In his most recent press conference, President Obama became extremely defensive and frustrated.  This is what happens when your team is in the midst of a big time losing streak.  At some point the coach loses his cool.  This usually happens just before the coach is fired.  A classic example of this happened last November, when Norv Turner got tired of answering questions about why the San Diego Chargers were so bad:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl–coach-norv-turner-uncharacteristically-snaps-after-chargers-self-destruct-late-again11065123.html

Norv Turner, surprise, was fired after the end of the season.

This is not a shot at Norv Turner.  He is a highly respected coach, so he was almost immediately hired as the offensive coordinator for the Cleveland Browns.  I was just pointing out that when you see something like this: you know you are looking at a loser.  Obama looks like a loser and even the main stream media knows it.

What makes this double trouble for Obama is that he should be flying high.  Normally when there is a major tragedy, it is an opportunity for politicians to score points.  That is why there is always a mad rush for the nearest microphone. That is exactly what happened after Hurricane Sandy and it just may have been the reason Obama was re-elected.

But that didn’t happen this time.   Although Obama tried desperately to exploit the situation, the sound of patting himself on the back was drowned out by the clamor of incompetence.

At the same time the economic news is terrible, Syria is using chemical weapons and Obamacare is a complete train wreck.  Obama stupidly tried to shut down air travel, so he could blame it on Republicans,  and was publicly humiliated by a bi-partisan bill that gave him only enough money to pay the air traffic controllers to go back to work.  No one, and I mean no one, is buying his pathetic attempts to blame the sequester on Republicans.

So how bad is it?  Obama was desperate to find one thing that he could smile about during his press conference.  His choice was the decision by Jason Collins to come out as a gay basketball player.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less.  A better question is whether or not he’s still got game.  Obama certainly doesn’t.

TDM

In 1917 George M Cohan wrote Over There.   Following are the lyrics to the final verse, the one we typically remember:

Over there, over there,

Send the word, send the word over there

That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming

The drums rum-tumming everywhere.

So prepare, say a prayer,

Send the word, send the word to beware –

We’ll be over, we’re coming over,

And we won’t come back till it’s over, over there.

The important thing to remember is that all the fighting was over there.  All of the fighting in World War I was over there.  In World War II, after Pearl Harbor, all of the fighting was over there.  In Korea all the fighting was over there.  In Vietnam all the fighting was over there.  All wars are bad, but a war over there is always better than a war over here.

Civilians in Europe during World War I paid a terrible price for having the battles fought over there.   We paid a heavy price in the United States, but it doesn’t compare with the price paid by other countries.  It was even worse in World War II.   The same pattern was true in Korea and Vietnam.  They were all bad, but they were all over there.

On September 11, 2011, war landed on our shores.  The war was over here and the United States woke up to the brutal reality of a war fought on our shores.

President Bush understood that al Qaeda was at war with us.  Bush decided that we could not just sit there and allow them to continue attacking us.  We had to fight back.  Surrender was never an option.  The only question was where would we fight them.  For President Bush, it was quite simple:

We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.

Liberals have been complaining about the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for years.  They complain about the high cost of these wars and they argue that this was oh so unnecessary.  But they are forgetting something very important.  During the eight years that Bush was President, he got it right.  Yes, we were fighting them over there but were not fighting them over here.

Obama came into office and arrogantly dismissed the Bush doctrine.  Obama, with zero experience, would show us how it was done.  He started with the grand apology tour.  He explained to Muslims how wonderful they are and why they should learn to love us.  He loudly denounced the enhanced interrogation techniques used so effectively by Bush and replaced them with no interrogations at all.   He announced that he would close Guantanamo because that was another Bush mistake, only to discover that there was no realistic alternative.  He told the world that we would withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of consequences.  All that mattered to Obama was that we brought our boys back from over there.  Now he is withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, the war he called the necessary war, for the same reason.  Suddenly, the necessary war isn’t so necessary anymore.  Obama was very successful in bringing our boys back from over there.  Unfortunately, the result is that we are now fighting a war over here.

