Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama

When the truth about Planned Parenthood has finally been accepted, as it inevitably will be; when it is understood that this diabolical organization financed its contributions to Barack Obama's presidential campaigns by not only performing abortions but by trafficking in the organs of the aborted babies, Barack Obama will be seen for what he truly is: the evil twin of Adolph Hitler.

What a Fool Believes

President Obama insists that:

This deal is our best means of assuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. And from the start, that has been my number one priority - our number one priority.

Is there any reason to doubt him?

Is there any reason not to?

Here's how Jackie Mason recently put it:

"First Obama said we can inspect them any time, any place, whenever we please. Now it turns out ‘whenever we please’ except when they don’t allow it.  If they don’t want it it’s up to them..."

He concludes:

"Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice that you can walk in and inspect them… So we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish.  We’re not protected from a bomb but we’re protected from a bad quality of a tuna fish," 

Does recent history instruct us on whether we can trust President Obama when he assures us "Iran will not have a bomb?"  The New York Times reports today "ISIS Transforming Into Functioning State That Uses Terror as Tool"

But President Obama dismissed ISIS as a "jayvee squad", recall?  You can find it here and here, among other places.  Does a "jayvee squad" become a "functioning state" in a year and a half?  Or, to use Obama's analogy, does a "jayvee squad" become Kobe Bryant in 18 months?

How about when he promised  "...if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?" (there are 37 citations here, and the declaration is still made in black-and-white on the website).  And yet, according to Politifact,

The health care plan was largely designed so that some health care plans would go away. If not this year, then at some point down the road. 

And let's not forget that the "architect of Obamacare" has brazenly stated repeatedly that he was counting on "the stupidity of the American people" to enable his deceptions in the way the law was presented to go unnoticed.

If there's one thing we all know we can count on -- if history has taught us anything at all -- it's this: Obama delivers the opposite of what he promises. He's a professional liar.  And he's counting on "the stupidity of the American people" to get away with it.

Iran will have their nuclear weapons, sooner rather than later. You can take that to the bank,

Worth a Thousand Words

The art of PAWEL KUCZYNSKI.

End Game

Have we posted this before? It's worth posting again:  Israel is being put in a position where it will be forced to defend itself or perhaps preemptively address the threat by Iran to "wipe Israel off the map."

The Obama administration has effectively withdrawn America's tacit protection of Israel, which has been the single most effective peace-keeping influence in the Middle East.  The promise of US protection of Israel has caused the bullies to stand down.  But now that has been removed, and not only that, Obama has put its arm around the Iranian regime with its mission to destroy Israel and even handed it the keys to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.  There can be no doubt about Iran's ultimate intentions in this matter -- it has stated them repeatedly: "we will wipe Israel off the map."

So it is entirely predictable that, barring some completely unforeseen reversal of policy, Israel will be forced to respond to that threat accordingly.  And with the US turning its back on her, she will stand alone.  Russia has already expressed its satisfaction with Obama's "deal" with Iran -- Putin is clearly no friend of Israel and that leaves her all alone.  

Is it possible that the Iranian regime may someday pose a credible, catastrophic threat to Israel?  It already does: sworn to destroy her, it now has nuclear weapons within its reach and the enthusiastic support of the superpowers. The Iranian regime also knows that Obama's Window of Permissiveness will very likely close on January 20, 2017, a reality that can only heighten the potential danger of the situation.

How much more talk of "wiping off the map" should Israel countenance before taking preemptive self-defensive action now that Iran is a nuclear power?  Iran needn't actually launch an attack -- merely posturing convincingly that it might would put Israel in the terrible position of having to assume Iran intends to carry out its threats.

Should Israel act with appropriate and decisive self defense to a credible threat, how can a world such as the one we currently live in -- in which barbarism is on daily global parade courtesy of the bloodthirsty, sworn enemies of Israel, in which Antisemitism is publicly proclaimed in Western nations, in which the American president openly and publicly disrespects Israel's prime minister, in which both nuclear superpowers turn their backs on this tiny nation -- be expected to react?

Which scenario is more likely in that event -- that the superpowers suddenly see the light of Israel's actual predicament, reversing themselves to declare support for her?  Or that they chastise Israel as the offender of the delusional "peace" that's been negotiated, that they blame the victim, and seek to punish her, first with UN resolutions, then with sanctions?  How can such a fiasco not escalate? Will they perhaps point their guns at Jerusalem?

Maybe we should pray for its peace.

El Chapo (D Mex)

The notoriously escaped-convict billionaire Mexican drug lord "El Chapo" has famously tweeted his disdain for Donald Trump.

Given how many other tweets-of-disdain have been aimed at the Donald since he began talking about the problem of illegal aliens in the US, we can safely conclude that El Chapo will be voting with the Democrats or, perhaps, GOP Republicans in the next election.

Perhaps he might even be considered for a cabinet position or, given his eloquence, the role of Press Secretary.

Of Popes and Markets and Media

Following is a copy of our letter to the NY Times in response to their piece In Fiery Speeches, Francis Excoriates Global Capitalism.

George Soros is not the first billionaire to call for "fettering" the marketplace that delivered to him his billions, nor is Francis is the first Pope to have his utterances on "social justice" cast by the media as Leftist orthodoxy.

You are hopefully keenly aware that you have completely failed to grasp -- and therefore to accurately convey -- the teaching of the Church on economics and the role of the free market in bringing about justice. To wit:

A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers' demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competition. -- COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

How or why can an otherwise seemingly intellegent and presumably responsible professional fail obtain and convey the perspective that any such reader could obtain in under 60 seconds if willing to?

If you haven't come to understand - and to convey -- the lesson repeatedly taught by history, that those on the Left are the most pragmatic, "unfettered" and "irresponsible" participants in the marketplace, you will not fail to if willing to.