Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

17 December 2015

In Rubio World, Ronald Reagan Would Be An 'America-Firster' Isolationist

So, now, Marco Rubio and his Alinskyite-like flying monkeys are claiming that Senator Ted Cruz is an Isolationist because he doesn't want to bomb the world and is the new Charles Lindbergh because he believes that America's interests should be our first and foremost concern relative to foreign policy and national security.

OK. Marco, I'll play along. Perhaps, Cruz is some crypto-Isolationist and Fascist-sympathising 'America Firster'. (Did you have to call every one of your opponents a Fascist? That's typically a crutch used by the Left. Foreign Policy Aide to Senator Marco Rubio Calls Trump A 'Fascist')

How many countries did Reagan invade?

One, Grenada. There was widespread support for the invasion and a bipartisan congressional investigation determined that the invasion was indeed justified because of the danger that the revolutionaries posed to American students located near a disputed airport.  Even the über partisan Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill (D-MA), came to support and defend the mission.  The anniversary of the invasion, 25 October 1983, is now a national holiday.  It is called Thanksgiving Day.

One short invasion into a small Caribbean country and, yet, Reagan is still credited with leading the effort to defeat the Soviet Union.  How could the Soviet Union possibly have fell without invading every country on the planet??? That's impossible! /

Reagan didn't send battalions into Central America, conduct airstrikes on Cuba, intervene in civil wars in Africa, or seek an Authorisation for Use of Military Force from Congress in order to intervene in the Soviet-Afghan war by putting American boots on the ground to fight alongside the Mujahideen.  He also didn't employ American military force in pursuance of little, purple unicorns...

'Let's intervene in Libya. There might be a humanitarian disaster brewing (or a payoff for Sid Vicious Blumenthal described in an email on the Secretary of State's homebrew server). It will be easy. We came, we saw, he died. What's that loud vacuum sound? Why is there no civil society with ordered liberty in Libya now? I mean, we liberated them. Why are elements of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the country. Why is our Consulate in Benghazi on fire and our Ambassador, along with 3 other Americans, dead? Why is ISIS now controlling growing parts of western Libya? Why didn't anyone see this coming? Why are we, the bestest and the greatestest minds in the history of the world, always having to suffer under fools, knaves, and idiots? I guess we are going to have to clean house again in the intelligence community.  They keep fucking up our beautiful plans, which would certainly work if the stupid spooks could organise a two-car funeral.'

He also didn't suffer the delusional fantasies of today's neo-cons...

'...Having said that, I think basically for the last three or four weeks the skeptics have been proven to be too skeptical. The naysayers who said it could never happen, it's going to be violent, his departure would mean the Muslim Brotherhood taking over or total chaos in the streets of Egypt, they have been proven wrong. And the notion that the Egyptian people have managed to pull off this democratic, peaceful removal of a dictator, and now have a seemingly a pretty stable situation in the streets of Cairo and the other big cities, with the guarantee or at least a promise of a transition to free and fair elections and no real sense that those elections are -- yet that the elections are going to go in some terrible direction for the U.S. or for Egypt itself.
I think this may be a case where the normal worldly pessimism is too pessimistic and the normal cynicism is too cynical, and one has a right to actually be hopeful about these developments in Egypt."

- Bill Kristol, Fox News Sunday, 13 February 2011

Reagan drew red lines and the world knew that he would not erase them.  But, rather than engaging in Wilsonian neo-realpolitik - making the world safe for democracy and spreading it to every corner of the planet through the use of force and nation-building, for example, he was smart enough to 'look into Putin's Gorbachev's eyes and see his soul'...and then tell him 'here's the deal', and walk out at Reykjavík when Gorby made the mistake of thinking he was bluffing.

