ISIS is a regional nuisance that posed no threat to the United States. In recent days, however, reality intruded on this fiction. Suddenly, tens of thousands of terrorists, armed to the teeth, were demolishing American-trained armies, beheading American journalists, and threatening American targets.

Obama doesn't seem the type of man who can ever admit, “I was wrong: It turns out that al-Qaeda is actually on the rise, its Islamic State faction is overwhelming the region, and American interests — perhaps even American territory — are profoundly threatened.” So instead his team invented “the Khorosan Group.”

Meantime the Saudis and Qatar want no trouble with the rest of al-Qaeda, particularly with al-Nusra. After all, al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch is tightly allied with the “moderate opposition” that these “moderate” Gulf states have been funding, arming, and training for the jihad against Assad. Oh, and what about those other “moderates” Obama has spent his presidency courting, the Muslim Brotherhood? It turns out they are not only all for al-Qaeda, they even condemn what one of their top sharia leaders, Wagdy Ghoneim, has labeled “the Crusader war against the Islamic State.”

“The Crusaders in America, Europe, and elsewhere are our enemies,” Ghoneim tells Muslims. For good measure he adds, “We shall never forget the terrorism of criminal America, which threw the body of the martyred heroic mujahid, Bin Laden, into the sea.”

But Obama has his story and he’s sticking to it.

Saturday, September 27

War in Mid-East: So why aren't oil prices skyrocketing?

Historically, when war breaks out in the Middle-East, oil prices skyrocket.  But as air strikes continue on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, U.S. gasoline prices have actually declined.

The reason is that the amount of oil produced in the United States has risen to its highest level since 1986--which reduces the impact of potential supply disruptions overseas. 

And the reason for that is cleverly camouflaged by the mainstream media as "unconventional shale plays."

Of course you know what they mean by that, right?

You don't?  No surprise.  They know you don't know.  It's "fracking."   Which everyone has heard of.  In a negative story.  The Left wants to ban fracking.  Which would reverse this welcome downward trend in the price of oil and gasoline.


Because of fracking, we're less dependent on imported oil.  The share of domestic petroleum consumption met by net imports dropped from 60% in 2005 to 32% in 2013.  And it's not due to reduced consumption, but to increased *production.*

Gosh, it's almost like what conservatives have been telling the Left 30 years:  Turn U.S. oil explorationists loose to drill for oil and you'll have...wait for it...oil.  Wow, who knew?

Now stand by for Democrats and the Lying media to claim that the lower price of oil and higher domestic production is due to brilliant policies by Team Obama.  Oh yeah.  The gummint did a billion dollars of R&D to show dumb oil companies how to find oil.

Yeah, dat's it.

Or maybe, they cut tax rates on oil companies so they could put more money into exploring and drilling wildcat wells.  Maybe?

Wait, I got it:  Team Obama used all those gummint super-computers to *tell* oil companies where to drill, thus ensuring that new wildcat wells always paid off.

Of course that's all bullshit:  The government didn't do shit to encourage oil exploration.  Instead, both individuals and companies bet their fortunes on new methods and new theories.  Sometimes those paid off, sometimes not.  And when they didn't, the government didn't bail 'em out.  Cuz oilmen and roughnecks aren't like auto workers or SEIU.  No unions.  No political clout.

But that truth won't stop Democrats from trying to take credit for falling gasoline prices.

Muslim convert beheads female co-worker. Team Obama says merely "workplace violence."

By now you've probably read that a recent convert to Islam beheaded a co-worker in Oklahoma.  Witnesses said he was yelling "Islamic phrases" as he did so.

The killer had been fired earlier for stating to co-workers that women who "committed offenses" should be stoned to death, in accordance with Islamic law.  And then hours later he cut a woman's head off.

The killer's Facebook page has several photos of Usama bin Laden and a screen shot from the 9/11 terror attacks.  It also displayed this phrase--apparently from the Koran: "I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them."


But if you think this beheading was "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic extremism" or anything vaguely similar, you should know that the Obama administration describes it as nothing more than "workplace violence."

Seriously.  Exactly as they did with the Fort Hood Muslim who killed 13 and wounded 29.

Exactly as they do every time a Muslim kills someone in the U.S. while yelling Islamic slogans.

Let's review:  The killer had told co-workers that women who "committed offenses" should be stoned to death, in accordance with...Christian principles?  Eskimo tradition?  Fiji Islander ritual?


No, according to Islamic law.




But according to the Emperor this brutal beheading has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

Nothing.

Keep that in mind, citizen. 

We'll wrap with an opinion poll:  After the beheading, what do you think Saad Mohammad, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, told NewsOK.com?
     a) "All Muslims deplore this heinous act, which is rightfully condemned by all decent people, regardless of their religion.  We join all Oklahomans in extending our deepest sympathy to the victims."  or...
     b) "Leaders of the society’s mosque are taking security precautions to protect Muslims who gather there from any potential retaliatory violence" ?

If you said "a" you're either kidding or you're a typical mush-brained liberal douchebag.  And probably a reporter for the NY Times, the WaPo or similar "elite" opinion-shaping media.

Thursday, September 25

Bush executive order sealed presidential records--on his first day in office! Wait...

