From crossing red-lines to hiding sanctioned weapons, Obama was dangerously inept…or deceitful

Is it any wonder Obama’s administration progressed from Kerry’s 2014 “…we got 100% of the chemical weapons out…” to “…of the declared chemical weapons”?

It’s how they manipulate your perceptions…making a definitive statement less so by adding the word ‘declared’ days later, thus giving them wiggle room down the road.

Bottom line…a 3rd-world Syria duped Obama…or Obama duped Americans.


The same guy who signed the Iran deal.

Hand-wringers over Syrian strike ignore American military presence in-country

Does it strike anyone as odd?

All the hand-wringing (and justifications) over President Trump’s strike against the Syrian base housing chemical weapons ignores one HUGELY important fact…

…American troops are in northern Syria, and have been since 2016.

So worrying about the ‘constitutional’ privilege of an American president to conduct military actions against a nation where our troops are there on the ground is moot.

Funny, though, that no Trump detractors – or supporters – mention this. What are they waiting for…an ‘errant’ Syrian chem-missile strike that hits American forces?

As posted previously, we’re certain those American troops in-country are glad that their Commander-in-Chief showed Syria, and the world, red-lines are red-lines.

Maybe those arguing fine-points would see it differently if their kids were in-country.

But sadly, even then, their rabid anti-Trump sentiment might still prevail.

(UPDATED) Sidney K argues the American troops are there to fight ISIS, and thus the act of addressing an objective outside that focus is unconstitutional.

What he fails to consider is that a Commander-in-Chief’s primary responsibility is to protect his troops in order that they can accomplish their mission; ignoring forbidden chemical weapon attacks when our troops are in-country is a fool’s game.

If anyone colluded with Russians, it was the LAST guy in the White House

If anyone colluded with the Russians…From Day One…it was Barack Obama.

As NRO’s Rich Lowry tells it…

“How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geopolitical foe? Accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally? Welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East? Refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia? Diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?”

“All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by President Barack Obama. To take them in order: He reset with Russia shortly after its clash with Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs. When candidate Mitt Romney warned about Russia in the 2012 campaign, Obama rejected him as a Cold War relic. The president then went on to forge an agreement with Russia’s ally Iran to allow it to preserve its nuclear program. During the red-line fiasco, he eagerly grasped a lifeline from Russia at the price of accepting its intervention in Syria. He never budged on giving Ukraine “lethal” weapons to defend itself from Russian attack. Finally, Obama cut U.S. defense spending and cracked down on fossil fuels, a policy that Russia welcomed since its economy is dependent on high oil prices.”

We couldn’t have said it better.

California Democrats continue the war against their own voter-base

The California legislature, overwhelmingly Democrat, just passed legislation that will effectively raise the price of gas at the pump $.19/gallon, and diesel $.20/gallon.

Hit hardest by this will be those who can least afford it: low-&-fixed income groups…

…which just happens to be the voter-base of the Democrat Party.

Sadly, the Republican Party in California rolled over a long time ago.

Already the highest taxed state in the country, hemorrhaging businesses and jobs, there are many reasons why the GOP should be nailing Democrat hides to the wall.

But that’s hard to do when you’re belly up.

Striking a Syrian chem-weapon base IS LEGAL…

Enough with the ranting over striking a chemical-weapons military storage base.

Obama sent American troops to Syria’s northern region already; more went in during March…

…and that DURING the time Obama took Putin’s word all Syrian chemical weapons were gone.

We were already militarily engaged when Mr. Trump came into office, and he has the responsibility to protect American troops…

…SUDDENLY exposed to a regime who, now we learn, STILL HAS CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

Ask those troops how they feel about President Trump taking action and unequivocally drawing a line.

Drone-bombing weddings…good; Tomahawking military bases…bad?

Striking, isn’t it?

Democrats were okay with Obama drone-bombing weddings…

…but condemn Pres. Trump when he Tomahawks military bases.

And, by the way, if any Left-wing crazy tries to tie the Syrian rebels Trump is defending to ISIS, ask this…

…weren’t Democrats welcoming those same rebel refugees into America recently?

One air strike says it all…

… Pres. Trump is NOT Obama…

…talk is cheap…

…action speaks louder than words.

Tomahawk Reality

Left-wingers go crazy as President Trump gives Syria a measured response showing America’s opinion of nations that use chemical weapons against their people.

So, are Democrats taking the position that using weapons of mass-destruction against civilian populations is ok, and to be ignored?

Tomahawking an airbase where chemical weapons are based, and launched, seems an adequate declaration, but begs a question…

…how many sarin-gassed bodies does it take to justify a military response, for Democrats?

Obama drew a red line, then failed to act.

Pres. Trump’s act draws a line…


Unmask-Gate: Claiming ‘no crime was committed’ is a lie

As details continue to unravel the widespread surveillance and unmasking of all the Trump team by Obama operative Rice, sham-stream media falsely claims ‘no crime’.

Remember that former Obama operative Farkas explained widespread dispersal of surveillance data was their intentional effort, and ‘that’s why there are leaks’.

That leaking is a felony.

So, unmasking American citizens to make them a subject of the leaks, by extension, is felonious, because…what Rice did by ordering the unmasking…

…aided and abetted in a crime.

Or is that too existential a stretch for the media…?