icubud: (iron man)

The CES is an amateur among other things such as narcissist, arrogant and socialist.

The video below is by a new organization of retired and active DOD, special forces, intelligence and similar background personnel trying to put an end to the political, deadly and childish behavior in the White House of leaking classified information for perceived political gain. The organization is called OPSEC and you can join their efforts to stop the leaks and cast a bright light on the stupid, amateurish actions of the CES and his administration.

Short video: Dishonorable Disclosure

icubud: (iron man)

The CES is an amateur among other things such as narcissist, arrogant and socialist.

The video below is by a new organization of retired and active DOD, special forces, intelligence and similar background personnel trying to put an end to the political, deadly and childish behavior in the White House of leaking classified information for perceived political gain. The organization is called OPSEC and you can join their efforts to stop the leaks and cast a bright light on the stupid, amateurish actions of the CES and his administration.

Short video: Dishonorable Disclosure

icubud: (Bill the Cat)
Israel to keep US in dark
I can just about guarantee this positioning came from O's camp if not himself.
He wants to be able to point blame while "leading from behind" and blah, blah, blah.
What a way to treat your (cough) allies.
It has to be communicated as coming from Israel or it defeats the purpose.
This weak little man, I use the word man very loosely.
icubud: (illuminati and man with hat)
By JPOST.COM STAFF 02/24/2012 11:26
By REUTERS
US intelligence agencies do not believe that Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon,
The Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday, citing a highly classified intelligence
assessment from early 2011.
According to the report, the intelligence estimate holds that Tehran halted efforts to develop and
build a nuclear warhead in 2003.
The Los Angeles Times claims that the report, representing the input of 16 US intelligence
agencies, indicates that Iran is conducting research that could eventually enable it to develop a
nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.
The report came as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were
scheduled to travel to Washington next week for discussions with US Defense Minister Leon
Panetta and US President Barack Obama in which a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is
expected to figure prominently.
Senior officials in the US, Britain and Russia all publicly entreated Israel this week not to attack
Iran.
Diplomats in Vienna said Thursday that Iran is believed to be carrying out preparations to
expand nuclear activity at an underground facility in Fordow, giving Iran better protection
against a potential Israeli or US strike.
A senior team of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) failed again this week to get
the Islamic state to start addressing their mounting concerns about its nuclear work and returned
empty handed to Vienna after two days of talks in Iran.
The setback increased worries about a downward spiral towards conflict between the Islamic
Republic and the West, and sent oil prices to a nine-month high.
The UN agency is now putting the finishing touches to its next report on Iran, expected to
include information on the Tehran talks as well as more detail on the status of the Fordow plant
near the Shi'ite Muslim holy city of Qom.
"I think we will see a jump in the potential state of readiness of the facility," one Vienna-based
envoy said.

2 cents: so the source document for this article is an O government document
icubud: (Default)
Omits God



icubud: (Vapor Trails)
Russia will deploy new missiles aimed at U.S. missile defense sites in Europe if Washington goes ahead with the planned shield despite Russia's concerns, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday.
Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas if Russia and NATO fail to reach a deal on the U.S.-led missile defense plans, he said in a tough statement that seemed to be aimed at rallying domestic support.
Russia considers the plans for missile shields in Europe, including in Romania and Poland, to be a threat to its nuclear forces, but the Obama administration insists they are meant to fend off a potential threat from Iran.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/23/medvedev-russia-may-target-missile-defense-sites/#ixzz1eXdOjbev
 