Reagan would be called an 'Isolationist' today by people like Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator McCain, President Barack Obama, Mrs Clinton, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Jennifer Rubin.  He, too, had an 'America...and her allies...First' foreign policy.  He didn't use military force in every situation, intervene in every conflict, liberate people who were unwilling to, at least, join in the fight, constantly violate the Pottery Barn Rule, and attempt to impose by force Western-style democracy in regions that either had no history with that form of government or had seen thousands of years of tyranny, sectarianism, conflict, and instability.

What today's neo-cons refuse to understand and Reagan clearly did is:

1. You cannot impose democracy upon a people, who are unwilling to fight to liberate themselves, have no or a weak civil society, and lack the understanding of or willingness to embrace ordered liberty.  No amount of nation-building will succeed where the fundamental foundations are absent.
2. You cannot remake the world in your delusional image, especially through military force.  Foreign policy should and must be driven by concerns that have a serious impact on American interests or national security or those of our allies.  We can neither be the world's policeman or the world's saviour.  Yes, we must exhibit strong leadership, but that doesn't mean that we have an obligation to intervene in civil wars or save every widow and child stuck in the middle of warring factions.

A question for the 'Cruz is an Isolationist' bunch:
What are your criteria for use of American military force? Should the US have intervened in the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? If so, upon whose side? What would have been the American national interest?  Should the US put boots on the ground in Sri Lanka or Burundi? What is the limiting principle of your foreign policy?
Another question: 

Why should Americans expend their blood, sweat, tears, lives, limbs, and dollars fighting to liberate a country from a dictator when the fighting age men of that same country can’t be bothered? In fact, they have so little interest in the future of their own country that they fled to the ‘welfare paradises’ of Northern Europe leaving their grandmothers, mothers, wives, sisters, aunts, cousins, and children behind to, somehow, survive without any income and little food whilst dodging the weaponry of Assad, ISIS, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the US-led ‘coalition’, Russia, and the new Saudi-led ‘Arab coalition’.

Throughout Eastern Europe, there are statues of Ronald Reagan in cities, towns, and villages. People still talk about him with unfettered gratitude. Parents named their sons after him.  They are grateful because he fought FOR THEM AND ALONGSIDE THEM.  He didn’t try to impose anything on them. They both shared the same goal. He didn’t reduce their countries to rubble and then occupy them for decades with tens of thousands of troops engaging in nation-building. They rebuilt their own governments, societies, economies, and countries - often with the requested help of their friend and ally, the United States.  

Reagan, along with Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and the millions of people living under the iron fist of tyranny, defeated Communism without starting World War III.

Reagan didn’t need to intervene in every conflict to defeat the Soviet Union.

Reagan didn’t need to use the military to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty.

Reagan didn’t need to bomb every county, depose every despot, and create evermore dire humanitarian crises in order to help free hundreds of millions of people living under Moscow’s iron thumb or its anointed tinpot dictators throughout the world.

Reagan didn’t need a Hot War to win the Cold War.

In Rubio World, that would make Reagan an ISOLATIONIST.

Reagan had a strategy for defeating the Soviet Union: ‘WE WIN. THEY LOSE.'

In Rubio World, I guess that would make Ronald Wilson Reagan just like Charles Lindbergh or something.


So many attempts at revisionism and mischaracterisation going on with this...and other charges coming from the Rubio campaign.

'Ted Cruz is an ISOLATIONIST and doesn't support the military or care about national security because he voted against the NDAA!11!!'

Yes, Cruz voted against the NDAA...because it gave President Obama the power to arrest and detain American CITIZENS without due process and even the access to counsel.  I would have voted against it, too.  Back at the time the news of the provision in the NDAA broke, most of the Right was up in arms about it.  If they had voted against the NDAA because it fundamentally violated the constitutional and civil rights of American citizens, would they have all been considered Isolationists, who didn't support the military and couldn't give a shit about national security? C'mon.

'Ted Cruz doesn't support Israel or the Iron Dome because he voted against the NDAA!!! He must be anti-semitic!!11!'

Yeah, sure. The guy, who wants to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem and said this is against Israel and hates DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS or something:

'I am saddened to see that some here, not everyone, but some here, are so consumed with hate… If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.' 

