From The New York Post comes this brief montage:
You can find that video at the end of an excellent takedown by John Podhoretz. He calls out our creepy (and possibly-Muslim-Brotherhood-fellow-traveler) President. Mr. Obama seems hell-bent on having us die at the hands of terrorists while he intones platitudes. Seemingly a part of the Muslim Brotherhood plan to have us “sabotag[e] our miserable house”, Obama’s wash-rinse-repeat determination to make us the fall guys for these terror attacks is, as Podhoretz says, “disgusting”. Exactly the correct word for BHO’s immoral lack of leadership throughout all the slayings (terrorist and otherwise) we’ve witnessed since he took office. Not to mention his cravenly echoing silence as the stacks of his dead homies pile up in Chiraq.
Mr. Podhoretz opens his opinion piece with the terrorist’s phone call to the police during the course of his obscene massacre (the links are in the original):
Omar Mateen called the cops to pledge his fealty to ISIS as he was carrying out his mass murder in Orlando early Sunday. Twelve hours later, the president of the United States declared that “we have no definitive assessment on the motivation” of Omar Mateen but that “we know he was a person filled with hate.”
So I guess the president thinks Mateen didn’t mean it?
Here again, and horribly, we have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.
He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.
So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Mr. Podhoretz goes on to discuss how much our “attitudes” have changed and how we don’t need lectures from the likes of BHO.
The whole thing is worth your time.
His final summation reflects what so many people are saying:
…we do need change — and fortunately for us, it’s constitutionally mandated change. It’s the change required by the 22nd Amendment — the change that will compel Barack Obama to leave the White House on Jan. 20, 2017, after completing his second term with America less safe than it was when he took office.
He doesn’t say who it is that should follow Obama into the Oval Office. As a GOPe conservative — and in his role as editor of Commentary magazine, at least passively part of the cabal against Diana West — one has to ponder who it is Mr. Podhoretz has in mind as Obama’s successor? Maybe he is changing his spots? One can hope.
Whatev…this timely excoriation of BHO’s obscene pandering is sufficient to the moment. ’Twill do.
What was it Obama said…?
“When the political winds blow rough, I will side with the moslems”.
And boy, has he. No people as blind as those who will not see!
His words and actions will have turned some Sanders’ followers into #NeverHillary – since she appears to be a blunter instrument than he.
They may never vote for Trump, but they won’t accept Hillary as the Dem replacement.
Too bad there doesn’t seem to be a snowball’s chance in Hades that Diana West herself could run for Prez. I’d PAY to see debates between her and Hillary “I’m so d*mned cool I make ice cubes without a fridge” Clinton.
I know who’d be lying on the floor cut to ribbons by the verbal slings and arrows of her debate opponent! 😉
I’ve pondered the same thing…she’s be sooo good. I’d love to have seen a few debates between her and The Liars…the ones she picked apart by lining up each claim made about what she said and responding with “That’s not in my book”. After 12 or so by the same opponent you begin to see how utterly savage they were, using elephant guns full of mendacity in a mean-spirited attempt to take down her careful scholarship.
We’ll never know why.
Many think Obama a fool for his “57 states” quote, not understanding he wasn’t referring to America but to Muslim nations.
He was a fool for saying that out loud. Those who didn’t get it when he repeated the number twice thought him ignorant. Those who knew what “57” – repeated twice – meant were sickened.
Well, I guess if we knew more about the guy, we’d be able to understand. I think once he’s vetted we’ll have a better idea why these things are constantly happening, and why he behaves the way he does. I guess we’ll just have to wait…
Right…I already know him more than I’d like. As his head bounces back and forth between his his two teleprompters, I long for someone in charge who can actually speak extemporaneously without being reduced to a stuttering machine whose batteries are running down…
So while we’re waiting to understand him, let’s do a countdown to January 20 2017. Hoping he can’t do much more harm, it’s enough to make an atheist pray. Or so one told me rather grimly the other day.
I do not think I’m a racist, but I do think that we will regret for many years voting Obama into office, not once, but twice, and now we can view the ruins of the country under his watch.
Telling graduates that they are “lucky” rather than that they have achieved a goal and are ready for life is truly ignorant. I think it means that he knows HE’S been very lucky himself and is projecting it on others. He has been very lucky — an unaccomplished man with a semi-mysterious or hidden past, gets into the White House and wreaks havoc for 7 years. God help us all. I suppose he’ll move on to the UN next, where at least it won’t matter to USA much anyway.
P.S. I admire Diana West very much.
He may indeed move on to the UN, but that won’t happen until he’s had the opportunity to play endless rounds of golf. Sad to say, the tell-all books that appear after his exit will be full of examples of his indolence.
Supposedly he is staying in D.C. so his younger daughter can finish high school. But I think the real reason is a deal between him and the MSM that he will do running commentary on whomever is elected.I hope his successor will roundly ignore the backchat.
Also, his presence in town will serve to tie up any movement thereabouts, necessitating constant coordination by the Secret Service details, thus infringing on the current administration. It’s straight out of the direct action playbook. It forces the hand of the successor to respond, and allows the media proxies a chance to critique and set the narrative as they have for the past decade. The new administration will have to strategize for this ploy.
You can bet the strategizing is going on even now…George Bush went back to Texas and kept almost totally mum despite the many times Obama tried to goad him into speaking…disgusting.
Being disgusted by Obama because of his politics and his character, which mostly didn’t impinge on my daily life, I nevertheless could have allowed myself to be reflective about him. But I can afford to be abstract and philosophical no longer due to the tangential intersection between my livelihood and his “Affordable” Care Act – loss of health insurance policy held prior to his presidency, current insurance premium multiple times greater along with higher deductible, and loss of adopted primary doctor.
Maria_dee
En passant you make a pithy point:
“He has been very lucky — an unaccomplished man with a semi-mysterious or hidden past, gets into the White House and wreaks havoc for 7 years.”
An unaccomplished man he certainly was in 2008.
For myself, I can understand the outcome of the 2008 election: the novelty value of a candidate for POTUS who was black (though not an African-American, because the African part of him was from his Kenyan father and the balance of him, that which made him eligible for election insofar as he was, was from his white American mother) made a form of sense. Hell, I might, just might mind you, have voted for him in 2008 on minority hire principles. Mea culpa. If only to refute Tupac Shakur’s assertion at the beginning of this century that there will never be a black president.
I cannot understand the 2012 election. The hitherto unaccomplished man had shown himself to be a grievous error for almost 4 years. His great accomplishment in that was to grow the US national debt from less than 3 trillion to 18 or so trillion.
I am happy to be contradicted here, both on my debt numbers (they are from memory) AND on whether this increase debt was BHO’s worst achievement during his first term. I’m certain there are other contenders for first place, I just cannot recall them. And that increase in debt over four years is just jaw-dropping. I would lurrve somebody to assert, and be correct in their assertion, “You’re wrong! He only enlarged the national debt to 12 trillion, up from 5 trillion. in his first term and got it up to 19 trillion only in his second term.” only to make the fact of the way the American electorate voted in 2012 more palatable. As it stands I am and forever will remain bewildered and can only put it down to Romney being a Mormon.
The world’s liberal strategy seems to be “1. we are going to dilute white voters” and “2.We’ll worry about Islam after we get power…wink wink.(meaning half of the liberals actually wouldn’t mind becoming Muslims.)”
Will Hillary follow both strategies? She and Bill did want to dismantle the southern border so she probably will continue this policy. But will she be as soft on Islam as Barack?
Hillary Clinton and hubby Bill have been Islamic supporters for many years, and were great supporters of Arafat, and it chills me that she will probably be the next President of the USA.
Obama holds the power, and is the reason she will never be indicted, but no doubt he demands certain things of her in return.
I hope I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think so…
Churchill said:
“Americans usually get it right–after first trying everything else”. So after the first (disastrous) black president, they will now try a woman president, who will carry on the ruinous policies of Obama.
it chills me that XXX will probably be the next President of the USA
Please: don’t say it, don’t think it. Absolutely not one atom that makes it even slightly likely.
Peter35-
Hillary is owned by the Saudis, and her closest advisor has proven ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both groups have pursued long-term infiltration and subversion efforts in the West, and those efforts seem to be paying off big time.
In the event of a Clinton win, I forsee the US neck deep in Syria and Ukraine. I also forsee much more aggressive saber-rattling in the South China and Black Seas that will potentially lead to WW3.
It’s not a liberal strategy it’s the uniparty strategy. By now it’s become quite apparent we don’t have two parties, we have one with two faces but serve the same masters. Just look at Paul Ryan and what he and the House GOP supports.
The fact is most of the GOP in D.C. want Hillary to win, with her in office all their crooked rackets won’t be touched. Trump would ruin all of that. This is why the GOP is giving him the middle-finger all the time.
That said, Hillary will probably end the U.S. We can’t survive another 8 years with her at the helm. I doubt we’ll go beyond two years before stuff starts unraveling fast.