“We Will Golf In The Shade” — Or: The Most Powerful Coward In The World

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Gateway Pundit

Illustration by Gary Locke

Oh, the sheer genius! P.J. O’Rourke has outdone himself and that takes some doing. In I Came, I Saw, I Skedaddled, O’Rourke parodies the many feckless faces of Barack Obama. Among the pearls of clarity:

Chief Executive of Sparta, Barack Leonidas Obama, at the Battle of Thermopylae

Stand down, men. The chairman of the Greek City States Alliance Joint Chiefs of Staff has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission against Xerxes is not time-sensitive.


Julius Barack Caesar Obama Crosses the Rubicon

I am crossing the Rubicon. Brrr, the water’s chilly. Deep, too. I’m going for a walk along the riverbank to look for a bridge. And I will cross the Rubicon as soon as the weather warms up. The die has been cast. That is, the deck has been shuffled. Or the Wheel of Fortune has been spun. And I’ll buy a vowel.


Shakespeare’s Henry Barack V, Act IV, Scene iii

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart. So I’m out of here.

[exit muttering]

We few, we very few, we hardly any. . .


John Barack Fitzgerald Kennedy Obama

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill—and since we’re not engaged in nation-building, every nation should wish us well—that we shall pay any price if it’s not too high, bear any burden unless it’s burdensome, meet any hardship unless it’s hard, support any friend if we have any, oppose any foe—although no nation should think of us as a foe because we’re not that kind of country anymore—to assure the survival and success of liberty, unless it’s a holiday weekend.


Apollo 11 Commander Neil Barack Armstrong Obama, July 20, 1969

That’s one small step for .  .  . Nope. I think I’ll go back up the ladder to the lunar module. Maybe Buzz Aldrin would like to go first.


Martin Barack Luther Hussein King Obama Jr.

I have a daydream.

And the hilarity ensues. Truth in humor and I am still weeping. Yes, our not-so-fearless leader is a figure of historic proportions – or not. Read. It. All.


McCain – A Treasonous Enemy Within

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Gateway Pundit

Photo Courtesy of The Right Scoop

Last Friday, a man in Prescott, AZ said what all of us have been thinking and saying — John McCain has morphed into a treasonous lapdog for Barack Obama and is licking the fascist boots of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who comprise the barbaric Rebels in the Syrian conflict.

From Real Clear Politics:

“We the people want you to be representative of the people and for this great nation, but for far too long now on the rest of Congress, including the executive branch of government, along with the judicial and legislative have turned your back on the American people and their core values and principles. I can say with great confidence and speak on behalf of all Americans that your actions against this country are treasonous. All of you — against the will of the American people — have aided and abetted the enemy,” said the town hall attendee.

“You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen,” the town hall attendee said to an irritated McCain. “I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad.”

“You swore an oath to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic,” he said. “The simple irony is that the domestic enemy, now in this country, is the people in government, the Untied States. And McCain, you and the rest of the leaders are accountable for their actions. It is too bad that someone like me is not in office to hold you accountable. Because if I was in a position of power or authority, I would have you all arrested and tried for treason against my country.”

“If you and the rest of this government are truly for the American people and representatives of us, I suggest this time you listen because nobody wants another war or strike in Syria or anywhere else,” he said.

“I am truly disgusted that you people are my leaders,” the man concluded. He was met with a mix of boos and cheers.

An arrogant McCain attempts to dress down this brave man by touting his tenure in AZ and says Americans approve of his performance. No we do not you asshat. You need to go as do all the other progressives in the House and Senate. For the life of me, I do not know why you have stayed in office in Arizona. A large part of my family lives there and I have lived there too. McCain is roundly despised in Arizona. All I can fathom is he is the lesser of offered evils and the progressive political Republican machine on the right is well organized there. The Tea Party needs to boot his sorry butt to the curb. McCain has been under the covers with Obama and the Left for far too long and that he would send our proud military — our sons and daughters, wives and husbands — to be mercenaries for radical Islam is a disgrace.


Aussies Dump the Progressive Socialists – America Waits in the Wings to Boot Them Too

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Gateway Pundit

Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott (C) prepares for an interview outside a polling station in Sydney. Photo: AFP/GETTY

Australian Conservative leader, Tony Abbott, has swept to victory in their elections, effectively booting the Socialists from power. He enters with promises of restoring sanity to Australia’s economy by restoring political stability, cutting taxes and cracking down on asylum seekers arriving by boat. Sigh… Americans pine for an Australian leader. Obama take note — progressivism is out of vogue and Marxists are getting the boot. This is a glimpse into Obama’s future, the Left’s and the Progressives’ on the right side of the aisle. McCain, Graham, Boehner, Cantor and all the other faux Conservatives should begin packing their bags and looking for retirement venues.

From Yahoo! News of Canada:

The election was been pitched as a choice on who is best to lead the A$1.5 trillion ($1.4 trillion) economy as it adjusts to an end to a prolonged mining investment boom, fuelled by China’s demand for its abundant natural resources.

Abbott, 55, built up a strong opinion poll lead on the back of promises to rein in government spending, scrap an unpopular tax on carbon emissions, and stop the flow of refugee boats arriving in Australia’s northwest.

His campaign had support from media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his Australian newspapers, which have urged voters to reject Rudd’s Labor government. Australia’s other major newspaper group Fairfax also called for a change of government, saying

Rudd had painted Abbott’s planned spending cuts as dangerous European-style austerity and said his government was best placed to manage an economy that is slowing but remains the envy of much of the developed world.

A record 1,717 candidates contested the election, including colorful mining entrepreneur Clive Palmer, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Well, it would seem the Australians have had enough of the spending insanity and liberal ‘greenie‘ nonsense. They are also not prone to the American suicidal careening towards the illegal immigrant cliff. True leadership from Down Under, failure from the liberal Yanks. Let’s clean house as the Aussies are doing and reopen America for business.


O’Reilly Buys Obama Propaganda on Syria

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Bill O’Reilly objects to “bloviating,” which I think means giving opinions not based on fact. So what should we make of his claim that “I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian tyrant Assad did gas civilians, including children.” Where is the “overwhelming evidence?”

One day earlier, O’Reilly had claimed, “The evidence is strong that Assad violated the Geneva Convention by using poison gas to kill civilians.”

So in the course of one day the evidence had gone from “strong” to “overwhelming.” On what basis did this occur? O’Reilly doesn’t say.

I submit that O’Reilly is engaged in bloviating.

O’Reilly, who is about to begin celebrating his 18th year on the air as the host of the most popular Fox News program, is doing tremendous damage to the notion that he can be relied upon for “fair and balanced” coverage of the major issues of the day.

This is far more serious than an error O’Reilly made when he came under fire for falsely claiming that no Republicans were invited to the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington. “The mistake? Entirely on me,” O’Reilly said.

In the case of going to war, a far more serious matter than talking about invitations to a civil rights event, O’Reilly makes claims that parrot Obama’s talking points, but he offers no evidence to substantiate them.

On this issue, O’Reilly should rename his “Talking Points Memo” the “Obama Talking Points Memo.” He is one of the best allies that Obama has going for him as he attempts to persuade conservatives in the House to vote for war.

Let us recall that the Obama Administration, in its 4-page document that is the basis for war in Syria, claims to have “high confidence” that chemicals were used. It says the evidence “indicates” chemicals were used.

O’Reilly goes further than that, calling it “overwhelming.”

Beyond these unsubstantiated claims, there are suggestions of an intercepted communication which somehow proves that the Assad regime carried out the attack. But investigative journalist Kenneth Timmerman reports in The Daily Caller that “the original communication” shows “just the opposite” of what is being claimed—that the regime was surprised by the attack and acted to make sure its troops did not use the weapons. Not only has the Obama Administration “selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria,” but the report pointing to the Assad regime as being the source of the chemical attack has been “doctored,” said Timmerman.

Although The Daily Caller is a conservative publication and Timmerman is a conservative journalist, liberal Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, brought this report to the attention of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during the House hearing on the war resolution.

“There’s been a report in the media that the administration has mischaracterized post-attack Syrian military communications and that these communications actually express surprise about the attack,” Grayson said. “This is a very serious charge. Can you please release the original transcripts so that the American people can make their own judgment about that important issue?”

Hagel said the transcripts were “probably classified” and couldn’t be released.

Asked about these transcripts, Grayson told the left-wing Democracy Now! radio and TV show: “…in fact, as far as I can tell, not a single member of Congress has actually seen the underlying document. What’s been provided to us so far is a 4-page unclassified document and, if we bother to go down to the bowels of the congressional facility here, a 12-page classified document. But that classified document cites 300 underlying intelligence reports, none of which have been released to any member of Congress, despite the fact that we all have classified clearance…”

However, Bill O’Reilly insists that “…we now have many conservative people willing to give Assad a pass because they don’t trust President Obama.”

But even members of Obama’s liberal base have their doubts.