Ever hear of Executive Order 13489?

Yeah, I didn't think so.  Well here's the deal:  Just one day after Bush was sworn into office for his first term, he signed an Executive Order effectively sealing all presidential papers and records if the president didn't want them released.

If you're a liberal that should make your blood boil.  I mean, in a government that's supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people," what conceivable legal theory could justify such an order?

You guys oughta be furious that Bush put one over on you like that!  And amazingly, the media didn't scream bloody murder about it.  It's...astonishing.

Oh, wait, did I say "Bush"?  My bad.  That E.O. was signed by Obama.  His first.

Let's go over that again:  On Obama's first full day as president of this woefully brutalized, lawless country, he signed the E.O. sealing all records the president didn't want released.

Now consider what was involved in that order:  The language of this highly unusual order had to be carefully crafted and reviewed at several levels--a process one would expect would typically take two or three months.

This would mean Obama's legal advisors had to have started working on this order about a week after the election.

Now:  I'm not aware that open records have been a vexing problem for most presidents.  It's not like the release of records had been a problem for a decade or so and Obama was responding to requests from previous presidents.  So I leave it to you to deduce the reason for Obama's sealing presidential records on his first full day in office.

Meanwhile, click on the link.  Of course I'll admit it's to a shaky, far-right source--the government's official publishing office.  You won't believe that, of course, so click and see for yourself.

Was is suddenly okay after all!

Remember how the Left screamed bloody murder when George Bush sought approval from congress to send U.S. forces to Iraq?  Oooh, it was just awful how that Bush fellow was such a warmonger!

Then the country had the good sense to elect the Chicago Jesus--a fellow so awesome that he was nominated for the Nobel peace prize a week before he even took office.

And won it.  For doing...well, for doing nothing other than being...awesome.

But of course that was long long time ago.  When values were, like, totally different.  Back when a president actually had to get permission from congress to go to war.

Such those silly people!  We're so much more...progressive now!  Well at least the Left is.  Cuz, you know, war is actually pretty okay--as long as it's started by a reeally cool president.  Who is, after all, the only person allowed to decide to go to war.  You know?


Saturday, September 20

The Emperor's plan for ISIS

So, what's the emperor's game plan?  Will he order U.S. troops to Iraq to confront ISIS thugs?

Well, yes, but only a handful.  Couple of hundred, tops.  Just enough so he can solemnly announce to the videocameras of the Adoring Lying Media that he has Given Brilliant, Carefully Thought-Out Orders that will--(ahem) "degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL." 

Yeppers, that's exactly what he said in his prime-time speech to the American public on September 10th.

And the fabulous thing is, he's devised a way to do this with no U.S. combat troops at all!

Yes, you read that right--His Excellency is such a brilliant military strategist that he's found a way to do wars without actually, you know, combat troops.  Has something to do with air power and drones and "smart diplomacy" with other nations over there, and it's way too complicated for you to understand so there's no point in trying to explain it to ya.

But trust us, it's Brilliant!

Now, it may well be that with only a couple of hundred lightly armed U.S. troops guarding our embassy or consulates, one or two may be killed...uh, scratch that:  lost...to hostile action.  Like those guys in Benghazi.

Lost.  Which suggests to 47% of the public they may not really be dead.

Lost.  Much better optics, eh?

So it could be they're dead but maybe not dead-dead.  You know.  Of course you may have a different opinion--in a free country you're entitled to that--but...well, the investigation is still on-going, so we can't rush to judgment about such things.  That would be...raaacist.

You don't want to be raaacist, do you?  I didn't think so.  So sit down, shut up and wait until the full report is released.  And that will happen on November 15th of 2016.

Oh, were we talking about the emperor's strategy for Iraq?  You weren't supposed to remember that.  You must be a raaacist.

Okay, enough satire.  Obama--the Golden Child and community organizer who has always gotten his way by bluff, bluster and playing that mighty race card, isn't about to do a *real* war.  Instead he'll put a couple of hundred "advisors" on the ground in the hope that will placate the two percent of the American public who actually see a threat here.

Wait, this sounds...so familiar somehow.  Didn't the brilliant liberal John F. Kennedy commit U.S. troops to Vietnam in dribs and drabs?  Didn't LBJ micromanage the target lists and boast to insiders that "They can't even bomb an outhouse without my approval!"

Anyone know how that worked out?  I have this vague recollection that it didn't end well--but then I've consumed at least a metric ton of alcohol since 1973 so....

But that was then, this is now.  Ya gotta have hope, citizen!  I mean, there's that old saying, something like "Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history can create a different result!"  Because history is simply the outcome from poor leadership.  It doesn't mean anything when your emperor is Brilliant. 

And has sharp creases on his pants.  Don't forget the creases.

Wednesday, September 17

Unusual story for the Washington Post to run: 14-year-old Yazidi girl kidnapped by ISIS

The following story was in the Washington Post a week ago.  It's about a 14-year-old Yazidi girl after her village was taken by thugs from ISIS.

The thugs separated the villagers and shot the young men--including her brother.  She and her girlfriend were given to two ISIS commanders for pleasure.

