The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

RightRing | Bullright

Why oh why is Obama so stubbornly ignorant?

Obama says no boots on the ground, despite sending some troops to Iraq to work with the Kurds. But he has said no ground combat troops, he made up his mind.

(9/17/14)

MR. EARNEST: I did not see the full context of Secretary Gates’s remarks. But with that caveat, let me say that the President has been clear about the need to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. What the President has ruled out are American servicemen and women being in a position where they are the ones that are responsible for engaging in combat operations against ISIL on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The President will not consider that option.

What the President will do, however, is ramp up the assistance that we’re providing to Iraqi security forces as they take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country. The President has said that he will deploy and has already ordered American airstrikes against ISIL targets in support of Iraqi security forces and their ground operations.

Obama is adamant. “Ruled out” is pretty strong.

General Dempsey said:

“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”

To rule them out on a case-by-case basis? But that’s is not the only issue.
Josh Earnest tells Ed Henry that the troops sent can defend themselves.

(9/18/14)

Q The last one on that point — in your exchange with Jon, if U.S. troops are forward deployed, as you say, alongside Iraqi troops, giving them tactical guidance, and these U.S. troops are fired upon by ISIS, are the U.S. troops to do nothing?

MR. EARNEST: U.S. troops will have rules of engagement; they always do when they enter a situation like this.

Q And what would those be? Will they fire back at them?

MR. EARNEST: Again, I’m not going to detail those rules of engagement. The Department of Defense can do that for you. But certainly the Commander-in-Chief would expect that the American troops do what is necessary to defend themselves. That would be –-

Q If they’re defending themselves and they’re firing back they’re in combat.

 

The last statement key. “Defending themselves.” They will have the means of defending themselves, only. So they obviously are only in a an defensive posture. Earnest added:

MR. EARNEST: Iraq is a very dangerous place and American military personnel will have the equipment they need to defend themselves. But what their role will be — and this is what’s real important for people to understand — their role will not be to roll across the border in a long line of tanks to occupy significant territory in Iraq. Their role will be to provide advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces who are taking the fight on the ground against ISIL. In some cases, that could mean being on the ground in forward-deployed locations to call in airstrikes –-

At least they’ll have the equipment they need to defend themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

“I’ll See you in New York”

This photo, apparently taken in front of the White House, was posted to Twitter with the caption, “#AmessagefromISIStoUS — We are in your state We are in your Cities We are in your streets You are our goals anywhere.” @Sunna_rev/Twitter

Not to worry, Obama’s Secret Service is checking it out.

“We have an intelligence division whose mission is to assess information that we receive every day for dangerousness or potential threat level,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told ABC News. “We are aware of the image and will take the necessary and appropriate follow up steps.” (my emphasis)

Another photo displayed a note handwritten in Arabic. It read, “Soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon,” followed by a Koran verse that read, “and Allah is perfecting His Light even though the disbelievers hate (that).”

Accented nicely with a verse from the Koran. How thoughtful, but more on that later.

Talk about mission creep in Iraq, but what I’m worried about is goalpost creep. Seems those darn goalposts just won’t stay where they are planted. For weeks Obama and his henchmen repeatedly called for Maliki to step down or go. Now that he is gone and replaced, goalposts are moving. Now the objective seems to be active political reform in the Iraq government and on forming a new coalition government. What do you know?

We knew Obama had no stomach for any action in Iraq. Yes, current events are twisting his arm but a reluctant, obtuse Obama stubbornly resists taking actions in Iraq. He continues to broadcast what he will not do — or be suckered into — but refuses to say what he would do to alleviate the ISIS problem? (Probably because he doesn’t intend to) At every corner or crossroads he digs in. Even Roosevelt saw the light eventually after swearing off entering WWII. But Obama is stuck on his “Happy days are here again” message.

Obama has his feet and evidently his head buried in the Caliphate sand. He defies any action, especially boots kind, in Iraq, now emphasizing those evolving political goals. I don’t see what one really has to do with the other? Political goals, while sounding lofty and diplomatic, will not abolish the ISIS threat upon them. I can just see ISIS sitting there planning strategy: “Now if Baghdad politics are reformed, we are in big trouble.” No doubt ISIS has an exit plan mapped out just in case.

It is a ridiculous notion that politics has sway over ISIS. Only in Obama’s mind. So all this talk about the politics of Baghdad is just talk, and a diversion. We all know the very real threat that ISIS poses in the Middle East and around the globe. So let’s talk about politics instead. Maybe Obama never met a problem he could not play politically. (remember never let a crisis go to waste)

Even in Slate.com they sense something amiss with Obama’s invisible ISIS strategy in Iraq. Mission Creep is a bad thing, but Muslim Creep, caliphate style, is tolerable? Maybe “boots on the ground” is not necessary but what about bombing the living hell out of this caliphate from hell? No to mission creep, yes to caliphate creep. What nonsense. Then treat only a few collateral symptoms of the evil disease.

Obama, it seems, is much more concerned about playing Constitutional Armageddon than abolishing Satan’s army on the rise. He sees utility to the former and the latter as counterproductive. He claims he will not be snookered back into a war in Iraq. Meanwhile, another no fly zone was issued over Syria as the threat increases.

But while all this consternation about what to do is taking place, many on the left are rushing to say that ISIS is afraid of badass Obama. The badass who said politics was the solution for Baghdad and Iraq. Yea, there goes that badass politician, he even sounds bad.

As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” the President said.

“We do whatever is necessary to protect our people,” Obama said, adding, “We support our allies when they’re in danger.”

(AUg 7)”I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.”

As I write, there is a new update Obama has come out to issue another decree. Here are Obama’s own comments. Now it’s crunch time as a well-respected journalist was beheaded by ISIS (more defining and description)

“Let’s be clear about ISIL,” the president opened. “They have rampaged across cities and villages, killing innocent unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice another religion. They declare their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.”

“So, ISIL speaks for no religion … No faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.”

“The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant and we will be relentless,” said President Obama. “When people harm Americans, anywhere, we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done.”

“Let’s be clear” about what, descriptions? There has been nothing clear from Obama, whether it’s terrorism, his beloved Obamacare, or the border. It’s never clear.

He states the threat to conversion, then declares religion has nothing to do with it. Say what? You cannot deny the fact that they are Muslims of a declared caliphate. (I don’t think that’s a Lutheran thing) Remember when he stated that Americans in Pennsylvania “bitterly clinging to guns and religion?” Now he has a hard time pointing to the source of this Islamic evil.

We could really do without the Islam apologetic. Please! And he is completely wrong. What these people are doing is being done in the the name of this religion, Islam. In fact, Muslims should be informed “do you realize these heinous acts are done in the name of your religion?” That needs to come from members of Congress, too.

Second, Obama, spare us the explanations of the problem. We are well aware of it. But you come out and define the problem – as if that is to treat it. No, we don’t need definitions, we understand the very real evil. It doesn’t need explaining, they are doing that quite well.(and not from a golf course) It is you and your cauldron of Mo-Bro allies who refuse to acknowledge it as such. Don’t describe the problem.

Then he mentions justice. Lets get something else straight. They are beyond the justice scope. It’s mass genocide. This evil operates as justice of its own. Eric Holder came out to make similar pronouncements about criminal justice. We can only bring them destruction and extermination. That is justice.

One more thing. You authorized humanitarian aid but you have not authorized actions to significantly destroy ISIS, especially given numerous opportunities to do so. That is a big problem. “Humanitarian aid” is to kill and eliminate this evil scum from the earth. Killing it is both humane and justice. Call it humanitarian justice. You have no problem supporting abortion without limits, but you talk humanitarian concerns? Where is the justice in that?

Last but not least, what he is doing in his ‘as little as possible’ strategy, is de facto turning over the problem to Iraqi’s to deal with it. That is designating Iraq to be responsible for dealing with this international evil itself and eliminate it?

Now Holder declares he has an active criminal investigation, and that we have very long memories and reach. What the hell is that supposed to mean? I can’t even interpret that. Here’s another reminder, we still have the Blind Sheik in custody, plus these idiots just released a bunch of detainees. This is not a criminal act, this is pure evil. Justice? We can’t even get justice for the Benghazi four, or countless victims of the IRS or the crimes committed on people at the border. ISIS, al Qaeda and the bastion of the evil caliphate hope we have long memories, that is what terrorism is about.


They’re here ISIS tells us.

We now have a CIA chief who dismisses the reality and actually called the idea of a caliphate fictional, that its never going to happen.

Mohamed Elibiary on twitter posted a picture, a selfie, of himself on a motorcycle to mention his Republican roots in Texas. The bandana he wore was a symbolic American flag. So he wanted to show that he was just like everyone else. Maybe the scary part is that he can hold these views while trying to blend in as “normal” occupying one of the highest offices in DHS. That picture was after he caused so much stir for welcoming the rise of the caliphate. Maybe he and Brennan should get together. Oh heck, here it is in all its glory.

Recap:
Politics = it’s the politics of good vs evil

Humanitarian crisis = humanitarian aid is exterminating the evil

Criminal investigation = the only justice is eliminating this evil

If Eric Holder was in circa 1944, I could see him talking about an active “criminal investigation”. Imagine they said back then that “we’re going to allow concentration camps to operate but we’ll pursue criminals with our long memories, and may offer humanitarian aid to those lucky enough escape it.” Yea that’s the ticket.