2 cents:
From the get go O has damaged the relationship we had with America and seems at the three year mark it still is in bad shape.
I seem to remember that ties with them had been quite strong under Bush.
Being a proud people they probably were immediately turned off by his arrogance and belligerence. You know the smug face, his look of scorn - we need to get this person with illusions of grandeur out of the Oval Office.
icubud: (Reagan is calling on you)
Another great article.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: November 17
In 2008, the slogan was “Yes We Can.” For 2011-12, it’s “We Can’t Wait.” What happened in between? Candidate Obama, the vessel into which myriad dreams were poured, met the reality of governance.
His near-$1 trillion stimulus begat a stagnant economy with 9 percent unemployment. His attempt at Wall Street reform left in place a still-too-big-to-fail financial system, as vulnerable today as when he came into office. His green-energy fantasies yielded Solyndra cronyism and a cap-and-trade regime not even a Democratic Congress would pass.
And now his signature achievement, Obamacare, is headed to the Supreme Court, where it could very well be struck down. This comes just a week after its central element was overwhelmingly repudiated (by a 2-to-1 margin) by the good burghers of Ohio.
So what do you do when you say you can, but, it turns out, you can’t? Blame the other guy. Charge the Republicans with making governing impossible. Never mind that you had control of Congress for two-thirds of your current tenure. It’s all the fault of Republican rejectionism.
Hence: “We Can’t Wait.” We can’t wait while they obstruct. We can’t wait while they dither with my jobs bill. Write Congress today! Vote Democratic tomorrow!
We can’t wait. Except for certain exceptions, such as the 1,700-mile trans-USA Keystone XL pipeline, carrying Alberta oil to Texas refineries, that would have created thousands of American jobs and increased our energy independence.
For that, we can wait, it seems. President Obama decreed that any decision must wait 12 to 18 months — postponed, by amazing coincidence, until after next year’s election.
Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama’s environmental constituency. But their complaints are risible. Global warming from the extraction of the Alberta tar sands? Canada will extract the oil anyway. If it doesn’t go to us, it will go to China. Net effect on the climate if we don’t take that oil? Zero.
Danger to a major aquifer, which the pipeline traverses? It is already crisscrossed by 25,000 miles of pipeline, enough to circle the Earth. Moreover, the State Department had subjected Keystone to three years of review — the most exhaustive study of any oil pipeline in U.S. history — and twice concluded in voluminous studies that there would be no significant environmental harm.
So what happened? “The administration,” reported the New York Times, “had in recent days been exploring ways to put off the decision until after the presidential election.” Exploring ways to improve the project? Hardly. Exploring ways to get past the election.
Obama’s decision was meant to appease his environmentalists. It’s already working. The president of the National Wildlife Federation told The Post (online edition, Nov. 10) that thousands of environmentalists who were galvanized to protest the pipeline would now support Obama in 2012. Moreover, a source told The Post, Obama campaign officials had concluded that “they do not pick up one vote from approving this project.”
Sure, the pipeline would have produced thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs. Sure, delay could forfeit to China a supremely important strategic asset — a nearby, highly reliable source of energy. But approval was calculated to be a political loss for the president. Easy choice.
It’s hard to think of a more clear-cut case of putting politics over nation. This from a president whose central campaign theme is that Republicans put party over nation, sacrificing country to crass political ends.
Nor is this the first time Obama’s election calendar trumped the national interest:
● Obama’s decision to wind down the Afghan surge in September 2012 is militarily inexplicable. It comes during the fighting season. It was recommended by none of his military commanders. It is explicable only as a talking point for the final days of his reelection campaign.
● At the height of the debt-ceiling debate last July, Obama pledged to veto any agreement that was not long-term. Definition of long term? By another amazing coincidence, any deal large enough to get him past Election Day (and thus avoid another such crisis next year).
On Tuesday it was revealed that last year the administration pressured Solyndra, as it was failing, to delay its planned Oct. 28 announcement of layoffs until Nov. 3, the day after the midterm election.
A contemporaneous e-mail from a Solyndra investor noted: “Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.” The writer was obviously born yesterday. The American electorate was not — and it soon gets to decide who really puts party over nation and reelection above all.
We can’t wait.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-politically-strategic-inaction/2011/11/17/gIQAPCbCWN_story.html
icubud: (Default)
Mr. Matthews isn't squeeing like a teenage girl who just saw Bieber or Moonlight anymore over CES O.
Remember CES is chief empty suit.

Check this out

Grim Facts

Sep. 24th, 2011 09:38 am
icubud: (alice)

"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.

That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday
during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to
an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.

