“America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong.”
– Barack Obama, State of the Union address, Jan 20, 2015
I will spare my readers yet another frustrating analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union address this week, in that enumerating his dubious intentions and the brazen lies he tells are things I express here quite regularly. Other than his defiant tone serving to give the lie to his conciliatory rhetoric prior to the November midterm election rout, I believe that the primary value of this address was its potential for having demonstrated to a few million more Americans that this is the most diabolical individual to ever occupy the White House.
If nothing else, Obama made it plain that he will continue to do precisely what he wishes; he will continue to torch billions if not trillions of dollars on big-government socialist frivolities, ramrod new taxation through if he can, circumvent Congress when he deems necessary and ignore the Constitution.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
The basis of Saul Alinsky’s strategy for political conquest, detailed in his book “Rules for Radicals,” is the widespread use of lies. Given that this tome is the sacred text of Obama and his Cabinet (or co-conspirators, if you prefer), one might interpret the State of the Union address in light of this.
More germane to the topic I will address here were Obama’s references to the terrorist threats currently faced by America and the West. It should be no surprise that Obama did not employ the words “Islam,” “Islamic,” nor “Muslim” throughout his address, save for one instance in which he contended that the vast majority of Muslims “share our commitment to peace.”
Earlier Tuesday, news agencies carried accounts of Iran-backed Shiite rebels having shelled the residence of Yemen’s leader and swept into the presidential palace. On paper (that being officially), Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi is purported to be a U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaida groups in Yemen. Here, one could argue that he might take counsel from members of our former “ally” government in Iraq, but I digress.
In any case, these Shiite rebels (they call themselves “Houthis”) are ostensibly fighting for a new government that would grant them greater power and claim that Hadi is obstructing implementation of a U.N.-brokered peace deal. U.S. officials claim that the rebel violence is undermining American military and intelligence operations against an al-Qaida branch in Yemen.
Two things I would mention at this juncture: Last September, in outlining his plan for combating ISIS, Obama attempted to counter critics when he said, “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” Aside from this being analogous to declaring the Bay of Pigs invasion a military success (since Somalia has been a disaster for years, and Yemen is now following), the fact is that these efforts have been strategic failures – or could be considered so, were Obama’s intentions to actually defeat our enemies in these campaigns.
During the address, Obama also promised a veto should Congress attempt to pass stiffer sanctions on Iran, something he had been threatening for weeks. His stated rationale is that such sanctions would derail his diplomatic efforts to negotiate with Iran on the development of its nuclear program. This is not even remotely believable; it has long since been established that White House efforts to date have empowered and emboldened Iran, made it easier for that nation to skate on its supposed obligations and facilitated its subterfuge in pursuing nuclear weapons.
WND’s Jerome Corsi recently wrote a piece addressing efforts to stymie the congressional investigation into the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. These purportedly include attempts to warn away or intimidate Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and include not only White House operatives, but high-ranking Republicans. Last year, former CIA officer Clare Lopez told WND that America had switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.
“An honest investigation into Benghazi would prove treasonous acts at the very top of the White House and the State Department, and a continuing cover-up in Congress that now involves the Republican leadership and especially House Speaker John Boehner.” – former U.S Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi
Last week in this space, I said that President Obama was dedicated to Islamist ascendency, both domestically and abroad. His efforts speak for themselves, though outcomes are invariably put down to unintended consequences, incompetence, or bad policy by the press and even his detractors.
How many times is it worth reiterating that the president of the United States – an individual who attained that office by criminal artifice and systematic deception, by the way – has committed serial treason and is being shielded from the consequences of his actions by corrupt and compromised elected officials? There is a major push on worldwide toward advancing the designs of militant Muslims, minimizing the danger they represent and demonizing all who attempt to realistically frame the argument – and it has all been catalyzed by the individual in the White House. The wholesale failure of Obama’s supposed political opponents to publicly call him out on his crimes is as much of a crime as his own.
The foregoing considered, I trust I will be forgiven for not getting too wrapped up in the tone and content of this week’s State of the Union address.