– Senator Ted Cruz before walking off the stage after being booed by a Middle Eastern group for supporting Israel

As for this immigration brouhaha, there are two absolute known truths here:

1. Marco Rubio, not Ted Cruz, was a member of the Gang of 8.

2. Marco Rubio has flip-flopped numerous times on legalisation and a pathway to citizenship. 

* As Speaker of the House in Florida, he supported both.
* As a candidate for the Republican senatorial nomination in Florida against Charlie Crist and then in the general election, he opposed both.
* As a member of the Gang of 8, he supported both.
* Now, after the latest debate, he either opposes both or supports only legalisation 'down the road.'

When it comes to the Flip-Flopping Olympics, Marco Rubio only slightly loses out to John Kerry.

Since he's now suddenly all concerned about truth, consistency, character, and integrity, Make Marco Rubio Eat His Own Words... 

14 December 2015

Bibi Won't Kiss The Ring, So The White House Throws A Pity, Piss, & Diss Party!


The piece, written by the magazine’s editor in chief, David Remnick, quotes “American officials” who describe Netanyahu as “myopic, entitled, untrustworthy, routinely disrespectful toward the president, and focused solely on short-term political tactics to keep his right-wing constituency in line.” 
The piece goes on to describe the “sources of Kerry’s exasperation with Netanyahu.” Quoting State Department aides, it says these “range from the injustice of settlement building in the West Bank to the way he employs Yitzhak Molcho, his lawyer and confidant, to stifle even the most inconsequential negotiation.”… 
Kerry, writes Remnick, “believes that Israel, along with the occupied territories, is headed toward becoming a ‘unitary state that is an impossible entity to manage.’ He is particularly concerned, he said, that the Palestinian Authority could collapse; that, in the event, “the P.A.’s thirty thousand security officers would scatter; and that chaos and increasingly violent clashes with Israel would follow.”

Sounds like Netanyahu pretty much nailed Obama.

Myopic? 'My containment strategy of the JV team is working fine and I'm not changing anything.'

Entitled? Lolz. 'Sit in the back of the bus.' 'Enemies.' 'For those that voted on Tuesday, I heard you. For the twice as many that didn't, I heard you, too.' 'It's the right thing to do!' 'The American people have no say in the matters of Iran, refugees, and the climate deal.' 'I have a pen and a phone.'

Untrustworthy? 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' 'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' 'My parents met at Selma and I'm the result.' 'I watched my mother suffer for a year and die because she didn't have health insurance.' 'That's a red line for me. That would change my calculus.' 'Your premiums will go down $2,500 a year.' 'Your premiums will go down 3000% a year.' 'A disgusting YouTube video is responsible for the murders of four brave Americans.' 

Disrespectful?  'The United States should interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations...unless they are Honduras, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Canada, Britain, Estonia, Ukraine, etc.' 'I won.' 

And, whose community organising administration called a war hero a 'CHICKENSHIT'?  That CHICKENSHIT could kicked the Mom Jeans-wearing SJW's bony ass anyday.

The ironic thing is that Bibi is hardly the only leader in the world that believes this of Obama.  In fact, many do.  Obama lives in a very isolated bubble filled with sycophants, who tell him that he is the greatest thing since The Messiah God and the smartest, wisest, and most fantastic human being to ever have walked the Earth. He is never wrong. Everyone else is either a Neanderthal or not as Enlightened as he. With one hand tied behind his back, he could CRUSH a TEAM of Garry Kasparov, Deep Blue, Vladimir Kramnik, and Magnus Carlsen at 9,875,463 dimensional chess...BLINDFOLDED!!!

No one tells him what he doesn't want to hear and, the few that have are quickly shown the door.  He holds 'the goods' on people in order to get them to go along with whatever he wants.

He has very few relationships with people within his own Party. Some Democrats in Congress have never spoken to him. If he wants something, he usually has an underling call to twist their arms. Even amongst long-serving and those in leadership have said that there is no closeness between them and Barack Obama.  Like Stepford Wives, they do whatever he wants and hope/pray for a pat on the head or a handshake as he makes his rockstar entry into the SOTU.

BHO, KMA: (_*_)

FIRSTLY, read their own words:



The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on 18 August 1988. The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS, is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the territories under Israeli control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive Manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War).  The following are excerpts of the HAMAS Covenant:

Goals of the HAMAS:

'The Islamic  Resistance  Movement  is  a  distinguished  Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and  whose  way  of  life  is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.' (Article 6)

On the Destruction of Israel:

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)

The Exclusive Moslem Nature of the Area:

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.' (Article 11)
'Palestine is an Islamic land...  Since  this  is  the  case,  the Liberation of Palestine  is  an  individual  duty  for  every  Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)

The Call to Jihad:

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15) 
'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'.  This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.' (Article 33)

Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:

'[Peace] initiatives,   and   so-called   peaceful   solutions   and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

'Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle [against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement.  The Zionists are  trying  to  draw  other  Arab  countries  into  similar agreements in order to bring them outside  the  circle  of  struggle....Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism  is  high  treason, and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.' (Article 32)

Anti-Semitic Incitement:

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)
'The enemies have been scheming for a long time  ...  and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most   of   the revolutions we hear about... With  their  money  they  formed  secret organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions  - which are spreading around the world, in order to  destroy  societies and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I  ... and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.' (Article 22)
'Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet Expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River.  When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.' (Article 32)
'The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.' (Article 32)

Do those words sound like they come from people those want two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace?

SECONDLY, in 2000, at Camp David, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (Nazi sympathiser, terrorist, embezzler, fraud, and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate), Yasser Arafat, 99% of everything that he wanted and, as usual, the Palestinians made their intentions clear:

لا! أبدا!

They are not now nor have they ever been interested in a two-state solution. 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!' What the hell do people think that means?

Arafat's Special Police Forces give Nazi salutes, 9 May 2006

THIRDLY, Israel has repeatedly accepted the Two-State Solution.

In 1947, the U.N. voted to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, in light of its recognition that both Jews and Arabs had legitimate claims to the land. The proposed partition included three areas: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally administered zone in Jerusalem. The Jewish population accepted, and reaffirmed their intention to coexist peacefully with the Arabs living in the area; the Arab population refused, and responded with riots and violence. 
When Israel was established half a year later, its founders officially extended their “hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and [appealed] to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help [...] for the advancement of the entire Middle East”. Those countries responded by launching a war of annihilation on the newborn state. Decades later, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 partition plan as a 'mistake'. 
In 1967, after defending itself against another war of annihilation, the Israeli government accepted UN Resolution 242 and voted unanimously to return the vast majority of territories it had captured (the Sinai Desert, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and West Bank) in exchange for peace. The Arab response was unequivocal: 

'No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.' 

In 2000, Israel made a series of two-state proposals which (contrary to popular myth) eventually included almost all of the West Bank (plus additional territory from Israel proper), the entire Gaza strip, Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, and a $30 billion solution for the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat not only refused – he made no counter-offer, abandoned negotiations, and immediately began planning the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Arafat was heavily criticized for this, both by the American mediators and by fellow Arabs and Palestinians.

Those Arab countries that eventually came to accept Israel’s existence – Egypt (1979, despite widespread Arab opposition) and Jordan (1994) – signed peace treaties which have been mutually honored to this day.

FOURTHLY, there has been a century of Palestinian rejection of peace and Pallywood's propagandists play Useful Infidels like John Kerry like a scimitar (music is supposedly haram so out goes the Stradivarius or Oud): A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism

LASTLY, one of these 'Peace Parties' is not like the other...

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the Useful Infidels recite in unison: 

But, but, but it's

Image result for messiah obama savior of the earth