A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France?
Now, THAT would be a bridge!

It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked
by most media
for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately
Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or
the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.

This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript  here's what passes for Obama leadership:

Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in

America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the
Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand
Central Station.

So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? 
And let Europe build the best highways?  And have Singapore build a
nicer airport?

Quick question: Has anyone ever heard any American express jealousy over Singapore's sweet airport?
full story here

2 cents:

"overlooked by most media" gee why would that be? Let me think, did the media every ponce on any other president or vice president for gaffes? George W? George H? Dan Quayle? Bill Clinton? Well okay 3 of 4 they did. Gee would that indicate double standards? Bias? Agenda? If so - does it concern you that they are the mainstream information peddlers in our country?

icubud: (skeleton key)
[livejournal.com profile] tallblue  had a post on August 8th that I commented on and immediately after commenting I knew I wanted to share my 2 cents NOW - a year plus in advance - with whoever is willing to "listen".

O - the chief empty suit - will make the next presidential election a matter of race and class warfare which includes the inflammatorial language which will fuel riots and unrest. The MSM (main stream media) will perpetuate and add fuel to the fires by the way they will position news stories and by their choice of commentary/stories. Pay attention - it will not be subtle - and remember that THIS is your country's leader doing this.
icubud: (Ben Franklin quote)

2 cents: well put writing as expected

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, April 28, 7:57 PM

Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.”

— Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, May 2 issue

To be precise, leading from behind is a style, not a doctrine. Doctrines involve ideas, but since there are no discernible ones that make sense of Obama foreign policy — Lizza’s painstaking two-year chronicle shows it to be as ad hoc, erratic and confused as it appears — this will have to do.

And it surely is an accurate description, from President Obama’s shocking passivity during Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya, acting at the very last moment, then handing off to a bickering coalition, yielding the current bloody stalemate. It’s been a foreign policy of hesitation, delay and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) “international community” to do what only America can.

But underlying that style, assures this Obama adviser, there really are ideas. Indeed, “two unspoken beliefs,” explains Lizza. “That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.”

Amazing. This is why Obama is deliberately diminishing American presence, standing and leadership in the world?

Take proposition one: We must “lead from behind” because U.S. relative power is declining. Even if you accept the premise, it’s a complete non sequitur. What does China’s rising GDP have to do with American buck-passing on Libya, misjudging Iran, appeasing Syria?

True, China is rising. But first, it is the only power of any significance rising militarily relative to us. Russia is recovering from levels of military strength so low that it barely registers globally. And European power is in true decline (see Europe’s performance — excepting the British — in Afghanistan and its current misadventures in Libya).

And second, the challenge of a rising Chinese military is still exclusively regional. It would affect a war over Taiwan. It has zero effect on anything significantly beyond China’s coast. China has no blue-water navy. It has no foreign bases. It cannot project power globally. It might in the future — but by what logic should that paralyze us today?

Proposition two: We must lead from behind because we are reviled. Pray tell, when were we not? During Vietnam? Or earlier, under Eisenhower? When his vice president was sent on a goodwill trip to Latin America, he was spat upon and so threatened by the crowds that he had to cut short his trip. Or maybe later, under the blessed Reagan? The Reagan years were marked by vast demonstrations in the capitals of our closest allies denouncing America as a warmongering menace taking the world into nuclear winter.

“Obama came of age politically,” explains Lizza, “during the post-Cold War era, a time when America’s unmatched power created widespread resentment.” But the world did not begin with the coming to consciousness of Barack Obama. Cold War resentments ran just as deep.

It is the fate of any assertive superpower to be envied, denounced and blamed for everything under the sun. Nothing has changed. Moreover, for a country so deeply reviled, why during the massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Syria have anti-American demonstrations been such a rarity?

Who truly reviles America the hegemon? The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today’s full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind — diminishing America’s global standing and assertiveness — is a reaction to their view of America, not the world’s.

Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

© 2011 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-obama-doctrine-leading-from-behind/2011/04/28/AFBCy18E_print.html
 

icubud: (symbol of 3 areas of interest)

He hits the nail on the head...again.