This has been going on all during the Obama Presidency.  On at least five separate occasions terrorists managed to make it to their target in the United States.  Two terrorists, the Times Square bomber and the underwear bomber were thwarted only by their own incompetence.  Three terrorist attacks succeeded.  The first two, the Fort Hood shooter and the Little Rock Arkansas shooters were dismissed by the Obama administration as “workplace violence” situations.  He wouldn’t even admit that they were terrorist attacks.  Now we have the Boston Marathon massacre and even Obama cannot pretend that this wasn’t a terrorist attack.  But he is pretending that this is just another unconnected lone wolf jihadist action.  He is wrong.  One way or the other, this is exactly what al Qaeda had in mind.   The sad reality is that from now on, we will be fighting them over here.

So what does that mean?  According to Mayor Bloomberg, it means we must change our constitution to give the police more power.  We must exchange our liberty for our safety.  We have the NSA listening to our phones, the FBI reading our mail and the ATF confiscating our guns.  When we try to get on an airplane we have to get strip searched and patted down by incompetent government employees trying desperately not to pay extra attention to the Muslim looking male with the backpack.  It is insane.  It is also unlikely to work.  By the time we catch people over here, by definition, they are already over here.

As I watched President Bush at the dedication of his library I was reminded of the significance of over there.  President Bush got it exactly right and we owe him a debt of gratitude.  Following is what he said with regard to the invasion of Afghanistan:

“Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.”

Saddam Hussein didn’t get the e-mail, so we took him out too.  Then, the whole world watched and wondered where Bush would go next.  Iran, according to CIA reports, suspended its nuclear weapons program.  Libya voluntarily dismantled their program without being asked.  The whole world feared us.  Very few governments were willing to risk sheltering international terrorists.  Even Libya started cooperating.  That didn’t change until we stupidly elected Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who promptly tried to lose the war in Iraq.  But they underestimated George W. Bush.  He ordered the surge, in spite of opposition within his own party, because he knew that the price of failure over there was a war over here.

Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions . . . . Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq

Now, can someone please explain this to Obama?

TDM

Hans Christian Andersen published a short fable called The Emperors New Clothes in 1837.  This was about a fictional Emperor who is tricked into believing that he has new clothes so wonderful that they are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent.  His loyal staff can’t see the new clothes, but none of them are willing to admit it, so they let him go out in public wearing nothing.  The majority of the people are also pretending they can see the clothes, because they are also afraid to admit the truth.  But one small child innocently shouts out what they all know: “but he’s not wearing anything at all.”  Suddenly, everyone is forced to admit the truth.  The Emperor had no clothes.

President Barack Hussein Obama is the modern day equivalent of that Emperor.  He burst onto the public clothed in the illusion of success.  None of his supporters dared admit the obvious, that he was totally unqualified to be President.  The main stream media perpetuated the myth by portraying him as a new and exciting leader and they heaped mountains of scorn on anyone who dared disagree.  When Bill Clinton, in a rare moment of honesty, called this a big joke, he was quickly humiliated into silence.

Even his incredibly thin resume turned out to be printed with invisible ink.  He was a mythical hero glorified with invisible robes of non-existent accomplishment.  If he only has to play the role of President, it might even have worked.  But we live in a real, not mythical world and we need a real President.  Instead, we have Barack Hussein Obama.  I do not know who will lead us over the next four years, but I am pretty sure it won’t be Barack Obama.  Oh he may continue to play the role of President, but he won’t be leading anyone.

Unfortunately, our enemies figured this out long ago.  We are getting our butts kicked all over the globe.  Four years ago it was undisputed that this was the most powerful nation in the history of the world.  Today, that power is evaporating faster than Obama’s invisible wardrobe.  But all is not lost.  We are still the greatest nation and the greatest people in the history of the world and we will prevail.  Last week, in Boston, a group of fans at a hockey game showed the world that we are made of sterner stuff.  A man tried singing the national anthem, only to quickly discover that the fans had taken over.  He was smart enough to shut up and enjoy the ride.  The people of Boston and the citizens of the United States spoke with a loud clear voice.  The whole world heard them, even if Obama did not.

This country is a lot stronger than any one individual.  We have had lousy Presidents before.  We have often paid a heavy price for that mistake.  But in the end, I believe in the American dream and I definitely believe in the American people.  We will get through this.

I will never forget the sight of all those people in Boston running toward the bombs.  No one seemed to be in charge, yet somehow they instantly created order out of chaos.  Everyone who could do something got involved.  Some Army National Guard troops took over tearing down the barriers so the first responders could get to the wounded. Parade volunteers were pushing seriously injured people down the street in wheelchairs.  They didn’t wait for the Governor, or the Major or the President or anyone else to tell them what to do.  It was a beautiful thing and one of the most incredible demonstrations of raw courage I have ever seen.

