It was unprecedented in American history: the U.S. President took to the world stage to viciously attack Americans, not once, but twice in as many days.
In the wake of the Paris jihad massacre, French President Hollande declared, “It’s an act of war.” President Obama, on the other hand, declared war on the American People.
Like Bertolt Brecht, that spineless, gutless running dog for East German tyranny, Obama believes that if the people vote the wrong way, “Change the people.” Of all the imperious actions Obama has taken over these long seven years of his anti-American presidency, the most egregious is his fundamental premise, that it is not he that serves the people, but the people serve him.
A few days ago, I addressed Obama’s ugly tirade against us at the G20 summit in Istanbul here at Breitbart, noting that in his speech at the G20 Summit in Turkey on Monday, Obama took a harsher tone with Republicans than he has with ISIS. In the wake of the Paris jihad slaughter, he is obsessed with importing more Muslims, not defeating the Islamic State. And he calls anyone opposed to increased Muslim migration — namely the GOP — “shameful.” But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.
Yes, Christians should have been permitted to enter, to allow them to escape genocide by Muslim supremacists. Hundreds of thousands of Christians and religious minorities have been slaughtered, crucified, beheaded, in the cause of jihad. Obama did nothing. That is contrary to American values. Standing up for victims of genocide is not “contrary to American values.” He applied the religious test and prohibited Christians from escaping terror. Thousands of Syrian Muslims have been admitted into the U.S., while only 52 Syrian Christians have been so fortunate.
Mocking and denigrating Americans on the word stage is “contrary to American values.” Only a monster would taunt us for our genuine national security concerns. ISIS has vowed to attack us and issued new videos warning of coming attacks on New York City and Times Square. Obama’s “junior varsity” team is roiling the world, and we are supposed to trust him to vet them? Vet them how? His administration scrubbed counter terror materials of all mention of Islam or jihad in connection with terrorism. So how will they vet them?
Obama demands uniformity of opinion. So did Stalin, Hitler, and the like. He has, for years, taken gradual steps toward authoritarianism. He has been getting away with small encroachments. If Obama continues down this totalitarian path, the people will have to take back our government.
We know ISIS threatened that in February to flood Europe with 500,000 refugees. And they’re doing it: there have already been jihadis discovered among the refugees, and a third refugee was tied to the Paris attacks. Cell phones left behind by “refugees” show links to terrorists. The Lebanese Education Minister said there were 20,000 active jihadists among the refugees in his country alone. This is not theory. This is real. This is objective reality.
We are morally justified in our opposition. Obama, on the other hand, is playing the demagogue, using “women and orphans” as human shields for a refugee plan that will lead to catastrophe. Obama, as much as the jihadis, presents an imminent danger to this our nation, our freedom, and our very lives.
U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”
Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.
“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”
Some experts questioned whether the administration is handing off portions of the battle to other nations.
“The French airstrikes have been billed as a significant uptick in the battle against the Islamic State; preliminary data indicate that this is not the case,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism expert at the U.S. Treasury Department. “It appears that the U.S. is simply allowing France to strike many of the targets that would usually be reserved for the U.S. and some of its coalition allies. In other words, this appears to be a redistribution of daily targets in the ongoing campaign, and not a significant change.”
These strikes have forced the Islamic State to evacuate at least 20 to 25 percent of the territories it held one year ago in both Iraq and Syria, according to the Pentagon.
Truth In Media questioned 2 years ago why the U.S. and our allies were financing ISIS in Iraq and arming so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria.
Reports have confirmed that US Intelligence knew in 2012 that backing Syrian rebels would result in an ISIS victory.
A newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that arming the anti-Assad rebel forces and Islamist groups would lead to the emergence of ISIS.
According to award winning journalist Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, “the secret Pentagon document provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist ‘Salafist Principality’ in the region as a way to undermine Assad.”
Recently on the Scott Horton show, Brad Hoff reminded listeners that the former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, admitted to an Al-Monitor journalist that he knew the U.S. backed rebels fought with ISIS on front lines.
The mainstream media has ignored and refused to report on the important DIA section regarding the Syrian proxy war led by the U.S. and its allies.
I see that the state-controlled narrative is changing a bit due to the fact that the "Useful idiots," who have been playing the stooge for this administration, are now coming to the realization that the game that they seemed to be playing is not a game at all.
It appears that the lawless in America, who have been cheering on this administration through tolerance and apathy, are now beginning to see the severity of this criminal administration and they now know that they had better get on the right side of Heaven, or the game will soon be over (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Politicians are now calling "ISIS a creation of Obama," and that this president, through his actions, is benefiting ISIS.
After the Paris attacks, what did America hear from this treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama (His Muslim name)? (Luke 3:19) America heard a dictator, who was angry and agitated with those who were comparing ISIS to the Muslims.
Well, Barack, like it or not, the created "terror" group ISIS (a global political battering ram to create chaos and upend nations only to consolidate power for the United Nations) is Muslim; and Muslims are ISIS.
Barack Hussein Obama, as well as Hilary Clinton and several other world representatives, are defending the Muslims after the Paris attacks while the victims are condemning the attacks.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to call for "tolerance of Muslim migrants" following Paris attacks.
These are those who are responsible for advocating these advancing armies to plunder their respective countries which they are entering.
Mark Dayton, the worst sitting senator in the history of America and now the incumbent governor to the shame of all Minnesotans told the people he represents to find another state if they do not want Muslim refugees in Minnesota.
In the background, these Muslims, if they are not in Germany plundering churches, schools and raping women, then they are praising the Paris jihadists as martyrs during a moment of silence at Turkish and Greece soccer game.
Do not forget about Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson (along with other Muslim Brotherhood operatives), who said that he was there for the "plight of the Muslims."
And how can you forget about the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brenner, who was meeting with the French Intelligence before the Paris terror attacks? John Brenner is a convert to Islam.
Americans have been led to believe that they have to sit back and tolerate the crimes of this administration for one more year, including the unconstitutional targeting of American gun owners.
P.S. France is now attempting to regain their right to bear arms; a right they forfeited before their corrupt politicians, only to be made subjects and targets. Why would a government disarm those who they are to represent in the face of terror? Who benefits from such tyranny?
Ally - thats interesting, thanks
ReplyDelete