Obama Takes Credit For Victory Over ISIS, Kurds BLAST Him In Brutal Reponse

dJune 19, 2015

Mad World News: by Dom the Conservative

As President Obama recently admitted, he has “no complete strategy” for training Iraqis or offering any other vital plan in combating ISIS. However, his failure to come up with a course of action after nearly a year of major attacks didn’t stop the Commander-in-Chief from taking credit for a strike with which he had absolutely nothing to do.

The Washington Times reports that the White House claimed the glory Tuesday for a victory over the Islamic State in northern Syria after Kurdish Peshmerga forces defeated militants in the area.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the triumph by Syrian Kurds in the town of Tal Abyad “is actually a direct consequence of an earlier military operation that President Obama ordered” to break the siege of the Syrian city of Kobani last fall.

“Because of the president’s decision to order the air drop of significant resources and equipments and reinforcements, and because we were able to work with Turkey to allow for additional forces to enter that city, we saw that coalition … backed by coalition airstrikes, of course … drive [the Islamic State] out of Khobani,” he said. “And over the last several months, those forces have steadily driven east across northern Syria.”

The claim was evidently so laughable and shamelessly pathetic that the audacious comment got around to the Peshmerga, which prompted them to make a statement of their own, Fox News reports.

“What America has given to Iraq in the past, what Iraq borrowed from Russia and U.S., ISIS has,” said Peshmerga commander Kemal Kerkuki. “They are using many, many, mines, C4, TNT, snipers, mortars; they have Humvees, they have tanks, they have different kinds of weapons.”

“The weapons of [ISIS] are 10 times that of the Peshmerga,” said Maj. Gen. Sirwan Barzani, another Kurdish commander whose forces are based southwest of Erbil.

Of course, Earnest refused to answer if Obama would actually directly send the Kurds weapons, and Obama has already openly admitted that he has no immediate plans to do so.

Peshmerga forces are barely able to effectively fight ISIS, using leftover weapons of worn, old munitions from the Iran-Iraq war over 30 years ago.

Barzani added that they’ve continuously pleaded with the Obama administration, as well as other Western nations and NATO, to send them weapons to fight ISIS. Their pleas fall on deaf ears as Obama ignores the threat in favor of pushing his own agenda in the U.S., including gun control, racial inequality, and transgenderism.

Obama is nothing more than a charlatan, attempting to pad his already pitiful resume as most powerful man in the world by scalping the victory from third-world militias — and he would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling Kurds.

This is the last straw in an extensive line of reprehensible acts by our American president. It’s time to support a candidate who not only loves his country, but one that will take our enemies head-on instead of striving to appease them.

More at Mad World News

H/T [Conservative Tribune]

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.


dJune 15, 2015

Desert Musings:

The House of Representatives gave Bobo Obama a stunning defeat in his quest for a legacy item on Friday voting 302-126 to vote down something called the Trade Adjustment Assistance portion of the “fast-track” bill. Now, a lot of people think the house voted down the actual TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). Actually, that part of the bill passed 219-211. What failed was a measure that allowed for the funding of the TPP, better known as the TAA (yeah…I know…I’m tired of acronyms too!). And since the Senate had already passed the bill, they have to start at square one again (or at least send whatever the GOP led House passes to a conference committee).

Apparently, the TPP isn’t dead after all. House Ways and Means committee chair, Paul Ryan has emphatically stated that they WILL pass this bill…they just have to figure out how to pay for it. My question is, that if this bill is so good for the country, why in God’s name are we having to “pay” for anything? Well, the Obama administration won’t admit it, but the TAA basically included a “welfare-like program” to be used to help people when they lose their jobs. Huh? Yup. Apparently, the administration realizes that what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats that voted against it, as well as all of the unions, were right. People in America are going to lose their jobs on this one. Lots of people. And it’s going to be expensive to re-train them. And TAA was designed to introduce more government programs that would re-train displaced workers.

How would TAA be funded? By cutting benefits in Medicare, which also didn’t sit well with the Dems. But Paul Ryan and the GOP have come up with a solution. They’re going to break some campaign promises not to raise taxes, and they’ve taken the Medicare cuts off the table. Now they’re going to raise taxes on small businesses. They’re going to increase fees and penalties on businesses that mis-file their income tax returns.

So, why does Obama NEED to have this thing “fast-tracked”? Well, it’s happened before. When you “fast-track” a trade agreement, the president negotiates the agreement and then brings it to congress for approval. Normally, there are debates, and amendments that can bog down the treaty. Fast-tracking allows an up or down vote on the agreement as it is written. If someone doesn’t like a clause in there, you can’t change it, you can only vote for it or against it. That’s it.

Why has this particular bill in congress been so controversial? Because of the stuff that’s in it. Obama didn’t want to show the American people the Medicare cuts that would fund the trade authority. And he didn’t want to show them before the vote that the unions screaming about losing American jobs were absolutely right. By hiding those details until after it passed, he would have had an easier time getting it through congress, and would not have had to deal with the millions of calls to congressmen and women from their constituents telling them to vote against it.

So what happens now? Ryan is hoping to bring his new bill to the House floor sometime early this week. If it’s not there by tomorrow, chances are very good he won’t get the votes and the fast-tracking part of the bill will be dead. That means that Obama can still negotiate the trade agreement with he 40 countries or so. He just can’t get an up or down vote on it, and it could take months to wade its way through congress…if it makes it at all.

Is it dead? Nope. Is it a zombie? We’ll have to wait and see!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Permission was given by Desert Musings to Lorra B. to post his articles in their entirety.

Gov Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s call his remarks exactly what they are. He (Obama) made the moral case for socialism.’

dJune 11, 2015

Pundit from anther Planet finds a gem on this one. Bravo Jindal, bravo!

From Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response to a question on Mike Gallagher’s June 10 syndicated talk-radio show about the “moral case” made this week by President Obama for ObamaCare:

“Let’s call his remarks exactly what they are. He made the moral case for socialism. Let’s not sugarcoat it, that’s exactly what he believes. He doesn’t hide it, he doesn’t pretend, we shouldn’t either. This isn’t new. Those who favor socialism always make the moral case for it. The truth is, maybe they actually believe in it, but in the real world, socialism harms, it weakens the economies of countries that have tried it. It just does. Weaker economies hurt everybody in them. Socialism kills incentive, opportunity, freedom. It is the opposite of what America is all about. Look, socialism always harms the people it claims to help the most. It handicaps them, leaving them weaker, less self-determined, less free. We should have this debate out in the open. His “moral case” for ObamaCare is actually immoral. Spending money you don’t have is immoral. Borrowing more money than you can pay back is immoral. Lying to the American people is immoral, so it’s ironic he chooses to use the terms “moral case” or “moral imperative” to make the case for what I think is a very flawed law. The Supreme Court, I hope, rules the correct way. We need to repeal this, replace this. Mike, we cannot measure success by how many people are dependent on government. That’s what President Obama wants. That is the opposite of what America stands for.”

More at Pundit from anther Planet:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.