It was one of our worst moments and one of our best moments.  No matter what happens now, the American people will come together and once again we will show the world why this country is so different.  There are better days ahead, but next time, let’s elect a real leader with real clothes.

Note:  When I wrote this last night, I hesitated to post because I thought it was unfair.  Then I read the following two articles today and laughed.  I am hardly alone in noticing this.   

Maureen Dowd reminded us that when liberal policies fail, as they always must, liberals turn on their leaders.  She never considers the possibility that the liberal position on gun control is the problem.  My guess is that she actually believes 90% of the country agrees with her.  Liberal ideology can never be the problem, so Obama must be the problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/dowd-president-obama-is-no-bully-in-the-pulpit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Then I saw this amusing article in The American Thinker.  An empty suit is only a small step up from being totally naked:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_tailor_who_sewed_the_obama_empty_suit_has_sewn_others.html

TDM

The following article is probably typical of what we will see from the main stream media in the future.  The headline:  Bombing motive: Far from obvious

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/chechnya-boston-marathon-bombing-90329.html?hp=t3_3

Actually, it is quite obvious.  They told us why they did this.  They are devout Muslims.  They were waging Jihad.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?

The main stream media will desperately try to find another reason for this horrible event.   The following article from the American Thinker has already identified the start of this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/the_lefts_spin_on_boston_marathons_chechen_terrorists.html

Salon.com published an article with the following incredible quote:

The Brothers Tsarnaev grew up in an environment of conflict and bloody violence, and are, therefore, victims. They are traumatized, not terrorists — at least, not terrorists who are motivated by their Muslim faith, even if that seems apparent. Even if it’s proven that they have links to Middle Eastern or other Muslim terrorist groups

Another example of this kind of thinking can be found in theweek.com:  The insanity of blaming Islam:

http://theweek.com/article/index/243051/the-insanity-of-blaming-islam#

The following quote is stunningly stupid: 

But when a white kid murders dozens of children, we don’t ask whether the predominant Christian religion in America somehow radicalized him, or whether his upbringing was somehow less American than anyone else’s. Stupid questions! Glad we don’t ask them.

Really?  I don’t exactly remember that white kid killing someone in the name of Jesus.  Do you?   Actually most of these guys turn out to be atheists.  If my memory is accurate, they are typically liberals and usually Democrats.  

The main stream media ignores that inconvenient fact because they are still desperately in search of a Tea Party connection.   They would come unglued with joy if someone nut case said he had voted for Sarah Palin.  If and when people start setting off bombs in the name of Christianity, then we can ask these questions.  But until then, this is just plain stupid.

If the politically correct police have their way we will continue ignoring the obvious while embracing the ridiculous.  We will ignore the fact that people are shouting Allahu Akbar and pretend this has nothing to do with Islam.  Please!

In summary, even though these guys were devout Muslims and even though they told us why they did this, it won’t matter.  Even if we find links to al Qaeda or other Muslim terrorists that won’t matter either.  What matters is that it is politically incorrect to link their radical Muslim faith with their decision to become terrorists.  If only they could have had the decency to be white Christians.

Jeremiah 5:21  “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding;
which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not”

TDM

President Obama has described this event as terrorism.  He learned his lesson on that one.  Odds are that he will still wonder what motivated two young men to do such a thing.  He may even spike the football saying that the criminals have been brought to justice, assuming we actually get the second killer.  We may even hear something like:  “the criminal justice system worked.” 

But the problem is that it didn’t.  It didn’t work because the terrorists were largely successful.  They managed to kill three people, injury more than 170 others and terrorize a nation.  That is the problem with the Obama approach to this subject.  We arrest people after they have completed their mission.

There is no mystery as to the motivation behind this attack.  They told us.  They are both devout Muslims.  They are both filled with hatred for anyone or anything that is not Muslim.  We have already know, that like a lot of other Muslim terrorists, there is an association with a radical Muslim cleric:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/459253/20130419/feiz-mohammad-tamerlan-tsarnaev-boston-marathon.htm

Odds are they were also motivated by the bomb instructions graciously published in “Inspire.”  That was the point of the article.