I've condensed the story below.  Keep in mind that this was printed in the Washington Post, not some lunatic fringe publication with no journalistic integrity.  (That's a joke--I think the WaPo has zero integrity, but the majority of our self-styled "elites" seem to believe the things it publishes.)
Early on Aug. 3, relatives called us with terrifying news: Jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) were coming for us. ...We scrambled out of town on foot, taking only our clothes and some valuables.

After an hour of walking we stopped to drink from a well in the middle of the desert. Our plan was to take refuge on Mount Sinjar with thousands of other Yazidis who were fleeing there, because we had heard a lot of stories about Islamic State brutality and what they had done to non-Muslims. They’d been forcing non-Muslims to convert--or were killing them.

Suddenly several vehicles drove up and we found ourselves surrounded by armed men wearing Islamic State uniforms. We were scared for our lives. There was nothing we could do.

The men divided us by gender and age:  Young men in one group, another for girls and young women, and a third for older men and women. The jihadists stole cash and jewelry from this last group, and left them at the oasis. Then they ordered the girls and women into trucks.

As they drove us away we heard gunshots. Later we learned that they were killing the young men, including my 19-year old brother, who had married just six months ago.
They brought us to an empty school in Baaj, a little town west of Mosul near the Syrian border. There were many other Yazidi women there who had also been captured by Islamic State. They told us their fathers, brothers and husbands had also been killed.

Then Islamic State jihadists came in. They ordered us to recite a Muslim creed and said that if we did we would become Muslims, but we refused. They were furious. They cursed us and our beliefs.

A couple of days later we were taken to a building filled with dozens of Yazidi girls and women in Mosul, where Islamic State has its Iraqi headquarters. The ISIS leaders told us we were pagans.  They kept us in the building for 20 days.  We slept on the floor and were only fed once a day.  Several times an Islamic State man came in and told us to convert to Islam, but each time we refused. As faithful Yazidis, we would not abandon our religion. We wept a lot and mourned the losses suffered by our community.

One day our guards separated the married from unmarried women. My good childhood friend Shayma and I were given as a gift to two Islamic State members from the south, near Baghdad. They wanted to make us their wives or concubines. Shayma was awarded to Abu Hussein, who was a cleric. I was given to an overweight, dark-bearded man about 50 years old who seemed to have some high rank. He went by the nickname Abu Ahmed. They drove us down to their home in Fallujah.

Abu Ahmed, Abu Hussein and an aide lived in a Fallujah house that looked like a palace. Abu Ahmed kept telling me to convert to Islam. He tried to rape me several times but I was able to fight him off.  Instead, he cursed me and beat me every day, punching and kicking me. Shayma and I began to discuss killing ourselves.

The men handed us cell phones and ordered us to call our families.  They’d made it to Mount Sinjar, where ISIS surrounded them and tried to starve them to death. After five days Kurdish rescue forces evacuated them to Syria and then brought them back to northern Iraq. Our captors ordered us to tell our families that if they traveled to Mosul and converted to Islam we would be released.  Understandably, our families did not trust ISIS so they did not make the trip.

On our sixth day in Fallujah Abu Ahmed and the aide left for business in Mosul. Abu Hussein, Shayma’s captor, stayed behind. Around sunset the next evening, he went to the mosque for prayers, leaving us alone in the house. Using our cellphones, we call a Sunni friend of Shayma’s cousin, who lived in Fallujah, for help. It was too dangerous for him to rescue us from the house so Shayma and I used kitchen knives and meat cleavers to break the locks of two doors to get out. Wearing traditional long black abayas that we found in the house, we walked for 15 minutes through town, which was quiet for evening prayers. Then the friend came and picked us up on the street and took us to his home.

He fed us and gave us a place to sleep. The next morning he recruited a cab driver to take us all on the two-hour ride to Baghdad. The driver said he was afraid of Islamic State but offered to help us for God’s sake. We dressed like local women and covered our faces with a niqab, leaving only our eyes visible. Mahmoud gave us fake student IDs in case we were stopped at checkpoints.
After so much fear for so many days, hugging my dad again was the best moment of my life. He said he had cried for me every day since I disappeared. That evening, we went to Khanke, where my mother was staying with her relatives. We hugged and kept crying until I fainted. My month-long ordeal was over, and I felt reborn.

That’s when they told me that Islamic State had shot my brother at the oasis. My sister-in-law, a very beautiful woman, is still captive somewhere in Mosul. 
Okay, liberal readers, I'd like your take on this.  Do you believe the story is factual?  Remember, it was printed in one of your side's iconic papers.

Do I think the Post is always truthful?  Not at all.  But I feel certain they'd never publish a lie that harmed The Narrative, as this story does.

If this is factual, libs, please tell us:  What force or entity or factor will keep what happened to this 14-year-old Christian girl from happening to you? 

Do you think the Islamic State jihadists will miraculously abandon their violent tactics? 

Do you believe that what will keep you safe is that they don't have any way to get to the U.S.?  Tell us exactly what factor you're relying on to keep you and your family safe.

I keep hoping you liberals/Democrats/"progressives" see some miraculous, saving factor I've missed.  But so far all I've heard is the usual deluded spoutings of liberal bullshit, like "They're really nice people who have been radicalized by awful, anti-Muslim U.S. policies!"