O’Reilly’s comments are a classic case of bloviating that borders on deliberate misinformation. Conservatives are not willing to give Assad a pass; they are simply demanding to see the evidence before giving Obama the authority to go to war.

To use another example, the same 4-page document for war is quite specific on the number of people who died from the chemical attack—1,429. “Over 1,400 people were gassed,” Obama said at his Friday news conference. But where did this number come from?

Once again, my adversaries at the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) group have stepped up to the plate, noting that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that monitors war casualties, said it has confirmed 502 deaths. Quoting from an Associated Press account, Peter Hart of FAIR reports that Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the organization, said he was not contacted by U.S. officials about his efforts to collect information about the death toll and that the U.S. figure could be “propaganda.”

It is clear in this case that FAIR represents the opinions of liberals who are not prepared to roll over for Obama and do what the White House dictates.

The media are also starting to wake up. McClatchy news service points out that death tolls released by Britain (more than 350) and France (281) were far lower than that offered by Obama.

On Saturday, in Washington, D.C. outside the White House, various Christian organizations are protesting Obama’s proposed war on Syria in part because they don’t think the evidence is conclusive. “While the loss of life due to the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria is mourned, there are conflicting reports as to whether rebel groups or the Assad regime used them,” they point out.

The coalition of groups behind the rally includes the Coptic Solidarity International, the World Maronite Union, and the Middle East Christian Committee, as well as several Middle East Christian organizations. They “unequivocally oppose a U.S. military intervention in Syria without a strategy to crumble the regime and defeat the Jihadists at the same time.”

One purpose of Obama’s proposed military intervention is to deter chemical attacks. Of course, it will take much more than missile strikes to actually locate and remove those chemical weapons. A British paper, The Daily Mail, reports that a secret Pentagon report says 75,000 troops are needed to secure them.

During the Senate hearings on going to war, Secretary of State John Kerry did not rule out troops in Syria for that purpose, although he said he was just “thinking out loud.”

O’Reilly seems to be thinking out loud as well, without regard to the facts of the case. For some reason, perhaps to curry favor with the Obama White House and demonstrate his independence from conservatives, he has abandoned critical thinking about this war policy.

Although “The O’Reilly Factor” has been the highest-rated cable news show on television, his bloviating on the road to war in Syria can only further undermine his credibility. Those who want “fair and balanced,” and accurate information, should turn elsewhere.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


What Is Our National Purpose?

Blasted Fools

What Is Our National Purpose?

I was listening to a radio program a couple days ago, which featured a story that arrested my attention and set some gears in motion in my overheated gray matter. For those of you in Rio Linda, California – that’s a brain.

The basic theme of the profile, had to do with the topic of ‘depressed Latina teens’. The narrator told the story of one young woman, whose family was concerned when the teen’s grades in school started slipping, she refused to leave her room to go to school and was withdrawing from the family. As the narrative unwound, listeners learned that this young woman’s parents came here illegally from Mexico, the mother speaks not a word of English and that – I’ll call her Maria, Maria has anxiety issues about her status as an illegal resident of California. The reporter cited statistics from studies indicating that anxiety and depression is most common among ‘dream’ children and particularly females in the 13 to 19 year old age bracket. I was waiting to hear the expression ‘dreamers’ and an editorial statement advocating immigration reform, but the producers of this show segment steered clear of that. Of course, liberals hearing this story would get that implicit message.

What I began thinking about in reaction to this became the seed of a thought grenade. It was especially prompted by the interview they did with the girl’s mother. Through a translator, the mother complained about how difficult life in America is and compared the simplicity of Mexico, with the complexity and challenges of life in Los Estados Unitos – perhaps more particularly, Mexifornia. My visceral reaction to this was “how dare you gripe about America? – I didn’t put a gun to your head and drag you across the border – you’re free to leave anytime and don’t let the border fence catch you on your whiny, non-assimilating, illegal trasero on the way out!” That hasn’t changed, but I wanted to start a discussion on this and I’d really like to ask some questions of the Democrat / Liberal / Progressive and RINOs among us. Basically, what is our national purpose and implicit in that – what isn’t our national purpose?

Is our national purpose to act as a landing zone for the escapees from failed states?

For a lot of people whose minds have been seduced by political correctness, diversity, multi-culturalism, open borders and an uncritical acceptance that we exist as a nation to solve the problems of every other dysfunctional spot on the globe – I think a reset in purpose and perspective is of vital importance. So here are the questions you could confront low information citizens with:

What is America’s purpose as a nation? Start with this question and leave it open ended. I think it might be fascinating to peek into the liberal mind and uncover the constructs behind their worldview. They may be at a loss to come up with a response.

  • Is our national purpose to provide a haven for every single human being that desires to migrate here, because of conflict in their home country, poverty, joblessness, crime or simply as a matter of preference?
  • Immigration – is it a right or a privilege?
  • What do we owe to non-citizens? Food? Shelter? Jobs? Healthcare? If we owe it to them, because they ‘deserve’ it – what are the limits or are there any at all?
  • Should we send out the invitation to the world that any and all that wish to come here are welcome? This would require scrapping immigration laws and borders. Are you in favor?
  • Do we have unlimited natural, environmental and economic resources to sustain (they love that word) an unlimited number of people who wish to live in America?

Are we as a nation responsible to repair the unfavorable consequences, anxiety and conflicts that result from the violations of our immigration laws?

Do you still consider it ‘diversity’, when over 80 percent of the people migrating here – most illegally, are from Central and Latin America? Doesn’t this suggest we should attempt to actively manage and balance the national origin and ethnicity of the inflow of immigrants?

These are questions that the liberal, progressive or Democrat has not really given any critical thought to, because most of them are not critical thinkers. Liberals don’t arrive at their opinions via the careful examination of facts and a logical process that leads to their convictions. It’s more of a matter of the herd mentality and groupthink. That is what leads to the existence of cooperatives such as ‘Journolist’ and ‘Angie’s list’.

When you don’t have to think, you can have your opinions pre-gurgitated and served up to you, saving you the effort of questioning your assumptions. It’s because of this, that I think you will find the people that you ask these questions of, will either be at a loss or they will anticipate how their assumptions are going to lead them into a trap. If the latter is true, you can expect them to try to evade direct answers and attempt to spin the subject in a different direction. Liberals also, when confronted with the reflection of their fallacies, tend to panic and this is when they revert to the ad hominem response. I call it the ‘debate ender’, which is to say, calling you a ‘Racist’, ‘Bigot’, ‘Nativist’, ‘Xenophobe’. None of these are true debate enders, but to the progressive it is felt that they serve the purpose. This is when you inform them that behaving like a scoundrel only exposes their shallow intellect.

Do we exist for the purpose of providing hostile groups a fair opportunity to subvert our cultures, traditions, history and common values?

It probably is not necessary to warn you that most often instead of answers to the questions about our national purpose, you will get cliches, slogans and sound bite statements – “Broken Immigration System”, “We’re a nation of Immigrants”, “Immigrants benefit the economy” and “You can’t deport all fill in the number undocumented immigrants.” Any of the above are your opportunity to exercise intellectual martial arts on this liberal. For example – “Broken Immigration System”? Explain to me how it is broken – in what way? Most of the time they haven’t thought this through and even when they have what they think is a grasp of the narrative they think will meet acceptance – it is usually based on another liberal fairy tale that is equally untethered to reality. Anyway they go with this, you can easily defeat with a reasoned rebuttal based around the central truth that illegal immigration is unsustainable – crime, non-assimilation, cultural incompatibility, wage degradation, strain on existing social safety net, imported diseases, and inadequate educational aspirations. Put simply, you must argue that we’re importing failure.

This is just one example of how the question of the national purpose can serve to confront the liberal mind with challenges to their pre-conceived assumptions. You could adapt the question to also frame a rejoinder to the neo-con / internationalist concept of America as world’s policeman – as in the instance of the ruling class prescribing military action to opportunistically suit the objectives of multi-national corporations and global investors.

I welcome your thoughts and ideas.


Limbaugh Asks: “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?”

Hat Tip: BB
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Gateway Pundit

Yossef Bodansky (Source: www.ikashmir.net)

Rush Limbaugh has the stones to ask this week what I’ve been saying since Obama’s move towards Syrian war and the next move in WW III began: What if Assad didn’t do this?” What if he is being framed? An article from Yossef Bodansky (Rush’s source who was once Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare from 1988 to 2004) asks these questions too: “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

From The Blaze:

Bodansky lists a number of meetings between major state players prior to the chemical bombings that “raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House.”

“All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the ‘Mukhabarat Amriki’ actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey,” Bodansky writes. “Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating ‘a war-changing development’: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.”

He continues:

“The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the ‘war-changing development’ anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.”

This whole contrivance has the feel of the faked Benghazi video excuse. It is Obama’s “wag the dog” attempt at creating the ultimate crisis for his ongoing agenda to grasp power and enable global powers seeking a financial reset and a reordering of the global chess board of power and wealth.