It should be no surprise to anyone that two brothers with this background turned out to be terrorists.  This is not exactly the first time something like this has happened.  So while the TSA was busy patting down 85 year old grandmothers along with infants in strollers at Boston Logan, no one seem to notice that two terrorisms were casually walking through the crowd at the Boston Marathon carrying backpacks loaded with bombs.

At first the main stream media was thrilled to learn that the terrorists are white.  They didn’t look like Muslim males, so the liberal left thought their prayers of a non-Muslim terrorist had been answered.

In the meantime the Tea Party was also active last night.  They were getting together to help the victims of that fertilizer plant explosion in Texas:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/18/Texas-Tea-Party-Groups-Unite-for-West-Explosion-Victims

It is easy to see why Janet Napolitano is so concerned about violence from what she calls right wing extremists.

I can pretty much guarantee that Janet Napolitano will declare that there is no evidence that this is part of some bigger plot.  I doubt that President Obama will even hint at a relationship with Islam.  I don’t know if they will do this because they are hopelessly naïve or because they are simply unwilling to tell the truth.  Some in the main stream media may even try to portray these two Muslim extremists as Russian freedom fighters, conveniently ignoring the Muslim connection. 

But the truth is there for all to see.  There is a segment of Islam that is radical and it is out to destroy the rest of us.  I am certain that most Muslims, particularly in the U.S. are peace loving people who are equally abhorred by these events.  We cannot and must not lump all Muslims into the same category.  But we must also not ignore the obvious reality that radical Muslim is most definitely a threat and we ignore that to our peril. 

TDM

There were reports that the FBI had a suspect and that this person had been arrested. Later, the FBI denied this. The only thing certain is that the situation is chaotic. This is becoming crazier by the minute. Social media sites are running non-stop videos where amateurs point out people they consider to be suspicious. If the situation wasn’t so serious this would be almost comical.

The liberal left is openly praying that this turns out to be some disgruntled white guy. In case you doubt that, read the following article published in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

If you check the upper right hand corner you see the following:

“Please don’t let it be a Muslim.”

I am sure there are a lot of other people praying this is not a white American. No one wants to be lumped in with the person or persons who did this. But all of them are missing a very obvious point. Regardless of who did this, it definitely links back to al Qaeda and to Muslim extremists. We already know what kinds of bombs were used. These bombs are quite common in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal and India. Al Qaeda has been happy to show anyone interested how to make these bombs. They gladly published this information in Inspire:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/16/al-qaeda-magazine-pressure-cooker-bomb-directions/2088109/
.
According to the following article from Time, there are “at least three other instances of would-be terrorists in the West, all of them Islamic radicals, in possession of pressure cookers for reasons that seems not to involve having friends over for dinner:”

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/16/a-short-history-of-pressure-cooker-bombs/

In summary, so far the people who used these types of bombs appear to be Muslim extremists so we shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what we find this time. Yet if you listen to CNN, MSNBC, ABC or CBS we should be looking for everyone else first. No one dares even suggest that this might possibly be another terrorist attack by Muslim extremists even though that is by far the most likely scenario. Obviously we should not rule out anything or anybody, but it is insane to ignore the obvious. It took me about five minutes on the internet to figure this out? Why is this so hard for the Obama administration?

To some extent, regardless of who did this, this is exactly what al Qaeda had in mind. If a white-supremacy group did the job, even better for them. Al Qaeda publishes instructions and then watches gleefully while someone else does their dirty work for them. Nice!

Neither President Obama nor Janet Napolitano can understand why someone would do this. Of course President Obama is still trying to figure the motive for Major Hassan killing all those people at Fort Hood. Apparently the fact that he was screaming Allahu Akbar was insufficient information for Obama to even consider that this might have something to do with Islam. So, for those of you who, like Obama, are still undecided, I include a link to a video showing a power point presentation by Major Hassan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcyCeB51L8A

So, what do you think? Is there any possible connection to Islam here?

One of the most disturbing stories to come out of the Boston Marathon massacre was with regard to this mysterious Saudi national apprehended at the scene. Apparently he was asked a couple of questions and then released. It appears as though the plan was to quickly and quietly ship him out of town because he was a national security risk. The following story from the Blaze is shocking. So far, no one appears to be disputing the facts in this story:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/18/report-saudi-national-ruled-out-as-suspect-in-boston-marathon-bombings-to-be-de

Thank God that Sean Hannity had the guts to broadcast this story and thank God Fox News let him do it. Sean Hannity can be quite annoying but he covers stories no one else dares touch. We also need to be thankful for Rep Jeff Duncan who confronted Janet Napolitano and may have stopped this emergency deportation in its tracks.