Or "The other nations of the middle-east will band together and defeat them."  Or "I'm not Christian so I have nothing to worry about."  Or one of my favorites:  "Everyone should be free to believe whatever they want, and if some people believe their religion requires them to cut off the heads of unbelievers, who are we to deny them that right?"

Tell us, liberals.  What's your plan to keep this from happening to you and/or your family?


Tuesday, September 16

Retired State Dept official says he walked in on Sunday document scrub of Benghazi documents at State headquarters

Well isn't THIS amusing!  A guy who was a deputy assistant secretary in the State Department has come forward to say he walked in on a document-scrubbing session in a basement operations center at State Department headquarters on a Sunday afternoon.

The division of "Near-Eastern Affairs" had been ordered to collect all documents--including cables and emails--relevant to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, which were to be turned over to the board investigating the attack, looking for security lapses or the origins of a cover story about how the attack started.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell says he wasn't invited to the Sunday scrub but heard about it and decided to check it out.  He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the person technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says, two high-ranking State Department officials came in.  One was Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. 

“When Cheryl saw me, she snapped, ‘Who are you?’” Maxwell says.  After the other official identified Maxwell as a deputy assistant secretary for the department tasked with collecting documents for the investigating board, Mills seemed satisfied.

The reporter who uncovered this story--the amazing Sharyl Atkisson--asked all the people named by Maxwell for comment.  Predictably, not one responded.  But a state department spokeswhore reassured all you stupid taxpaying peasants that this couldn't possibly have happened.

Well, he didn't exactly say that, but implied that a document-scrubbing effort would have been, like, totally ineffective, because...let me get the quote exactly right here: 
A State Department spokesman told us it would have been impossible for anybody outside the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to control the flow of information because the board cultivated so many sources.
If you concluded that the spokeswhore's comment in no way denied the story, while leaving the impression that it "couldn't" have been true, you win.  That's called a "non-denial denial," and it's a Washington art form.

SO...what are the chances any of the Lying Mainstream Medial will pick up on this story?  How about the chances it'll be on any evening "news" broadcast?  Zero.  Because if Hillary's chief of staff was present, that ties Hillary firmly to the deed.  And the Democrat media will NOT let that happen.

Wait, couldn't this all be a lie made up by the eeeevil Koch brothers and Fox News?  Let's look into just who this "Raymond Maxwell" is.  Cuz he could be part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that Hillary talked about years ago.

Oh wait:  Maxwell is black.  Which means it's highly unlikely he's anti-Hillary.  Moreover, he "strongly supported" Obama and contributed to his campaign.  So the Media can't discredit him without violating Rule 2.

Houston, we have a problem.

Monday, September 15

Who said this?

Who said this?
Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.
Why, that would be top Democrat congresscreep and former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, to Bill Maher.

Hyperventilate much, Nan?  Surely you don't really think that, do ya?  Cuz that's sorta one step away from babbling lunacy.

Of course maybe she's just taking a page from the playbook of the leader of the Democrat party:  Lies work.

Lies win votes.  Lies bring power.

Lies like "If you like your doctor and your health insurance you can keep them."

Lies like "I did NOT draw a red line in Syria.  That was the *world's* red line."

Lies like "Benghazi was caused by a video insulting to Islam."

People like Pelosi need to be called on their insane frothings.  But the Lying Media certainly won't do the job.

Saturday, September 13

President gives "major" speech on "the Islamic State"--never mentions the word "Islam"

The Emperor gave a speech last Wednesday night--and leaks from the White House to friendly media had both ABC and U.S. New (among many others) headlining it in advance as

Obama to give speech Wednesday on Islamic State

Naturally everyone thought that might be the topic.

The Emperor spoke for a long time.  I confess I didn't watch or listen--mainly because as far as I've been able to determine every single word the man says is not just a lie but a transparent, insulting lie, so why waste my time?  But I did do a quick "search" function on the actual transcript.

Much to my non-surprise, the computer couldn't find the word "Islam" anywhere in the text.

I found that so unlikely that I thought my browser's search function had stopped working.  But sure enough, the word "Islam" was never uttered.

By contrast, the word "Islamic" appears...exactly twice, as follows:
At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the "Islamic State."
Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic."
So of the two times the Emperor said the word "Islamic," one was to flatly state that ISIL was NOT Islamic.

Well that's certainly a head-scratcher.  Cuz, you know, I could have sworn that in the immediately preceding sentence, His Worminess noted that ISIL calls itself the "Islamic State."

But of course, who would believe members of the organization itself against the word of the Emperor, right?  It's like, who could more reliably decide whether the Pope is a Catholic:  The Pope, or Barack H. Obama?  Of course--Obama, hands down.

If Obama had been alive in 1939, one imagines him reassuring Americans that this Hitler fellow was NOT representative of the Nazi party.  And certainly wasn't one himself.

His pronouncement on ISIL is equally absurd.

So the White House leaks that this speech will be about "the Islamic State."  But according to the Emperor, there is no connection whatsoever between "ISIL" and "Islam."

Other than the fact that actual, you know, members of ISIL call their group "The Islamic State."

