Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category



Every president gets things wrong. What sets Obama apart is his ideological rigidity and fathomless ignorance.

by Bret Stephens Wall Street journal 9-23- 2014
Serious people feel an obligation to listen whenever Barack Obama speaks. They furrow their brow and hold their chin and parse every word. They assume that most everything a president says is significant, which is true. They assume that what’s significant must also be well-informed. Not necessarily.

I’ve been thinking about this as it becomes clear that, even at an elementary level, Mr. Obama often doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It isn’t so much his analysis of global events that’s wrong, though it is. The deeper problem is the foundation of knowledge on which that analysis is built.

Here, for instance, is Mr. Obama answering a question posed in August by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who wanted the president’s thoughts on the new global disorder.

“You can’t generalize across the globe,” the president replied. “Because there are a bunch of places where good news keeps on coming. Asia continues to grow . . . and not only is it growing but you’re starting to see democracies in places like Indonesia solidifying.”

“The trend lines in Latin America are good,” he added. “Overall, there’s still cause for optimism.”

Here, now, is reality: In Japan, the economy is contracting. China’s real-estate market is a bubble waiting to burst. Indonesia’s democracy may be solidifying, but so is Islamism and the persecution of religious minorities. Democracy has been overthrown in Thailand. The march toward freedom in Burma—supposedly one of Mr. Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s ) signature diplomatic victories—has stalled. India may do better than before under its new prime minister, Narendra Modi, but gone are the days when serious people think of India as a future superpower. The government of Pakistan is, as ever, on the verge of collapse.

Pensive Obama
As for Latin America, Argentina just defaulted for the second time in 13 years. Brazil is in recession. Venezuela is a brutal dictatorship. Ecuador is well on its way to becoming one.

I begin with these examples not because there aren’t bright spots in Asia (South Korea is one) or Latin America (Colombia is another) but because it’s so typically Obama. Warn against generalization—and then generalize. Cite an example—but one that isn’t representative. Talk about a trend line—but get the direction of the trend wrong.

Next example: Turkey. In 2009 Mr. Obama decided to elevate Turkey and its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as his core partner in the Middle East. “On issue after issue we share common goals,” he told the Turkish parliament in April 2009. In 2012 he said that he and Mr. Erdogan had developed “bonds of trust.”

Yet in 2009 it was already clear that Mr. Erdogan was orchestrating huge show trials against his political opponents based on outlandish charges. By 2010 it was clear that he was an avowed supporter of Hamas, not to mention a vocal anti-Semite. In 2012 the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that Turkey had more journalists in prison than China and Iran put together.

Now turn to Yemen. In 2012, after the Arab Spring, the president singled out Yemen as a model for a prospective political transition in Syria. Mr. Obama was at it again just two weeks ago, citing the fight against al Qaeda in Yemen as the model for the war he intends to wage against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Whoops. “Over the weekend,” noted McClatchy’s Adam Baron on Monday, “the growing gap between administration rhetoric and reality came to a head, as the acerbically anti-American Houthi rebels—who American diplomats allege have close financial and military ties with Iran—took control of many areas of the capital, Sanaa, with minimal resistance from the U.S.-supplied Yemeni armed forces.”

Keep going around the world. He declared victory over al Qaeda and dismissed groups such as ISIS as “the jayvee team” at the very moment that al Qaeda was roaring back. He mocked the notion of Russia being our enemy—remember the line about the 1980s wanting “its foreign policy back”?—just as Russia was again becoming our enemy.

He predicted in 2012 that “Assad’s days are numbered” just as the Syrian dictator was turning the tide of war in his favor. He defended last November’s nuclear deal with Tehran, saying “it’s not going to be hard for us to turn the dials back or strengthen sanctions even further” in the event that diplomacy failed. In reality, as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies notes, “burgeoning trade ties with Turkey, increased oil sales to China, and reports of multibillion-dollar Russian-Iranian trade deals, not yet consummated but in the offing, are giving [Iran] a ‘Plan B’ escape hatch.”

Every administration tries to spin events its way; every president gets things wrong. Mr. Obama is not exceptional in those respects. Where he stands apart is in his combination of ideological rigidity and fathomless ignorance. What does the president know? The simple answer, and maybe the truest, is: not a lot.

Write to

Utopian Reality Check


Obama Ignored Islamic State Intelligence For A Year


War On Terror: Reports that Barack Obama received detailed information on the virulent Islamic State terror group in his daily briefings for over a year and did nothing makes him officially our “being there” president.
Leading from behind once again, as he flew to Estonia to draw a red line that Russia shouldn’t cross after it finishes gobbling up Ukraine, President Obama told reporters, “We will not be intimidated” by the second beheading of an American journalist and warned that we would “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.
Degrade? Degrading has been the foreign policy of a president who recently said that he didn’t have a strategy yet for dealing with the Islamic State’s butchery after watching it train and prepare for a year in its Syrian base before its “sudden” expansion into Iraq.
A former Pentagon official told Fox News that Obama received specific intelligence in daily briefings about the Islamic State’s rise. The information was said to be “granular” in detail, laying out IS’ intentions and capabilities for at least a year before it seized big chunks of Iraqi territory and started beheading Americans.
Obama’s indifference to the briefings was an issue during the 2012 campaign, when former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen observed that Obama personally attended only 44% of them. Obama’s perceived lack of interest in a terror war, which he claimed was won prior to the Benghazi attack, mirrors his reported lack of interest in the rise of the Islamic State.
At the time, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Thiessen that Obama’s attendance at the briefings was “not particularly interesting or useful.” Later, when questioned about the lead-up to the Benghazi fiasco, Vietor said: “Dude, this was two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane thing.”
Terrorism and the neglect that creates the vacuum in which it thrives are not mundane things. Terrorism killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Ty Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith at Benghazi. The terrorists of the Islamic State decapitated Steven Sotloff and James Foley. They’re the same group that Obama recently referred to as the “JV” team.
This is not high school, and foreign policy should be conducted by adults. The real JV team is running the White House, led by what Ed Lasky in The American Thinker first referred to as “The Being There President,” one who likes to play golf when he isn’t fund-raising or taking selfies at gatherings of free world leaders.
Our lack of preparation for and responses to the Islamic State mirror the tragedy of Benghazi. We are being led in troubled times by Chauncey Gardiner, the character in the book and movie “Being There.” Novelist Jerzy Kozinski could have written his story about Barack Obama, for it’s about an empty suit who came out of nowhere to be a presidential candidate riding on a wave of good-sounding platitudes but in reality had not a clue.
The Islamic State should indeed be destroyed, not just degraded. Find chief Islamic State thug Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and send a Hellfire missile up his tailpipe. And instead of issuing nice-sounding platitudes that “our reach is long, and justice will be served,” we should be drawing up target lists, including in Syria, and seeking some battlefield justice.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Krauthammer: Obama has committed to a ‘serious military exertion’ against ISIS

Charles Krauthammer said Thursday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that when the Islamic State released videos showing the beheading of two American journalists they “declared war on us” and, in return, President Obama’s address to the nation Wednesday night was declaring war on the militant group.

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and a Fox News contributor, said there was no question that Obama was committing to “serious military exertion” by announcing a drastically expanded campaign against the militants.

“Clearly, what the president was doing yesterday was to declare war on (the Islamic State),” he said. “They want to play with words? Okay, but the problem is if you want to commit the nation to a serious military exertion it will be a serious one, it will be a costly one and it will be a long one.”

However, Krauthammer said he was concerned because he felt Obama’s tone after the address seemed to minimize the expanded military campaign.

“You can’t play around with language and pretend it is something else and that disturbs me,” he said, “and the tone of the president last night and in the follow-up tone today which is all about minimizing what’s really going on here. You really lose confidence in their seriousness about carrying it out and being open with the American people.”