At a minimum we have a Saudi national with some very interesting contacts who was apprehended at the scene. He was close enough to the bomb to be injured. A high percentage of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Is all this just an accident of fate?

President Obama had an unscheduled meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister on Wednesday. Is it a coincidence that plans were implemented to quietly ship this guy out of the country?

It is really easy Mr. President. Muslim extremists are at war with us. Whether you like it or not, Muslim extremists are conducting terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. What, exactly, will it take before you figure this out for yourself? If you cannot acknowledge what is obviously true, how on earth can we trust you to handle the problem?

TDM

President Obama has tried to build selective outrage with regard to the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary massacre.  We are right to be outraged that a deranged individual slaughtered all those innocent children for no apparent reason.  But it is disgusting to see liberals exploit this tragedy to pass ineffective gun control legislation that is very unlikely to stop the next attack. What makes this even worse is the failure of anyone in the Obama administration or the liberal left to even comment on this horrid murder trial in Philadelphia.  WARNING!  The following article is very graphic and it is likely to make you physically ill:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20130409_Former_Gosnell_employee_testifies_that_problem_abortion__quot_really_freaked_me_out_quot_.html

Recently, on Brietbart.com, we learned even more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/10/media-Ignore-100-Born-Alive-Babies-NeckSnipped

The mainstream media, still running non-stop coverage of Sandy Hook, has pretty much ignored this story.  But the Sandy Hook massacre lasted only a few minutes, and I wonder if there was any way it could have been prevented.  Dr. Gosnell conducted his slaughter house for decades and he most certainly could have been stopped long ago.  Planned Parenthood is running a nationwide abortion program at least partially funded with tax payer dollars.  It is time to start telling the brutal truth about abortion.

Abortion is only morally acceptable only if you start with the premise that this is just the removal of some insignificant tissue.  The reality is that birth is a miracle of nature and both the baby and the mother are equally important.  The star of Roe vs. Wade, Norma Lean McCorvey delivered a beautiful baby daughter because abortion was illegal in Texas and the Roe vs. Wade decision came too late for her.

In her own book,  Won by Love she wrote the following:

I was sitting in O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. ‘Norma’, I said to myself, ‘They’re right’. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that’s a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception’. It wasn’t about ‘missed periods’. It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.^[3]

(For those of you who don’t know, “O.R.” is Operation Rescue.)

According to the National Right to Life Committee there have been over 50 million abortions in the 40 years since Roe vs. Wade.  Some may dispute the actual number, but by any count there have been far too many.

There are certainly times when it is hard to judge someone for choosing to have an abortion.  It is hard to tell a woman that has been raped that she must bear her assailant’s child.  It is impossible to tell a couple that they must continue a pregnancy even though the baby is horribly deformed and would have no chance of survival.  But while one may justify some abortions, how on earth can we justify 50 million of them?

There are also times when courageous women made a very different choice.  I have a friend who was born without arms.  I am certain that if this happened today, his mother would be strongly encouraged to consider abortion.  Who could blame her?  But she delivered that baby who obviously faced some very real challenges.  Thank God she did, because today we are blessed with a brilliant and charismatic man, a successful attorney and an inspiring friend.

Is it really much of a choice when a young girl is taken out of her high school class and driven to an abortion clinic for a quick procedure and returned home in time to avoid telling her parents?  A girl who is told this decision is easy and obvious?  A girl who is not told that this decision will destroy another human life?  How many of these girls will experience a Norma Leah McCorvey moment, years later, when they finally realize the reality of what was done?

For years we have covered up the true story of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.   She believed in “eugenics” which focused on improving society by selective breeding.  Actually it would be more accurate to say “selective non-breeding.”  Today Planned Parenthood proudly offers free and easy abortions for minority women.  This is exactly Margaret Sanger had in mind.  In case some of you think I am distorting her views, following is a link to a paper written by Margaret Sanger.  Judge for yourself:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

I challenge anyone who strongly supports free funding of abortions for minorities to read the following quote from this document without asking a very obvious question:  “Was this designed to help minorities, or to exterminate them?”

The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit”, admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

When you consider how many minority women have had abortions in this country since Roe vs. Wade, Margaret Sanger must be very proud.

I am heartbroken about the 20 innocent lives destroyed by one deranged individual in Connecticut.  I agree that we should all be outraged by this incident.  But we should be even more outraged at a society that condones over 50 million abortions because of a collective willingness to ignore the true value of a human fetus.

TDM

North Korea has already managed to embarrass President Obama and ultimately the United States.  North Korea knew that Obama would never have the guts to take any military action unless North Korea actually attacked.  Obama tried to appear tough by ordering the deployment of a stealth fighter and bomber to South Korea.  That sounds impressive except that it is obvious Obama is afraid to actually use them.  North Korea called Obama’s bluff and regardless of what happens now, the whole world knows that Obama backed down.  The following article from Frontpage does a good job of explaining this:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/americas-enemies-are-calling-obamas-bluff/

I do not know how this will end, but I can predict something.  The next time it will be worse.  Obama will be challenged again and again and each time the stakes will be higher.  What if North Korea really could hit us with a nuclear bomb?  Just give Obama four more years and we could find out.

Teddy Roosevelt believed in talking softly but carrying a big stick.  Obama believes in talking loudly and promising to throw away the stick at the first sight of conflict.  As soon as he came into power he started withdrawing our troops from Iraq, in return for nothing, and convinced himself this was victory.  Then he announced a surge in Afghanistan, while simultaneously promising to leave anyway regardless of results.  The results were predictable.  We are preparing to leave Afghanistan with our tail between our legs and we will be lucky if they don’t shoot at us on the way out.

No nation on this earth fears Barack Obama.  When you combine this with someone as incompetent as John Kerry in the role of Secretary of State it is beyond pathetic.  Foreign diplomats are probably being trained to control the giggles when dealing with either of these guys.  This reminds me of the two females who decided that flashing Vladimir Putin would have an impact.  It did.  He he admitted to enjoying the show.  Then he said:

“If someone wants to debate political questions, then it’s better to do it clothed rather than getting undressed.”

On the day when Margaret Thatcher died, perhaps one of her quotes describes Obama best:

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”
― Margaret Thatcher

Barack Obama likes to talk like he has game.  He doesn’t.  In a recent event he made a huge mistake of trying to shoot baskets in front of a camera.  He made 2 out of 22 baskets, from the free throw line.  If any of you have ever played basketball at any level, you know one thing for sure.  Barack Obama doesn’t have game.   Unfortunately, our enemies know that too. As a result, he just got stuffed by a country that can’t even figure out how to turn on the lights.  Since the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong-un, I guess we could say:  “Game Un!”

TDM

President Obama had a really bad awful week.  North Korea is literally threatening us with a nuclear attack.  While most experts don’t believe North Korea can actually do that, this is still pretty shocking.  To the best of my knowledge, no country, including Russia or China has ever threatened to launch a pre-emptive nuclear assault on the U.S.  This is probably because they didn’t want to risk the United States feeling justified to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own.  Now we have a mad man, with at least some nuclear capability, making exactly that threat. 

Obamacare is imploding even faster than I expected and I expected it to be really bad.  Even the liberal left is starting to use the “I” word: (“incompetent”).  Remember that liberals cannot fathom the possibility that their policies are wrong, so when the inevitable failure happens, they always turn on their leaders.  Obama is no exception to that.

Then to finish off the week, we got what just may be the worst job reports since the great depression.  This is so bad and so undeniably bad that the Obama administration was reduced to blaming this on the “sequester.   The sequester has replaced George Bush as the source of all problems in the world.  I guess Obama is hoping no one remembers it was his great idea in the first place.

Finally, he felt he had to apologize to Kamala Harris for calling her: “by far the best-looking attorney general,”     

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/obama-kamala-harris-pology_n_3022372.html

As for me, personally, I am far too blinded by her incompetence to even have an opinion regarding her physical appearance.  But come on.  Now you have to apologize for telling a woman you think she is attractive.  He didn’t say she was a sex symbol or anything like that.  He just said she was good looking.  I had to ask the obvious question.  What if he said she was ugly?  Would he have to apologize for that too?  This is a classic example of the politically correct police run amuck.  Oh by the way:  I don’t recall any instance where Obama was accused of saying that Michelle was beautiful.  In the meantime, the President who owes so many people an apology on so many levels, finally did apologize about something.

Regardless of how you spin it, Obama looks weak and incompetent.  Listen carefully to the main stream media and all those pundits.  Notice what is missing lately.  No one, and I mean NO ONE, thinks Obama has any of the answers.  They continue to blame George Bush and the Republicans, which is to be expected, but they no longer believe in the myth of Obama.

Watch for senior democrats, including Joe Biden, start to quietly take over.  Biden is already doing that with regard to some issues.  It was Biden who intervened and negotiated the temporary settlement with regard to the fiscal cliff.  We are going to see more and more issues resolved without the participation of Barack Obama.  He is rapidly on his way to becoming the weakest lame duck President in history.

TDM

When George W. Bush ran for President he promised to do everything possible to build the NMD, the national missile defense system.  The following article describes the opposition to this decision:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/opinion-polls/ballistic-missiles/americans-back-deeper-cuts.html

The Rumsfeld Commission issued a report in 1998, while Bill Clinton was President that now seems eerily prophetic:

Concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies. These newer, developing threats in North Korea, Iran and Iraq are in addition to those still posed by the existing ballistic missile arsenals of Russia and China, nations with which the United States is not now in conflict but which remain in uncertain transitions. The newer ballistic missile-equipped nations’ capabilities will not match those of U.S. systems for accuracy or reliability. However, they would be able to inflict major destruction on the U.S. within about five years of a decision to acquire such a capability (10 years in the case of Iraq). During several of those years, the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made.

Liberals dismissed this as nonsense.  Their plan was to wait until we knew for sure someone was building a threat, then we would make a mad dash to build a defense system.  Rumsfeld pointed out, correctly, that we might not get five years notice.  In addition, five years might not be enough. 

When George W Bush announced his decision to pursue NMD, Democrats were opposed 56% to 41%, while Republicans supported it 60% to 37%.

Al Gore was opposed to NMD.  He was in the class of people who wanted to wait and then build a smaller, more efficient system:

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Defense.htm

I strongly believe that if Al Gore had been elected President in 2000 he would have significantly cut spending for NMD.

I favor an effort to develop a limited missile defense system and not a massive “star wars” system because our country will probably face a new threat later in this decade from a small arsenal of relatively unsophisticated ICBMs in the hands of a rogue state. [Bush’s proposed] much larger, space-based star wars approach is far more difficult to design and build, far more expensive to purchase, less likely to work, and is calculated to destroy existing arms control arrangements with the Russians.   

This would have been consistent with the Clinton administration who was afraid to cancel the program outright, but who instead tried to back burner it:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_09/clintonnmd

President Bill Clinton announced September 1 that he would not proceed with deployment of the planned limited national missile defense (NMD). Speaking at Georgetown University, the president highlighted concerns about the system’s technology, which he described as “not yet proven,” and diplomatic opposition to the missile defense, including close NATO allies, as reasons behind his decision. The president said he believed his action, which will leave an NMD deployment decision to the next administration, was in “the best security interest of the United States.”

Fortunately for everyone, George W. Bush, not Al Gore, was elected President of the United States in 2000 and he was determined to build the NMD.  In a major speech on May 1, 2001, Bush outlined the danger:

Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.

He boldly announced that the United States would withdraw from the obsolete ABM treaty:

We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today’s threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.

His decision to put maximum effort to develop the NMD was met with withering criticism from top Democrats.

Senator Joe Biden scoffed at some future threat from North Korea.  He thought it “specious” to believe that: 

one day [North Korean President] Kim Jong-il or someone will wake up one morning and say, �Aha, San Francisco!’

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening.

Senator Tom Daschle was convinced that:

the president may be buying a lemon here. I don’t know how you support the deployment of a program that doesn’t work.

Senator John Kerry thought this would just set off another arms race:

“If you can’t shoot down 100% of them [incoming missiles], you haven’t gotten rid of mutually assured destruction. And if you can, you set off an arms race to develop a capacity that can’t be touched by a missile defense system.”

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said that:

By announcing his intent to move forward with as yet unproven, costly and expansive national missile defense systems, the President is jeopardizing an arms control framework that has served this nation and the world well for decades.