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, March 31, 7:52 PM

Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.

— Hillary Clinton on Bashar al-Assad, March 27

Few things said by this administration in its two years can match this one for moral bankruptcy and strategic incomprehensibility.

First, it’s demonstrably false. It was hoped that President Assad would be a reformer when he inherited his father’s dictatorship a decade ago. Being a London-educated eye doctor, he received the full Yuri Andropov treatment — the assumption that having been exposed to Western ways, he’d been Westernized. Wrong. Assad has run the same iron-fisted Alawite police state as did his father.

Bashar made promises of reform during the short-lived Arab Spring of 2005. The promises were broken. During the current brutally suppressed protests, his spokeswoman made renewed promises of reform. Then Wednesday, appearing before parliament, Assad was shockingly defiant. He offered no concessions. None.

Second, Clinton’s statement is morally obtuse. Here are people demonstrating against a dictatorship that repeatedly uses live fire on its own people, a regime that in 1982 killed 20,000 in Hama and then paved the dead over. Here are insanely courageous people demanding reform — and the U.S. secretary of state tells the world that the thug ordering the shooting of innocents already is a reformer, thus effectively endorsing the Baath party line — “We are all reformers,” Assad told parliament — and undermining the demonstrators’ cause.

Third, it’s strategically incomprehensible. Sometimes you cover for a repressive ally because you need it for U.S. national security. Hence our muted words about Bahrain. Hence our slow response on Egypt. But there are rare times when strategic interest and moral imperative coincide completely. Syria is one such — a monstrous police state whose regime consistently works to thwart U.S. interests in the region.

During the worst days of the Iraq war, this regime funneled terrorists into Iraq to fight U.S. troops and Iraqi allies. It is dripping with Lebanese blood as well, being behind the murder of independent journalists and democrats, including former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. This year, it helped topple the pro-Western government of Hariri’s son, Saad, and put Lebanon under the thumb of the virulently anti-Western Hezbollah. Syria is a partner in nuclear proliferation with North Korea. It is Iran’s agent and closest Arab ally, granting it an outlet on the Mediterranean. Those two Iranian warships that went through the Suez Canal in February docked at the Syrian port of Latakia, a long-sought Iranian penetration of the Mediterranean.

Yet here was the secretary of state covering for the Syrian dictator against his own opposition. And it doesn’t help that Clinton tried to walk it back two days later by saying she was simply quoting others. Rubbish. Of the myriad opinions of Assad, she chose to cite precisely one: reformer. That’s an endorsement, no matter how much she later pretends otherwise.

And it’s not just the words; it’s the policy behind it. This delicacy toward Assad is dismayingly reminiscent of President Obama’s response to the 2009 Iranian uprising during which he was scandalously reluctant to support the demonstrators, while repeatedly reaffirming the legitimacy of the brutal theocracy suppressing them.

Why? Because Obama wanted to remain “engaged” with the mullahs — so that he could talk them out of their nuclear weapons. We know how that went.

The same conceit animates his Syria policy — keep good relations with the regime so that Obama can sweet-talk it out of its alliance with Iran and sponsorship of Hezbollah.

Another abject failure. Syria has contemptuously rejected Obama’s blandishments — obsequious visits from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry and the return of the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus  since the killing of Hariri. Assad’s response? An even tighter and more ostentatious alliance with Hezbollah and Iran.

Our ambassador in Damascus should demand to meet the demonstrators and visit the wounded. If refused, he should be recalled to Washington. And rather than “deplore the crackdown,” as did Clinton in her walk-back, we should be denouncing it in forceful language and every available forum, including the U.N. Security Council.