And the Emperor immediately told ya ISIL was NOT Islamic.

But don't worry, Citizen:  The Emperor has a brilliant strategy to solve...whatever the hell is wrong over there, if anything.  He won't bother telling you what it is, simply because you couldn't possibly comprehend it, because he's so much smarter than you are.  But don't worry your head about that.

Oh, and that bit in the Consolution or Conflagration or Consternation or whatever that crumbling old yellowing sheet of rambling is called, where it says congress shall have the power to declare war?  The Emperor doesn't need that.  Cuz he's got a PEN--which folks back in 1789 never could have imagined.

Armed with this "pen" invention, the Emperor no longer needs the permission of congress to go to war.  Not that we'll be going to war, of course.  Unless critics say we're not being forceful enough, in which case yes, it's war, but just not war-war.  Or something like that.

See, I tol' ya you couldn't possibly comprehend his strategy.

Which totally proves he's brilliant.

Obama's non-strategy to fight/not fight a war/not a war, against non-Islamic non-terrorists is rock solid, baby

The American public has been thoroughly conditioned to believe several things:  That America (and particularly capitalism and freedom) is essentially bad.  That going to war is always bad.  And that thugs who have openly, repeatedly announced their intention to kill all of us--statements they've videotaped and posted on the internet--are just poor, misguided souls who aren't really serious.

Of course all these beliefs are utter bullshit, but the constant barrage of propaganda by the American media, plus left-wing professors and Dem pols, have convinced at least half of the public of their truth.

Those who study military history know that merely going into a country and breaking a few things doesn't ensure peace, but quite the opposite:  The people you acted against will rally their fellow citizens to try again. 

But liberal/"progressive"/socialist conditioning has caused Americans to forget that there's another approach:  to crush the other side so completely that the survivors are horrified even by the prospect of contemplating taking up arms again.  But of course, the conditioning noted above makes Americans unwilling to endorse that strategy.

So, Leftists, progs and Democrats:  if you're unwilling to defeat radical Islam so utterly and thoroughly that they never again even consider violence, what's your strategy?

To see if we have a ghost of a chance of agreeing on anything, how 'bout answering a couple of questions for us?  First, do you believe that numerous spokesmen for Islamic militants have said they want to take over the world and turn it into a "caliphate"?

Seen any of the clips where some imam or Sunni guru claims "democracy is evil" and anti-Islamic?

If you've seen any of those video clips--and there are LOTS--do you believe the speakers were just spouting bullshit that they haven't the faintest intention of actually doing--as U.S. politicians often do--or do ya think they were/are serious?

If you think they're serious, and you oppose killing enough of them to make them renounce suicide bombs and hijacking and the whole gamut of lethal shit they do now, are you willing to commit your children to living under a regime that bans women from wearing anything other than black bags?

How about a society that bans *music*?  (Y'all think I'm kidding, right?)

If you're not willing to consign your kids to those things, what kind of intervention are you counting on to save us from becoming part of the "caliphate"?  The U.N.?  The E.U.?  The so-far never seen "moderate" muslims?

Do ya think cutesie ads for Coca-Cola ("I'd like to teach the world to sing/in perfect har-mo-neee...") will make them see reason?  Think giving 'em lots of foreign aid will do the trick?

Do you believe that if we simply don't use force against them, they'll stop trying to make the whole world muslim?

Many (most?) "progressives" blame "root causes" for the determination of Muslims to kill westerners.  "They only hate us because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan," say progs.  "So when we leave Afg at the end of the year they'll stop trying to kill us.  After all, the only reason those poor muslim guys flew those planes into those buildings was because we'd invaded Iraq!"

Yeah.

Root.  Fucking.  Causes, baby.  Explains everything.

So do you suggest we simply ignore 'em and hope they don't try to smuggle or deliver by missile a nuclear bomb into the U.S.?  How you gonna ensure that?  Is that a hit you're willing to take?  I mean, it's really not a problem for you *personally,* right?  You probably didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 either, so in the long run how much does it really matter, eh?

Do you believe having a few hundred American civilians killed each year by jihadi action is an acceptable price to pay to avoid using all-out military force against them?  I mean, people get killed every day, right?  So what are a few hundred civilian deaths each year?  We Democrats are quite willing to put up with that.  No big deal.

Of course that's will change if the rag-heads get an atomic bomb.  Or do you think muslim fanatics won't get their hands on an atomic bomb in your lifetime?  If you claim they won't, what's the basis for your belief?  Do you know--in detail--what it takes to make an atomic bomb?  If you do, what component do you think the fanatics are missing?

You're convinced you're smaht, because you're professors or media editors or such, and you voted for the emperor both times.  But do you know if any muslim-ruled country has atomic bombs now?  If one or more does, and if that nation has been credibly, seriously threatened by radical factions within its own population, would that change your risk calculations at all?  Because if the radicals got half-a-dozen of their members into the right posts, they could steal a bomb from the nation's stockpile fairly easily.

But you say even if the "militants" get an atom bomb it doesn't threaten us, because they don't have missiles with enough range to get it here.  SO THERE, SMARTY!

Surely you're not gonna count on that to save us, are ya?  Because thinking they'd need a missile to get a bomb to the U.S. is childishly naive.  And surely you know it.