As soon as President Obama was elected he changed focus with regard to the NMD.  The following article from the Council on Foreign Relations explains this:

http://www.cfr.org/defense-strategy/national-missile-defense-status-report/p18792

Since the election of President Barack Obama, however, the future of anti-missile defense has grown less certain (Arms Control Association). The Obama administration has framed its national missile defense strategy with the caveat that continued support will be contingent on pragmatic and cost-effective technological advances and will “not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.” Missile defense experts interpret these statements to suggest the pace of development will slow (CQ), since the technologies have repeatedly failed in field tests.

This was a return to the Clinton doctrine of pretending to develop a NMD system while actually slowing down the pace of development.  Democrats never want to admit that are opposed to the NMD, they just seem to find one excuse after another to never actually implement it.

According to Forbes, Obama severely cut back the deployment of the NMD:

Reversing an earlier Obama administration decision, the Pentagon has now budgeted $1 billion to expand our West Coast-based missile defense system. Newly-appointed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has announced plans to deploy 14 more ground-based long-range missile interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska by 2017. This will supplement the 30 already existing on the West Coast. The reasoning he offered was: “The United States has missile defense systems in place to protect us from limited ICBM attacks…but North Korea in particular has recently made advances in its capabilities and is engaged in a series of irresponsible and reckless provocations.”

The U.S. could have already had those 14 more interceptors in place, along with another 10 in Europe next year.  The Bush administration deployed the first ground-based interceptor (GBI) in 2004, and had planned to deploy a total of 54. In 2009, Obama pulled the plug on that plan, and cut GBI deployment to just 30.

President Obama also mothballed or killed several other missile defense development programs. This included a scale-back of the Airborne Laser program to enable enemy missile interceptions during their early launch phase, along with the elimination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor which uses small warheads on a single rocket to handle decoys and offer a better chance of success. Obama’s 2010 defense budget cut $1.4 billion from the Missile Defense Agency.

North Korea has launched a three stage missile that put an object in orbit.  Obviously if you can put something in orbit, you can reach anywhere in the world.  That, unfortunately, includes the U.S.  It is important to understand that this would not need to be very accurate.  Many experts claim that the detonation of a relatively small nuclear weapon designed to deliver an EMP explosion at high altitude over the United States has the potential to inflict devastating damage.  It also doesn’t have to involve several missiles.  One lucky shot would do an unbelievable amount of damage.

If we had listened to people like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt odds are pretty high that we wouldn’t have much of a defense at all.  Now President Obama is declaring that if North Korea launches a missile we can defend ourselves.  I hope he is right.  If he is, then he better get down on his knees and thank God for the wisdom, courage and determination of George W. Bush. 

At the moment, it looks like North Korea is planning to launch at least one and possible more missiles.  They have launched “test” missiles in the past.  But the problem is that they time they claim they are going to attack us with a nuclear weapon.  If the U.S. did not think there was any risk, then why move missile defense facilities to South Korea and Guam.  Why suddenly rush to install 14 more ground interceptors?  If we move real quick, we can have them up and running by 2017.  I’m sure North Korea will be willing to wait.   

What if there is any chance, no matter how small, that North Korea could deliver a nuclear weapon to explode in our upper atmosphere.  Can we risk any chance of that happening?  Is the administration willing to let North Korea launch a missile and hope it is either aimed someplace else, or hope it is just a test, or hope it doesn’t really have a nuclear warhead?  What if we try to shoot it down and miss?   

What if they launch a missile, it appears to be a genuine threat, but it malfunctions or we shoot it own.  Do we just ignore this and express outrage? 

What if we launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea and destroy those sites before anything can be launched.  That would pretty much eliminate the threat of a nuclear assault, but at what cost?  That could easily set off another Korean War.  North Korea has thousands of artillery units ready, willing and able to wreak havoc on the Seoul metropolitan area.  Many experts predict that such a conflict could end up costing over 1 million casualties.  When you add in the factor of China building up troops on the North Korean border, this is a very serious situation.

I don’t know if there is a good answer.  The only thing I know is this.  We all owe President Bush a huge debt of gratitude.  In spite of overwhelming opposition from the cultured elite and the liberal left, Bush ordered the NMD and he pushed for it every day of his Presidency.  Thanks to George W. Bush, we have options.  If we had listened to Democrats we probably wouldn’t have any options at all.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will figure that out.

 TDM