No one is asking for a Libya-style rescue. Just simple truth-telling. If Kerry wants to make a fool of himself by continuing to insist that Assad is an agent of change, well, it’s a free country. But Clinton speaks for the nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias_reformer/2011/03/31/AFy4JFCC_story.html?nav=emailpage

icubud: (Default)
Remember I have written many times how O is not a president of the USA and by that I mean I am referring to his not having and/or embracing the principles that have made the USA the country it is. He is a socialist. He considers himself a scholar (he really isn't but thinks he is), he is a wordsmith but they are usually not his own words and yes he harbors some very wrong spiritual and emotional thinking (Republicans you get on the back of the bus...for example)

If you spend 10 minutes reading the stories below you will see that European leaders are confused by his inability to behave as an American. He has put a leash on Hillary and told her to "sit" and then put a muzzle on her. Some people in the USA are wondering what the heck is going on.

But here is the real problem: most of America has not noticed. What does this translate into? Votes in the next election. The man is literally treading water just to get to this summer when the presidential election machinery is officially turned on. This empty suit has big plans for his second term. Big socialistic agenda items that he has kept bottled up for the Act part 2. If you and I have one ounce of common sense that should scare the heck out of us.

European government completely puzzled
The present president
Spectator in chief
icubud: (Belief and understanding)
Like I wrote earlier today

From the WSJ:

The United States has formulated a new strategy in response to the recent anti-government protests that have broken out through the Arab world since the start of 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. After weeks of internal discussions, the US decided to put its support behind longtime allies who may be willing to initiate political reform, even if that means citizens' demand for full democracy are delayed.

Despite the fact that US officials are still calling for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's immediate removal from power, White House officials have formed the "Bahrain model." The proposed system endorses the ruling power to stay in control but works with the local population to create democratic reforms that suit demands of the protesters.

2 cents: Talk, words and no action, the O model. He can now have speeches crafted to be eloquent and beam to him on his teleprompters but positive democratic action will not be taken. Words are his tool and weapon of choice because with words you turn a democratic republic to a socialist nation. You change the government by policies and legislation. You wear out the citizens with words.

See the evil beauty is that words do nothing now for the citizens in nations wanting to democracy BUT words do everything here to rid a nation of the same democracy.

icubud: (Default)
The consistency of O, the empty suit, is something that I do not understand why conservative talking heads have a problem understanding. You can not seriously or sanely expect a socialist to engage in behavior of an American. Expecting a socialist to behave as such is an example of the definition of insanity. Remember he is not a proud American. He bows to other leaders and has issued official apologies on behalf of you &I - America. So his policy of inaction in Iran, Egypt and now Libya when citizens of the countries were revolting and protesting against their national governments is exactly what one should expect. See at the center of this socialist is pride, arrogance and belligerence and that is at the heart of why he won't change. We must change not him. He is absolutely right. The principles of the USA are not. We should not expect to see a blood pounding heart for the American values of freedom, liberty & capitalism. And we definitely won't see them from him.

Please!

Feb. 24th, 2011 04:10 pm
icubud: (Default)
Can we have a real president?!
icubud: (Default)

from this article

All these developments seem to come as a surprise to the Obama administration, which dismissed Bush's "freedom agenda" as overly ideological and meant essentially to defend the invasion of Iraq. But as Bush's support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and for a democratic Palestinian state showed, he was defending self-government, not the use of force. Consider what Bush said in that 2003 speech, which marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution established by President Ronald Reagan precisely to support the expansion of freedom.

 

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. "As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

 

This spirit did not always animate U.S. diplomacy in the Bush administration; plenty of officials found it unrealistic and had to be prodded or overruled to follow the president's lead. But the revolt in Tunisia, the gigantic wave of demonstrations in Egypt and the more recent marches in Yemen all make clear that Bush had it right - and that the Obama administration's abandonment of this mind-set is nothing short of a tragedy.

 

U.S. officials talked to Mubarak plenty in 2009 and 2010, and even talked to the far more repressive President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, but they talked about their goals for Israeli-Palestinian peace and ignored the police states outside the doors of those presidential palaces. When the Iranian regime stole the June 2009 elections and people went to the streets, the Obama administration feared that speaking out in their support might jeopardize the nuclear negotiations. The "reset" sought with Russia has been with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, not the Russian people suffering his increasingly despotic and lawless rule.

 

This has been the greatest failure of policy and imagination in the administration's approach: Looking at the world map, it sees states and their rulers, but has forgotten the millions of people suffering under and beginning to rebel against those rulers. "Engagement" has not been the problem, but rather the administration's insistence on engaging with regimes rather than with the people trying to survive under them.

 

If the Arab regimes learn the wrong lessons and turn once again to their police and their armies, the U.S. reaction becomes even more important. President Obama's words of support for both the demonstrators and the government late Friday, after speaking with Mubarak, were too little, too late. He said Mubarak had called for "a better democracy" in Egypt, but Obama's remarks did not clearly demand democracy or free elections there. We cannot deliver democracy to the Arab states, but we can make our principles and our policies clear. Now is the time to say that the peoples of the Middle East are not "beyond the reach of liberty" and that we will assist any peaceful effort to achieve it - and oppose and condemn efforts to suppress it.

 

Such a statement would not elevate our ideals at the expense of our interests. It turns out, as those demonstrators are telling us, that supporting freedom is the best policy of all.


2 cents: Why did O dismiss Bush's philosophy of liberty and freedom? Because he is a socialist. He does not understand and grasp the principles and philosophy of liberty & freedom. Anything coming out of his mouth later - after all the energy and sides have won - will be the typical empty suit, words of void from a socialist's heart.

two paths

Nov. 5th, 2010 08:23 pm
icubud: (Reagan leaving the White House)
I know some of you wonderful LJFs are interested in government, economy, and what is a dirty word - politics. This commentary is from a German - yep same website as other four posts - and is pretty good. Takes about 3 minutes to read and speaks of the O gap - O and a large part if not a majority of the US. (If you click the link it will open a new window and then try to print - just select cancel when the printer window opens. I gave this link so you could read it without having to click through web pages)

Thing is as far as what the author writes while I agree with what he is saying I think there is more to it than what he diagnoses. Despite what the MSM and TPTB cram on the television, commercials, movies, and so on I think that what is going on is spiritual in nature. I am not going to go down the route of some - but I do think for whatever reason what is occurring right now in 2010 may very well be a little window of grace giving citizens of the US one last shot of understanding what they are choosing when they choose. Bible says that the rulers are in God's hand and even we get the rulers that He gives us according to our ways. Hence what I think is going on. God has given the US O as a "are you sure?" character before we approach the big descent and ruin of our nation. This window 2010-Nov 2012 is a fork in the road for our nation. In the past one way was a little bumpier than the other but this time - due to our history of amoral and immoral decisions and practices we are at a fork where the wrong turn is something I honestly believe - an no I am not being dramatical - I honestly in my heart believe with absolute certainty - the wrong turn takes us down with absolutely NO HOPE of redeeming the time or choice.
icubud: (Default)
 I found this as I was stumbling across the internet.

Germany's Spiegel Online - International

"Several German opinion-makers were clear that the election was more of a referendum on the president, who comes across as "cold, arrogant, and elitist," and less of an endorsement of the Republicans and their policies. There is widespread agreement in the editorial pages that Obama failed to make the case for his administration's accomplishments, a fact that he himself has acknowledged.

But the biggest challenge for Europeans appears to be understanding the role of the Tea Party activists -- described as the "true victors" of Tuesday's elections -- and predicting what kind of influence they will have over the next two years."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,727235,00.html

2 cents: Even the Germans know the election results were direct result of disapproval of the empty suit O. Thing is - oh boy I really don't want to even think this through - the reality of O will probably be that when he is no longer the president he will make major moolah speaking at universities and colleges (birds of a feather...) and he will reshape his horrible political identity with pontificating blurbs and speeches ad nauseum. Secondly - the next presidential election is not a sure fire kick the bum to the curb event.
icubud: (Default)


"The question is how much of it is going to be repealed and how much will Obama be willing to concede," Dr. Charles Krauthammer said.

O tried a 2 year experiment of hyper-liberalism & the country has said "no". Now for the next two years he will exercise his liberalism through regulation which will go below the radar.

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 29
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 01:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios