Thread: "Obamanation."

Obama & His "Transparent" Administration

Tim Brown








Walk this transparent criminal out of office!!!!!

Is Obama’s goal to degrade, defeat and destroy America?

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...stroy-america/



Is Obama’s goal to degrade, defeat and destroy America? - Sons of Liberty Media

sonsoflibertymedia.com
Is Obama’s goal to degrade, defeat and destroy America?

Is Obama’s goal to degrade, defeat and destroy America?

Published on: September 9, 2014

Thomas Sowell writes perceptively that President Obama’s actions are easy to understand and explain once you figure out that his real goal is to harm the United States.
He suggests that folks who think that Obama has “no clear vision and no clear strategy for dealing with ISIS…may be mistaken.” In his view, Obama does in fact have a strategy, a strategy which is informed by a clear vision: to do whatever he can to hurt America while appearing to help her and while preserving his own political viability.
He wants to give people the illusion that he is actually providing leadership for the United States while he systematically goes about undermining its values and draining it of its strength.
There is no way to understand whether Obama is succeeding or failing, Sowell says, unless you know what he is trying to accomplish. If his goal is to protect American interests, “he has been a monumental failure.”

Ah, but what if his goal, his mission, his purpose is NOT to “protect the safety and interests of the United States,” but to weaken her and make her more vulnerable? If that is his target, he is a screaming success.
If you start from the assumption that Barack Obama wanted to advance America’s interests, this is truly an unbelievable record of failure. But what is there in Obama’s background that would justify the assumption that America’s best interests are his goal?
He has, from childhood on, been mentored by, or allied with, people hostile to the United States and to American values. His mentors and allies have all been very much like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, even if they were not as flamboyant.
Barack Obama has succeeded in reducing America’s military strength while our adversaries are increasing theirs, and reducing our credibility and influence with our allies. That is completely consistent with his vision of how the world ought to be, with the West taken down a peg and humbled.
In other words, if Obama’s mission in life is to be the agent of God’s wrath on America, to punish us for our racism, our greed, our colonialism, then he is doing splendidly. He has the reverse Midas touch: everything he handles turns to powder, whether it’s the economy, marriage policy, national security policy, immigration policy, education policy, welfare policy, health care policy, or our standing in the world.
It is impossible to cite one single instance in which the United States is better off having Barack Obama as our president. The litany of harms he has done to this country, on the other hand, is long, tragic and horrifying, and in many cases will require decades to repair.
Sowell’s question is a good one: what if all that isn’t a result of mere ineptitude, but rather a matter of intentional and malevolent design?
In other words, what if his real goal is not to degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS, but to degrade, defeat and destroy the United States of America? May God help us, and may God have mercy on his soul.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...6XEdo2rg5RZ.99



I don't know what do you think???? He isn't normal is he??At every turn he shows how much he hates our Country, why is he still there who works with him?????? He needs to be walked out of the WH, along with the other traitors who are working with him, MY OPINION OF COURSE!!!!

The same politician who came into office stating that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and who as recently as last year was lobbying Congress to repeal the Sept. 14, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), is using the very same AUMF as its legal justification for the new Iraq/Syria war.


Obama’s B.S. Justification for His Illegal War: the 2001 AUMF
reason.com
Over at The Daily Beast, national security reporter Eli Lake analyzes the are-you-effin'-kidding-me news that the same politician who came into office





Obama’s B.S. Justification for His Illegal War: the 2001 AUMF

Matt Welch|

Sep. 11, 2014 10:59 am

Over at The Daily Beast, national security reporter Eli Lake analyzes the are-you-effin'-kidding-me news that the same politician who came into office stating plainly that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and who as recently as last year was lobbying Congress to repeal the Sept. 14, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on grounds that it may lead to a "perpetual war," is using the very same AUMF as its legal justification for the new Iraq/Syria war. Excerpt:

Obama's using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others' throats. Legal experts were shocked [....]
"On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States," said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it's hard to make that argument." [...]
"I think they are going to get more heat for this implausible interpretation of the 2001 AUMF than they realize," said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who served as assistant attorney general at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004.
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution, said the legal argument was a "very thin reed."
"If they are relying on the 2001 AUMF for this, then what the president is saying is, essentially: This war, like all wars, must end; we can't have endless wars; stop me before I sin again," he added. [...]
Wittes said that he took an expansive view of what would constitute associated forces for the 2001 AUMF. But he observed, "Surely associated forces doesn't mean forces that are actively hostile and have publicly broken with and been repudiated by al Qaeda. Whatever 'associated' means, I don't think it means that."
One Obama administration official said the argument that the new war is legal under the 2001 AUMF stems from the fact that ISIS began as a franchise of al Qaeda.

For those anti-Bush multilateralist Democrat types, Lake also points out that the war violates the United Nations Charter as well. Whole article here; you may also re-consult Lake’s prescient 2010 Reason piece on "The 9/14 Presidency."
The aforementioned Jack Goldsmith also has Time column out titled "Obama's Breathtaking Expansion of a President's Power To Make War." The sharp lead paragraph:

Future historians will ask why George W. Bush sought and received express congressional authorization for his wars (against al Qaeda and Iraq) and his successor did not. They will puzzle over how Barack Obama the prudent war-powers constitutionalist transformed into a matchless war-powers unilateralist. And they will wonder why he claimed to "welcome congressional support" for his new military initiative against the Islamic State but did not insist on it in order to ensure clear political and legal legitimacy for the tough battle that promised to consume his last two years in office and define his presidency.

Goldsmith link comes via the Twitter feed of former Obama-administration Pentagon employee Rosa Brooks, which is filled with piss and vinegar about the choices by her former boss.
After the jump, if you have an iron stomach, are some comments the president made last year about repealing the AUMF.

[T]he choices we make about war can impact -- in sometimes unintended ways -- the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands.

Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine and co-author with Nick Gillespie of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, now out in paperback with a new foreword.
Follow Matt Welch on Twitter

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/11/ob...s-illegal#fold

Congressman Amash: Obama is Operating ‘Contrary to the Constitution’ - Tea Party News
teaparty.org
(TPNN) – Most if not all in the Tea Party movement know that only Congress can constitutionally “declare war.” It’s simply and specifically spelled out without any ambiguity in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Almost immediately following the Obama ISIS speech, Congressman Justin Amash, fresh off an overwhelming victory over a GOP ...




Congressman Amash: Obama is Operating ‘Contrary to the Constitution’


Share this Tweet this Google +
September 11, 2014 10:18 am

• Obama Nation

(TPNN) – Most if not all in the Tea Party movement know that only Congress can constitutionally “declare war.” It’s simply and specifically spelled out without any ambiguity in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Almost immediately following the Obama ISIS speech, Congressman Justin Amash, fresh off an overwhelming victory over a GOP establishment-backed opponent, took to his popular Facebook page to remind Americans that neither Obama, nor any other president, has the authority to declare war, especially not a prolonged one.
Rep. Amash, who gave an epic victory speech that deconstructed the crony capitalist-funded GOP establishment following his primary victory last month, claimed that Obama leaked to news outlets that the war against ISIS would last at least three years, after Obama has left office.
SPECIAL: Make Barack Hussein Obama pay for his crimes against America. How much are you willing to take before you stand up and do something? This is your opportunity to be a true Patriot. Support the Tea Party Constitution Fund.
Congressman Amash, who represents Michigan’s 3rd congressional district, listed several additional questions following Obama’s ISIS, or as Obama refers to them as “ISIL.”

When our government orders our young men and women into harm’s way, our leaders have a duty to define the mission, set a plausible strategy, and explain why the risk of our children’s lives and our citizens’ resources is justified. President Obama has failed to fulfill those obligations.
The president boldly claimed, contrary to the Constitution, that he alone can order our Armed Forces into a protracted war. And he left unanswered the basic questions responsible Americans and their representatives must ask before going to war.
Whom, specifically, will the mission target and what, specifically, is the threat to our homeland?
For how long do we expect to put our young people’s lives at risk? The administration leaked to newspapers Wednesday morning that Americans must prepare for at least a three-year war, long after the president has left office. In his address, the president did not limit his proposed war to even that time frame.
Who are our partners and what resources will they commit? Will the president stop our military involvement at air strikes regardless of how our allies are faring?
Which rebel groups does the president intend to arm in Syria and Iraq? How do we know that those weapons won’t be turned against us and our allies?
When will we have accomplished our objectives? After we’ve successfully occupied northern Iraq and installed a more functional government? After the United States has done the same in Syria? Does this disregard the lessons we should have learned from the president’s war in Libya or the previous war in Iraq?
Before risking our young people’s lives, the president must analyze the serious actions he proposes our country take. He must engage the public in a frank assessment of the objectives and grave risks. The Constitution and the American people demand it.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/10/congr...-constitution/

Share this Tweet this Google +

- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/congressman-....pudiEVqa.dpuf

Obama Claims ISIS Is Not Islamic

Posted on September 11, 2014 by Frank Camp

“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.” – P.D. James
Political correctness is like the toxoplasma gondii parasite; it infects its host and dangerously alters its behavior. In the case of political correctness, a rational—and more importantly, realistic—worldview is changed for the benefit of another’s feelings. Political correctness tells us that the truth is too offensive, or cruel to speak, and that we must be sensitive. But sometimes sensitivity blinds us to the reality of our cultural experience, which directly or indirectly endangers us.
In his speech yesterday regarding the radical Islamic terrorist organization ISIS, president Obama said many things, but one thing in particular left me stunned.
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic…No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”
According to the president, ISIS is not Islamic. Doesn’t that sound so warm, culturally sensitive, and nuanced? What an urbane, and prudent man, Obama is. His rationale? The fact that ISIS condones murder, but also the fact that many of ISIS’ victims have been fellow Muslims. You read that correctly. Because ISIS kills Muslims, they cannot possibly be truly Islamic. Let’s talk about that.

ISIS is made up of Sunni Muslims, and many of the Muslims they are killing are Shiite. To the Sunnis, Shiite Muslims are infidels, and are therefore a target. According to Alissa J. Rubin of The New York Times:
“ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam…In a chilling video that appeared to have been made more than a year ago in the Anbar Province of Iraq, ISIS fighters stopped three truck drivers in the desert and asked them whether they were Sunnis or Shiites. All three claimed to be Sunni. Then the questions got harder. They were asked how they performed each of the prayers: morning, midday and evening. The truck drivers disagreed on their methods, and all were shot.”
Regardless of what you believe about Islam in general, the fact that Muslims are murdering other Muslims does not preclude those doing the killing from being Muslim. And Obama is a moron for saying so and thinking the public will believe him.
Next, let’s talk about the whole “no religion condones the killing of innocents” thing. Obama is either deliberately spreading misinformation, or he is bafflingly stupid. The Quran is filled with passages which command the execution of infidels (otherwise known as non-Muslims).
Quran 5:33 “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.”
Quran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
Those are just two of dozens, and dozens of versus in the Quran advocating the killing of infidels. There are peaceful Muslims in the world, certainly, but there are those who take the Quran quite literally, and they are the ones fighting this war. Radical Muslims are no less Muslim because they practice violence. In fact, one could argue that they are more devout, because they follow more closely to the Quran.
Additionally, Obama shows his foolishness when he describes the victims of ISIS as “innocents.” To ISIS, non-Sunni Muslims are not innocents, they are infidels, and enemies of Allah. The radicals in ISIS are not killing innocents; they are killing their enemies, whom they believe to be apostates, and evil doers.
Since the beginning of his presidency, when he gave his we’re-all-in-this-together speech in Cairo, Barack Obama has been terrified of labeling radical Islamic terrorism. As his presidency has progressed (I hesitate to use that word), he has evolved, entering into even more treacherous territory. Remember when Obama “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” during his speech to the UN? Now, with his latest denial of the linkage between Islam, and terror, he has taken political correctness to a frightening level.
The longer Obama denies that radical Islam is the root of modern terrorism, the more power we give to radical Islam. Not only is it a disservice to those who have fought, and died to say that the terror we face isn’t based in radical Islam, it’s a denial that leads us away from fighting the root of the problem. If we don’t recognize the intent of the radical Islamists, which is to wipe us out, and create a modern caliphate, we won’t be able to defeat them. Instead, we will try to negotiate our way out of the problem. But you cannot negotiate with someone who has no intent to cooperate.
Obama’s denial that ISIS is inherently Islamic is not only completely untrue, but hazardous to our safety as a nation. Given the absolute stupidity of Obama’s statement, it’s safe to say that he is either stunningly incompetent, or just a flat out liar. Either way, he is doing the United States quite a bit of harm.



Read more at http://lastresistance.com/7235/obama...I1jV5t9ODdv.99

Obama and Biden After Calling Out ISIS 

Judge: Founding Fathers Turning in Graves at Obama's 'Unconstitutional, Murderous' Behavior




Tea Party


Published on Sep 12, 2014
Judge: Founding Fathers Turning in Graves at Obama's 'Unconstitutional, Murderous' Behavior

• Category
  
  • News & Politics
  
  

SHOCKING Demonic Photos of Obama!

President's true form revealed

by Infowars.com | September 13, 2014
Viral photos show Obama with multiple ‘devil horns’ during his recent speech on ISIS.




Published on Sep 13, 2014
Viral photos show Obama with multiple 'devil horns' during speech on ISIS.

Reason

Shared publicly - 6:40 AM

Is the White House planning to run this war directly as LBJ did in Vietnam?



The Unlawfulness of Obama's ISIS Plan
Reason

Apparently Obama does not consider bombs an act of offensive warfare.