“I’ll see you in NY”- ISIS

“And we’ll be waiting….if we don’t bring you, first” — Team Obama.

No word yet from the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center as to exactly what this threat– in your state, cities, and streets — could mean, since SPLC is now the authority on all domestic threats.

RightRing | Bullright

The problem from hell oozes on

Obama has a problem, one of many, but it’s a doozy. He believes terrorism, like any other problem, can be adjudicated as a sterile law enforcement issue through courts etc. No matter what the crime. Well, hello, these are not compatible with that system. Of course the howling will start about that any minute.

We hear their arguments all the time — yada, yada. I won’t even dignify them with repetition. Courts are no deterrent to it.The answers haven’t been written. It is evil the likes of which we haven’t seen so blatantly this century. Still they will make their justice speech about bringing them to justice. Thus its a police matter. But what is justice for a massive, ever-growing group, bent on human slaughter by the worst methods they can think of? Is a jury trial capable of arbitrating that? We are in a new era.

Now videos and pictures surface with terrorists’ children holding severed heads. When is enough? Oh, tell me this shall be a law enforcement action, handled by bringing said culprits to some justice. I only state that possibility, as stupid as it is, to demonstrate the mentality of their arguments. Those talking points are an insult. This is mass genocide against humanity in general. It deserves a response. People would be appalled seeing animals treated and displayed like this. Yet here is a group operating with the objective of subverting humanity out of the equation.

No, I’m not even waiting to hear about bringing them to justice for their “crimes”. Maybe that is one of the reasons why Obama is reluctant to face or respond to it. It just will not fit in that box of theirs. This is pure evil it its worst form. It is not something one can summarily dismiss as a law enforcement matter. It’s way beyond that, intentionally so. This is the antithesis to humanity. Clinton’s failure was treating terrorism, like the Cole, as a simple civil law-enforcement matter. Message delivered. The problem is it doesn’t fit.

We’ve talked about state-sponsored terrorism before. But this is the terrorist sponsored state, or the “terrorism state”. That’s what the caliphate is. There are no levers over it to which it responds. It exists as an evil fog spreading around the world. People that have seen and witnessed this type evil don’t categorize it so easily. People label things “crimes against humanity”, but this is anti-humanity on the scale we haven’t seen. And it is breeding and flourishing under whatever banner it uses, into its own self-declared state.

Couple it with a weak-kneed, lily-livered liberal, diplomatic-espousing Oval Office occupant. However, the reverse may be true. In fact, he may fit right into their agenda. That’s a hell of a cocktail. He has us in a real predicament. He is so locked into his ideology, which fits right into ISIL’s and Al Qaeda’s decapitating glove, that he plays right into their evil nature — intentionally or not.(you decide) Tell me I’m wrong.

Obama gave a speech once, borrowed from another, saying “words, just words?” Sadly, that is all this pretender has ever had in his arsenal. Walk softly and carry a big script. And it’s totally inadequate for what we humanity faces. To choose to allow this kind of evil exist in any form on the earth is courting evil. To address it with words is irrational. It has no logic to appeal to; it is only the base form of evil, in its distilled form. All other characterizations are totally inadequate.

The other part of the same problem is a more logical one. Simply that a human crisis of this proportion, while drawing sharp rebuke from everywhere, is still a tool in the hands of scheming elitists and global ghouls. How do we decipher that reality?

“The present window of opportunity, during which a peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long… We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” — David Rockefeller., September 23, 1994, at the UN Ambassadors’ dinner

.

The problem is Islamic jihadists are now working on their own new word order — okay an old one — methodology that is precipitated by international crisis as well. That crisis is their own war on humanity. Politicians can worry about their so-called war on women, their pet issues, their re-elections, “never letting a crisis go to waste;” while this war rages on. If Rockefeller or his ilk think this humanitarian crisis can be transformatively used somehow, then they really have lost all senses. The only thing to be harvested from “using” this crisis in some way, for political purposes, is more evil. Are they up for that? Are we?

Part of the evil of this genocidal menace is it also has its own law to deal with everything else, including humanity, through inhumanity. If anyone was unaware of the nature of evil loose and manifested in the world, they should now be privy to it or they are beyond rehabilitation.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s blame charade bustin’ a move

Obama and the left inject the political narrative, i.e. Maliki and the change in PM leadership. ISIL is not a problem with politics. It’s evil in the purest form. So what has politics got to do with it? But they need to inject it to focus attention somewhere else. That is another level of evil, diversion from the reality and truth.

Sure there is something to PM Maliki’s performance problems. But that would be an issue with or without the ISIS problem. Even if there was another PM in there ISIS would still be a problem in Iraq.

