Tag Archives: ISIL


According to allenbwest.com, former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under the current President, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said the administration’s foreign policy approach has led to an “almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East” and described it with two harsh words: “willful ignorance.”

Willful means intentional and ignorance means without knowledge. So, the current President approaches foreign policy related to the Middle East, as someone who just doesn’t want to know what’s taking place there.

On January 3, 2014, newspapers reported that the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war. The Washington Post reported: “A rejuvenated al-Qadea-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq over two years ago. The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of ISIS, the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.

The current President was asked where this was going now that al-Qaeda is resurgent in Iraq, Syria, and Africa by David Remnick of the New Yorker. His reply was as follows, “I think the analogy we user around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Mr. Remnick then indicated to the current President that the JV team he was describing just took over Fallujah. The President then responded, “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

In January 2014, the President viewed the situation in Iraq, particularly Fallujah as a local matter between jihadists, but now, the United States is striking ISIS targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.

With the passage of time, the current President’s JV comment does look ignorant, so White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is trying to cover up body odor with cheap perfume in suggesting that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the January 2014 conversation. In a Washington Post article, Glenn Kessler wrote that the context of Mr. Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS.

The Middle East is a mess. In September 2014, the current President said that Yemen’s war on terror was a success. In January 2015, Shiite insurgents overran Yemen’s presidential palace, posing a coup-style threat to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The U.S. was forced to close its embassy in Yemen and embassy personnel had to flee the country.

Now, the Secretary of State, under the direction of the current President has completed talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program. According to various news sources, only the framework of an agreement has been negotiated. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would think that Obama’s deal would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But we all remember, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” So I was expecting the current President to at least say that it’s a good plan and that we would have to read it to see what was in it.

However, the current President is now admitting the deal does no such thing according to caintv.com. Caintv.com goes on to indicate that even assuming Iran’s complete cooperation with all of the alleged terms, even assuming to cheating, even assuming they allow inspections when our side says they’re warranted, and even assuming no covert sites spinning centrifuges, we’re looking at a nuclear Iran probably sometime in the next decade.

The current President promised us that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon while he was President. It looks like the President has done just that. There may not be a nuclear weapon under his watch, but his watch ends in less than two years. What about the next President? Did the current President merely kick the can down the road? If Iran does get a nuclear weapon in ten months, will the drive-by media allow the President to blame Barack Obama like Barack Obama has blamed George Bush for the last six plus years? The Obama approach is to remove all threats of military action, remove all economic sanctions, trust Iran to keep its work, and then sign a deal that even he doesn’t claim keeps them from getting the bomb.

This makes me knot up inside. What is this President doing to the United States of America? Do we really think that Iran is going to cooperate with the terms of this agreement? They’re not! What scares me even more, though, is that this President is, at least, an admirer of Islam. Some folks out there say that he’s Islamic and that he bows to the east. I’m not going to say he’s Islamic; I’m just going to say that he is an admirer of Islam. On several occasion, he has said that he is a Christian.

According to wnd.com, at a White House breakfast, Tuesday morning, April 7, the current President took a swipe at Christians, saying Christians are supposed to love all their neighbors, but that he sometimes hears less than loving expressions by Christians. That concerns him. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I do it all the time. Humans are sinful by nature. Before stepping off into it, the President did “pull back.”
Now what about all the things that Muslims say about their neighbors and all the threats that Muslims make? He didn’t mention that.

I’ve always said and I will continue to say that this President’s goals are not to strengthen the United States of America and continue to strive for exceptionalism; rather the goals of this President are to destroy the United States of America and all that it stands for. Could this Iranian nuclear deal possibly have been negotiated so that Iran would deliberately put off developing and deploying nuclear weapons until this President is out of office, and then? Can you say “Willful Ignorance?”



By now we’ve heard a plethora of summaries and opinions about Monday’s State of the Union address by the current President of the United States. And here’s another one. While most of the following may be a re-hash of what you’ve already heard, I do have a few insights that are my own, or either I haven’t heard anyone else say these things.

As normal for any Democrat administration, increasing entitlements and government hand-outs is always proposed, with a tax increase for the rich in order to pay for these new “freebies.” New entitlements proposed in the speech include the following:

• First two years of community college tuition for free if the student meets certain      requirements.
• A $3,000 child care tax credit.
• Seven days of sick leave for all American workers.

While these proposals may sound good, bottom line, they are simply mechanisms by which to grow the government and increase the number of people feeding at the government trough. While I’m certainly a believer in safety nets, we just can’t keep giving stuff away. Somebody’s got to pay for it and that somebody is always “the rich.” Your typical liberal will always say, go after the wealthy, they can afford it. And the wealthy can, but can the middle class afford it? It’s ultimately going to be the middle class that gets hurt. When Mr. Rich Man or Ms. Rich Woman finds themselves having to pay more in taxes, that money is going to the government rather than into the private sector, particularly to small businesses. We’d be much better off with that money going into the private sector, growing the economy. When the private sector prospers, more money generally goes to the government, thereby increasing revenue. This is one of those issues that takes two brain cells to understand and liberals either don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. I could discuss each of the three bulleted points in depth, but that will be left for another blog post.

The current president also touted the U.S. economy, indicating that its growing and creating jobs at the fastest rate since 1999. Yes, there is some optimism out there due to falling gas prices. More Americans have a little extra money in their pockets. However, when you dig deeper, you find a very sluggish economy. In 2009, there were 33 million people on food stamps, now; 46.5 million people are receiving food stamps. The number of people on some sort of government welfare program has doubled since the current president has taken office. Yes, the employment rate is down, but that doesn’t account for the millions of people who have dropped out of the work force entirely. Right now, there are approximately 92 million people not working.

Of course, the current president is going to boast about healthcare, stating that there are so many more Americans insured today than there were a year ago. However, insurance premiums have increased for most of us and the healthcare we’re getting is not as good as most of us had. When the extra money in the pockets of the middle class due to falling gas prices disappears due to the increase in health insurance premiums, how optimistic are folks going to be? Also, average income has dropped steadily since 2009.

The economy is still in dire straits and can only improve with a strong private sector, something this president and the liberals are fighting and will continue fighting tooth and nail.

Now for my favorite, falling energy prices. In his speech, the president took credit for falling gas prices. Once again, the falling gas prices are due to increased exploration on state and private lands and a little innovation called hydraulic fracturing or more commonly known as fracking. And you know something; liberals are against fracking and increased oil exploration. They hate it and want to further regulate it. In fact, the current administration is planning on implementing additional regulations for oil exploration on state and federal lands. Now what’s this going to result in? If you said gasoline prices increasing, you’re right. I suspect, though, that these regulations will be timed so that the effects will be felt sometime around the 2016 presidential election. If a Republican wins the Whitehouse, he or she and the rest of the Republicans will be blamed for increases in the price of gas. If a Democrat wins the Whitehouse, it will be business as usual. Democrats don’t care about anything except controlling as many aspects of our lives as possible. They’ll somehow blame everything on the Republicans with the mainstream media getting on board with them. Like I’ve said before, facts don’t matter to Democrats.

With respect to foreign policy, remember Baghdad Bob? He was the Iraqi official that kept telling his people that Iraq was winning the war with the allied forces, including the United States, while we were continually bombing them. He became somewhat of a comical character. While this president was discussing foreign policy in his State of the Union address, I couldn’t help think about Baghdad Bob. The world is a dangerous place. ISIS or ISIL is getting stronger and continues to conquer, torture, and kill anyone they don’t like. In fact, ISIL controls more territory in Syria than it did when U.S. airstrikes began six months ago. The threat that there will be another attack on U.S. soil is increasing every day. Four months ago, this president announced that the Arab country of Yemen was stable and served as a model for Middle Eastern states. However, the day of the State of the Union address, Shiite Houthi rebels overtook the presidential palace in Yemen’s capital city of Sanaa, making what a government minister called, “the completion of a coup,” according to CNN.com.

Of course, we all know that the president did not mention the words, Al Qaeda, in his speech and refuses to use the phrase, “Islamic Terrorism.” The primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to keep this country and its people safe from our enemies around the globe. But this president doesn’t seem engaged at all in foreign policy. When the Paris terrorist attacks took place, this president was off touting his great economic policies and didn’t see the need to attend the “we stand with the French” rally that was attended by numerous heads of state from all over the planet, including our allies. Again, this president is not engaged in foreign policy and seems to dismiss the fact that the world is a dangerous place due to the aggressiveness of Islamic terrorism.

And if the above weren’t enough, the current administration is talking with Iran about Iran’s nuclear program in spite of a number of high level democrats who are against negotiations with Iran. Congressional leaders in both chambers are considering a proposal to increase sanctions while international negotiators try to reach an agreement. The president has indicated that he will veto any bill that comes to his desk to increase sanctions on Iran because he feels that such sanctions, which would go into effect June 30, if agreements are not reached, would derail any talks about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The most ridiculous statement made by the current president in the State of the Union is that climate change is the biggest threat to our future. I almost choked on that one. The president went on to state that records show 2014 was the warmest year on record. Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have fallen during the first fifteen years of this century. According to James Delingpole, author of The Little Green Book of Eco-Facism, if you were to take the year 1850 as a starting point, we have experienced about 0.8 degrees Celsius of “global warming.” But if you used a 1,000 year time scale, you’d find that the world’s temperatures had been gently cooling since their high point in the Medieval Warming Period. So, Mr. Delingpole opines that global warming may be happening or it may not be happening. Either way, it doesn’t matter because nothing that climate has been doing in our lifetime is in any way more dramatic than anything it has been doing in the last 10,000 or so years. This says to me that climate change is not really significant and certainly not caused by industrial nations such as the United States.

While I could certainly write a lot more, I’m not because this post may be a little too long to keep your attention. It would be my hope that the above is one of the better analyses of the 2015 State of the Union address, one that you can refer to for reference.