So looks like you progs and Dems and libs are back to "Well, it's worth the deaths of a few thousand civilians to avoid going to war."

I disagree.  Strongly.

Monday, September 8

U.S. Media have decided Muslim atrocities are boring

The ghastly, wholesale massacres by Boko Haram and ISIS are proving to be too extreme for the media to obscure with their P.C. smoke screen.

Solution?  Ignore 'em.  Or at least move 'em from the front page to somewhere obscure.  "If we don't mention a threat, our Emperor won't be put in the "difficult" position of having to either do something or say it's not a problem."  What reporter would be brazen enough to ask the Emperor a pointed question about something no one has heard about for months?

Recent events in Rotherham--you all know about those events, right?--should be enough to convince feminists and other leftists that Islam is brutal toward women.  But of course it won't.

Did you know rape is epidemic in a handful of northern European cities with high Muslim populations?  Oh, leftists shrug, it's just a coincidence.

No, it's not.  99% of those rapes are being committed by Muslim immigrants.  Many aren't even reported, because the rapists threaten the family of the victim. 

You'd think the governments of those cities and nations would bring the hammer down, ending Muslim immigration and prosecuting the rapists.

You'd be wrong.  There has been no change whatsoever.  EU governments still welcome Muslim immigrants and give 'em all welfare, and in many cases "free" housing.  You might ask yourself why.

Saturday, September 6

The emperor gives a press conference in Europe, dodges simple question

Three days ago, after Islamic thugs released a second video of them beheading a bound American journalist, the incomparably brilliant emperor of the United States gave a a press conference in Estonia.  Reporters and liberals all over the world were hanging on His Majesty's every word.  So without further ado...
Q  [to the emperor]  Now that a second American has been slain, what is your response?  Will you have a full strategy now on ISIS...?

THE EMPEROR:  Well, keep in mind that from the outset, the moment that ISIS went into Mosul, we were very clear that this was a very serious threat not just to Iraq but to the region and to U.S. interests.  And so we’ve been putting forward a strategy since that time that was designed to do a number of things.
Wait...isn't he speaking just a day after he'd told reporters "We don't have a strategy"
Number one, to make sure Americans were protected in Iraq, in our embassies, in our consulates.  Number two, that we worked with Iraqis to create a functioning government that was inclusive and that could serve as the basis for Iraq to begin to go on the offensive.
 
And the airstrikes that we’ve conducted in support of protecting Americans conducting humanitarian missions and providing space for the Iraqi government to form have borne fruit.  We’ve seen that in Sinjar Mountain.  We’ve seen it most recently in the town of Amerli, which heroically held out against a siege by ISIL.  We’re seeing progress in the formation of an inclusive Sunni-Shia-Kurd central government.  And so what we’ve seen is the strategy that we’ve laid out moving effectively.

But what I’ve said from the start is that this is not going to be a one-week or one-month or six-month proposition.  Because of what’s happened in the vacuum of Syria, as well as the battle-hardened elements of ISIS that grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq during the course of the Iraq war, it’s going to take time for us to be able to roll them back.
Nice ploy to convince people that the insane butchery by the bloodthirsty fanatics of ISIS is "Bush's fault."  
And it is going to take time for us to be able to form the regional coalition that's going to be required so that we can reach out to Sunni tribes in some of the areas that ISIS has occupied,
Wait...I thought the bad guys--ISIS--were Sunnis.  So Obama's strategy is that we're going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS by...reaching out to other members of the same cult?  Yeah, I totally get it...
...and make sure that we have allies on the ground in combination with the airstrikes that we’ve already conducted.

So the bottom line is this:  Our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.  In order for us to accomplish that, the first phase has been to make sure that we’ve got an Iraqi government that's in place and that we are blunting the momentum that ISIL was carrying out.  And the airstrikes have done that.

But now what we need to do is make sure that we’ve got the regional strategy in place that can support an ongoing effort -- not just in the air but on the ground -- to move that forward.

And last week when this question was asked, I was specifically referring to the possibility of the military strategy inside of Syria that might require congressional approval.  It is very important from my perspective that when we send our pilots in to do a job, that we know that this is a mission that's going to work, that we’re very clear on what our objectives are, what our targets are; we’ve made the case to Congress and we’ve made the case to the American people; and we’ve got allies behind us so that it’s not just a one-off, but it’s something that over time is going to be effective.

And so the bottom line is this, Ann -- it’s not only that we’re going to be bringing to justice those who perpetrated this terrible crime against these two fine young men.  More broadly, the United States will continue to lead a regional and international effort against the kind of barbaric and ultimately empty vision that ISIL represents.  And that's going to take some time, but we’re going to get it done.  I’m very confident of it.

Q    Did you just say that the strategy is to destroy ISIS, or to simply contain them or push them back?

THE EMPEROR:  Our objective is to make sure that ISIL is not an ongoing threat to the region.  And we can accomplish that. It’s going to take some time and it’s going to take some effort. As we’ve seen with al Qaeda, there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc of any of these networks, in part because of the nature of terrorist activities.  You get a few individuals, and they may be able to carry out a terrorist act.

But what we can do is to make sure that the kind of systemic and broad-based aggression that we’ve seen out of ISIL that terrorizes primarily Muslims, Shia, Sunni -- terrorizes Kurds, terrorizes not just Iraqis, but people throughout the region, that that is degraded to the point where it is no longer the kind of factor that we’ve seen it being over the last several months.
Anyone remember the question?

"Q:  Did you just say that the strategy is to destroy ISIS, or to simply contain them or push them back?"

Did any of you hear a clear answer to that clear, straightforward, non-tricky question?  What I heard was a lot of buzzwords but no bottom line--nothing you could misinterpret as an actual, y'know...action.  But is anyone at all surprised?

Why is Obozo reluctant to say "Ann, it's clear that ISIL is populated by utterly amoral, evil fanatics.  Under normal circumstances we might go in carefully--as the last president did in Iraq a decade ago--find those who have beheaded and otherwise shot captured prisoners, try them and hang them--as we did with Saddam Hussein.  But at this point I think they're all equally guilty and not worth sorting out.  Thus our strategy will be to utterly wipe them out to the last man.  The only ones we won't kill are those who surrender and turn over every weapon they have.  Anyone who resists or lies will be killed on the spot, with no apologies."

Now I'll be the first to admit that it will take a major military effort to destroy ISIL.  I'll also admit that if the U.S. leads, some nations on the bubble will decide to sit on their hands and let the U.S. do it all.  But if the U.S. does NOT take a strong lead in military action, I don't see any other nation jumping in. 

If we do nothing, is there any other nation or coalition that can stop ISIL?  I don't think so.  If that's true, Obama must make a decision to either send our military to war, or shrug and let the rest of the world deal with the problem.  And as noted above, I think that's a dead end.
 
Interestingly, in stark contrast to his mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, bullshit non-commitment on ISIL, Obama has no trouble articulating a strong, unambiguous position on illegal invaders into the U.S:  On Friday the emperor said illegal immigrants should not have to “look over their shoulder”...despite being in the U.S. illegally.

Which of course is consistent with his promise to give 'em all amnesty.

Interesting contrast, eh?

Feds release job report for August. Watch as liberal media spins bad numbers into great news!

The feds have released the preliminary job report for August, which showed that the economy added...

Wait, why am I telling you this, because you already know it.  Because it was on all the network "news" broadcasts and on the front pages of all your newspapers, right?

Wasn't it?

Gee, that's...strange.  Because the emperor's boosters and cheerleaders in the media keep telling you almost every day about what a roaring fucking economy the emperor has unilaterally created--because of his brilliance and strategic thinking and quiet determination to ignore congress and the constitution.

Well, we'll have to leave the investigation of the mysterious Mainstream Media blackout of the labor report for another day.  For now we'll just do the media's work and tell ya:  The economy added 142,000 jobs last month.

Yay!!!  Excitement!!  Happy days!

Wait...is that a good number or a bad one?

If the U.S. media were honest they'd explain.

Hahahahahahaha!

Yeah, that was pretty goofy.

Okay, the consensus of most economists is that just to keep up with routine layoffs, the number of people just entering the job market and *legal* immigration, the economy must create about 240,000 jobs every month.  So 142,000 is barely over half what's needed just to keep the number of working Americans level.

Fortunately for the emperor and his lackeys, despite the fact that the "booming economy" created almost 100,000 fewer jobs in August than the number needed to break-even, a different factor magically intervened to ensure that the official unemployment rate actually dropped slightly.  And that saver was...drum roll please...that twice as many Americans stopped looking for a job in August as were newly hired.

Yes, the percentage of Americans officially not even bothering to look for a job has reached a level not seen in 36 years.  But you don't read much about that, because...well, who wants to read bad news?

Wait...when unemployment was 5.7% during the Bush administration the media were bashing him as being just terrible for the economy!  So guess the media are perfectly happy to trumpet "bad: economic news when a Republican is president.  Now?  Not so much.  Wonder what changed?

And of course according to the Media the current poor economy has absolutely nothing to do with the policies of Harry Reid, Barack Obama and senate Democrats--like more goofy regulation on businesses, EPA raids on companies, the economic disaster of Obamacare and the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.  No, citizen, it's Bush's fault.


Friday, September 5

You gotta be kidding. No, guess not.

Conservatives have been saying for years that the Mainstream Lying Media has been totally in the tank for the Democrat party.  So their stories--both print and broadcast--support Democrats and their policies, regardless of how damaging to the nation.

So here's the latest proof:  The lefty rag "Huffington Post" has hired a "9-11 truther."

Oh well, no big deal.  Except they hired this guy to cover...national security issues??

Almost every sane American understands that the World Trade Center was destroyed by Muslims who hijacked commercial airliners loaded with innocent passengers and then flew the planes into the buildings--as shown on live television.  The evidence is massive.

But here's what HuffPo's new national security hire says about it: 



http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Screen-shot-2014-09-04-at-11.33.33-AM-550x316.png

Oh yeah, rock-solid grasp of reality.  Cuz, you know, they claim to be the "reality-based community."

Sunday, August 31

U.N. "peacekeeping" forces captured or retreat on Israel-Syria border


The United Nations operates what it bills as "peacekeeping forces."  These of course do nothing of the sort, but the charade allows the U.N. to raise lots of money from idealists by claiming to help keep peace.  So-called "peacekeeping" forces from Fiji, the Philippines and Ireland are stationed between Israel and Syria.  

According to the general commanding the Fiji troops, last Thursday morning the on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights three vehicles carrying about 150 armed men--reportedly members of the Muslim "al-Nusra front" group--arrived at the Fijian camp.

The general said the men demanded the Fijian troops leave within 10 minutes and insisted they board the rebel vehicles. The Fijians were taken by the rebels to an unknown location and are still missing.
Shortly thereafter a group of armed men converged on a pair of encampments of Philippine "peacekeepers" a few miles away, ordering the troops to surrender their weapons and get in the rebel vehicles.

To their great credit the Philippine troops refused.  Reportedly there was a firefight, and the Philippine troops retreated into Israel.

The Fijians are still being held by the Muslim fighters.

I relate this story because until experience educates 'em, humans interpret names and titles as being descriptive of a thing's actual function.  Thus most people would thing a group said to be a "peacekeeping force" would...you get it.

But as the above events show--for the thousandth time--U.N. troops are utterly ineffective at peacekeeping, because they are "armed forces" in name only:  Everyone knows their orders are to simply serve as sensors or tripwires.

Fair enough, but once the tripwire is tripped, then what?

The concept of U.N. "peacekeeping forces" is nothing more than a great fundraiser for U.N. officials--who, by the way, refuse to disclose salaries and bonuses they give themselves.

The U.N. may have been started with good intentions, but has become one of the most useless, corrupt, subverted organizations on earth.  If peace is to be kept it will be because group "A" decides attacking group "B" is suicidal--because B is not only armed to the teeth but has repeatedly destroyed any group that threatens it.

Not sure if Obama ever learned that.  His leftist parents surely didn't tell him, and he wouldn't have learned it in school in Indonesia.  Eh, not important.  Because "the world is much less dangerous today than it was 30 years ago."

At least that's what Barack Obama claims.

But don't worry:  Emperor Barack and his clever state department have a sure-fire plan: #Bring_back_our_UN_peacekeepers

Cuz a hashtag assault worked so well in recovering 300 school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram four months ago, right?

Saturday, August 30

Obama: "Things are *much* less dangerous now than 20 years ago."

With ISIS executing thousands of unarmed prisoners and beheading Americans, Russia gradually invading Ukraine and the largest outbreak of Ebola in history, a couple of days ago Obama spoke at a fundraiser held by the Democrat National Committee.  And here's how he says things *really* are:



Did you get that?  The fantasy president *promises* that not only are things less dangerous today than they were 20 or 30 years ago, they're "much less dangerous."

You will, of course, be suitably reassured.  Because the Democrat media will assure you that he's right.  Indeed, even now the U.S. media is starting to ignore the ghastly butchery by ISIS/ISIL/IS.  Ukraine has dropped off the radar.  Obama has already assured Russia that the U.S. has no treaties or interest in events there, so...

You have to wonder if he really believes what's written for him, or just doesn't care how unreal it sounds.

Obama administration orders school officials not to attempt to verify ages of illegal-alien "students"

The very informative Ace of Spades blog noted that the mayor of Lynn, Massachusetts gave a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.  She had something to say about the illegal-alien "children" Obama has allowed to stay in the U.S., and spent taxpayer funds to fly to cities far from the Mexican border.

These so-called "children" are enrolling in local schools--as expected, and which is required to qualify for the "deferred action on immigration."  And the mayor said this:
"One of the things we noticed when we were processing some of these students coming in was that they were adults.
In fact, one of the "students" turned out to be 35 years old.
"We were told through a directive from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that we were not to question or verify -- attempt to verify their ages."
Wait...what?

Under what possible legal principle can the Obama administration--through its agents in the infamously lawless Department of Injustice--order school officials not to "question or attempt to verify" the ages of illegal immigrants enrolling in their schools?

Unless they passed one in the dead of night--as with Obamacare--there is no such law or authority.  Rather, this is one more example of lawless behavior by Ogabe's regime--a dictatorship in open rebellion against the laws of the United States.

A 35-year-old clearly can't pass as a highschool-age student.  But to take advantage of the Obama executive order allowing certain illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. forever, they must be students--and so must pretend to be teenagers, even if it's a ridiculous reach.

So they're pretending.  Local officials know it's a scam.  Obama knows it's a scam, and that people who actually interact with the so-called "children" recognize it as such.  But all that matters to Obama and Democrats is that no local official makes an official finding of adults posing as highschool students.

Obama knows that if anyone questions these so-called "children," a lot of them will turn out to be adults--which will cause a handful of negative headlines, and harm his "It's for The Children" cover story. So his government has ordered local governments not to attempt to verify the ages of these alleged "children."

Dear Democrats and media:  You sold this guy to voters.  You covered for every red flag, every warning bell, every gaffe.  You are totally responsible for the multiple disasters he's caused, whether through unconstitutional executive orders or through his infamous habit of refusing to make decisions to support national security.

Hope you're enjoying it.