It so happens though that Maliki has been ringing the fire alarms for months. So this is just a smokescreen to cover for Obama’s unwillingness and abject failure to face the threat that it is. Actually it was Obama’s failure to take any action that invited this ISIS calamity. Blame actually points to Obama, and he can’t have that. That is all he really cares about, not the facts or what’s happening. If so, he would have done something months ago. Instead, he was waiting for it to get as bad as it would get. And we sure are there.

But as usual, in his so-called deliberative debate formula over response, he never weighs the cost of his own inaction. That is never a factor to him. One can only assume Valerie Jarrett instructed him, “don’t let anyone talk you into taking action, it would be a huge mistake.” So he ran his mouth, and called them JV, but made a decision for inaction long ago, when the decision was critical.

It is important to look at the time line: he called them JV (read not ready for prime time terrorists), I wonder who briefed him on that? They were his words. Or he was just egging them on, which is possible. We can add that to the cynicism about Obama. It wouldn’t be the first time he has done that.(impeachment, sequester, “shut down”) In this case, evil is the object in play — like that needs to be encouraged.

Now he has gotten the situation, what does he do? He promises a delayed response, then ticks off a list of ‘will nots’. I wish this guy would get that right where it matters. The Constitution is a list of negative law, laying out limitations on the government. Yet he tries to refashion everything under positive law.(with an all powerful, evolving government) Then he sees an imperial executive in it that constantly hordes more power to itself.

June 13th, Obama spewed (Friday – 13th if you’re keeping track):

Yesterday I convened a meeting with my National Security Council to discuss the situation there, and this morning I received an update from my team. Over the last several days, we’ve seen significant gains made by ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in both Iraq and in Syria. In the face of a terrorist offensive, Iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun a part of Iraq’s territory. And this poses a danger to Iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well.

Now, this threat is not brand-new. Over the last year, we’ve been steadily ramping up our security assistance to the Iraqi government with increased training, equipping and intelligence. Now Iraq needs additional support to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.

He went on to add this key caveat:

So any action that we make take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action — including any assistance we might provide — won’t succeed.

What was he trying to say? Well, in Obama lingo politics comes first. Aside from that, he suggested if anything goes wrong and there is any blame it is on them, first of all. Then he built in a loophole for his own failure to act and blame that on Iraq’s politics and leadership. Did he have the same prerequisites on Libya? Remember, that was going to be a big success from the beginning. Qaddafi then was the excuse to go in there. They were going to side with Mo-Bro’s and other Islam groups, and everyone would live happily ever after.

Here, in Iraq, all he does is repeat his mantra about not going in there practically under any scenario. If you were a terrorist looking to set up shop, where would you head? Right, I’d agree. But he made that statement in the beginning of June. Had that been the date of taking responsive action, he could have headed off much of the damage, saving some lives and Christian natives in the area. But no, it was a stall and actually a speech why he was reluctant to take any action, unless certain political criteria were met. Keep in mind too that Iraq is a country that has been under a dictatorship until about ten years ago.

So he made the standard why not speech, saying they were monitoring the situation.(from the back nine) He announced he was having his people prepare plans. Remember? Yea that was a pregnant order with postulating malice of forethought.

Note his top-heavy emphasis on politics in a humanitarian crisis. (sound familiar?-border crisis) In 2002, then the Illinois present-voting state senator, Obama, said on Iraq:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

But that does not apply to his regime or terrorist threats, I assume. Now ten years later he delegates political hacks like Valerie Jarret, Susan Rice, Ben Roades, Denis McDonough, and Tom Donilon to run roughshod over foreign policy decisions and national security. It’s his M/O. Talk about armchair political agendas? They put our national security at risk. Not that national security is their objective. Talk about contaminating this situation with politics. (Hello, Libya) He even toted fiction writer Ben Rhodes along on vacation.

Now after almost two months of deliberation about it, he takes his limited action about which NY Times wrote “Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes on ISIS

So he made his pronouncement about allowing limited actions. I.e.: I really don’t want to do anything, and Valerie doesn’t want me to but I will allow just this much, that’s it. Then he closed saying:

And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.

But that is not true, as it wasn’t true 2 months ago when it could have made a larger difference. And his JV statement in January was plain bullshit.

RightRing | Bullright

ISIS decalares Islamic Caliphate State

BAGHDAD (AP) — The al-Qaida breakaway group that has seized much of northeastern Syria and huge tracts of neighboring Iraq formally declared the establishment of a new Islamic state on Sunday and demanded allegiance from Muslims worldwide.

With brutal efficiency, the Sunni extremist group has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state. But the declaration, made on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, could trigger a wave of infighting among the Sunni militant factions that formed a loose alliance in the blitz across Iraq and impact the broader international jihadist movement, especially the future of a-Qaida.

More: http://www.mail.com/news/politics/2950338-al-qaida-splinter-declares-islamic-caliphate.html#.23140-stage-hero1-4

See previous: DHS Adviser says caliphate’s return inevitable