ISIS vs. ISIL: Why Obama stands Alone

What’s behind the choice of name of Mideast terror group?

WASHINGTON – President Obama may have had a difficult time formulating a strategy to deal with the ISIS crisis, yet he alone has been almost obsessively resolute in referring to the group as “ISIL.”

In some of Obama’s briefings on ISIS, he has gone so far as to spell out ISIL.

Puzzling to reporters and pundits, the use of ISIL by Obama has prompted a bevy of theories.

ISIS was the original name of the al-Qaida offshoot. It’s an acronym that stands for Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But, months ago, ISIS changed its name to ISIL – the Islamic State in the Levant. More recently, ISIS chose to be known simply as Islamic State.

Most news organizations, pundits and policymakers chose to stick with ISIS, perhaps to discourage the ISIS shell game of frequent name changes. Obama, though, has stuck with ISIL.

His determination took on almost comical tones in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd that aired Sunday.

Obama: “I’m preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL.”

Todd: “Obviously, if you’re going to defeat ISIS, you have used very much stronger language.”

It’s the under-reported story of the decade! Film exposes 35 jihad training camps in U.S.

So confusing was the discussion, it forced Todd to clarify for viewers: “Obviously we refer to it at NBC News as ISIS. The Obama administration, president, says the word ISIL. The last S stands for Syria, the last L they don’t want to have stand for Syria.”

Todd apparently was suggesting the Obama administration would like Americans not to associate ISIS with Syria.

Capitol Hill Democrats decided earlier this week to go with ISIL – but for multicultural reasons. Isis was the name of a deity popular among feminists, many of whom named their daughters after her. It seems Isis Martinez, a woman in Miami, has been gathering signatures on a petition to the media to use ISIL.

Fox News’ Harris Faulkner suggests Obama is “tipping his hat” to ISIS by calling it ISIL.

“Levant is a bigger territory,” she said. “That’s why they want to embrace that name, and it includes many, many more countries than just Syria.”

Indeed it does. And one of those countries is Israel, as former Rep. Allen West points out.

“First, if you choose to refer to this group as ISIL, you have basically rewritten the map of the Middle East and fallen into the trap of not recognizing the existence of Israel and also Lebanon,” West wrote on his blog. “If you use ISIL, you are then validating the Islamic totalitarian and jihadist claim that the modern-day Jewish state of Israel is an occupation state and does not exist in the eyes of Muslims.”

What do YOU think? Does Obama have answers for ISIS? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

The idea that Obama is disrespecting Israel by adopting the name ISIL has been popular. Indeed, the use of the term Levant by Islamic militants in the past has been motivated precisely by their ambitions for taking over the Jewish state.

Donald Trump added to the mystery recently when he said there is “a reason” Obama uses ISIL, but he declined to elaborate.

RoseAnn Salantiri, a contributing writer to the conservative commentary site TPATH, had an even more mysterious theory.

“The territory known as the Assyrian Empire seemed to disappear off the pages of history,” she wrote. “It did not. It divided into the nations we now know as Syria, southern Turkey, Iran and Iraq – the nations we now call ISIS – not ISIL. The distinction is an important one.”

The southern Levant also included today’s nations of Israel and Jordan along with the Gaza Strip and the southern part of Lebanon.

That’s significant, she says, when interpreted through the lens of bestselling author Jonathan Cahn, whose book, “The Harbinger,” and a documentary movie treatment called “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,” found striking parallels between ancient Israel’s judgment at the hands of Assyria and what the U.S. has been facing since Sept. 11.

“As stunning as these comparisons may be, when Cahn wrote the book, ISIS had not made its way into the public’s eye,” she writes. “If it had, chances are his book would have been a great deal longer.”

While Cahn’s book drew parallels between the Assyrians and the Sept. 11 hijackers, it seems America in 2014 finds itself essentially at war with the old Assyrian Empire – at least in the eyes of Obama, who refers to the enemy as ISIL.


Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !