Skip to content

The Weak Barack Obama

November 18, 2015

Barack Obama is absolutely the most inept, weak, limp-wristed so-called president since the founding of the United States, hands down. I think he’s not incompetent, I think he’s simply a fraud with an agenda known only to his inner circle and anyone who’s paying attention to his actions … and at times to his words. I know I’m preaching to the choir here but I noticed an article this morning over at The Fiscal Times which described how and why the weak and limp-wristed guy squatting in the White House is who he is.

Basically he’s in this only to impose his Marxist, anti-America agenda and nothing more. After the immense tragic attacks in Paris last week Obama had a chance to shine. Kind of like a JFK or Winston Churchill moment and he walked away shallow, arrogant and exuding a hubris which was stunning.

Here are a few excerpts from the article.

Via: The Fiscal Times

While inept guidance from Obama and his shrinking circle of confidants has caused headline-worthy failures in Syria, pushback from military commanders has been silenced by a distrustful White House that’s jealous of control and willing to penalize those who stray from the Oval Office narrative. President Obama told graduates of the Coast Guard Academy that denying climate change is a “dereliction of duty.” Isn’t blindly following the flawed and politically skewed directives of the White House also a dereliction of duty?

The failure of our effort to arm compliant rebels in Syria — $50 million spent to produce six soldiers — has made our military a laughing stock, but is the tip of the iceberg. Continued half-measures in arming our allies or providing critical air support has hobbled our attack on a deadly foe. Recently, the White House announced it would send in dozens (but fewer than 50) advisors, as a renewed show of resolve – but vowed they would not engage in combat. Fifty soldiers! We’re not trying to button down Disneyland; there are an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 ISIS fighters in Syria, and they control about half the country.

The New York Times recently detailed efforts to disrupt Highway 47, ISIS’s critical supply route between Syria and Iraq’s Mosul. The U.S. has apparently been loath to bomb that essential artery for fear of civilian casualties. There have been 250,000 people killed in Syria. The U.S. is worried about truck drivers who may be willing to work for ISIS. Yesterday the U.S. launched airstrikes on hundreds of trucks conveying oil to market, destroying 116. But we made certain no civilians were hurt by dropping leaflets an hour before the strikes, alerting ISIS to the imminent bombings. Was ever a campaign so absurdly restrained?

Earlier this year, that caution ignited controversy, when an Air Force official told legislators that in the bombing effort in Syria and Iraq, “There’s a target of zero civilian casualties….” He explained further that even if there was only one civilian at risk, his pilots would withdraw, no matter how important the target. The upshot of that policy is that 75 percent of our combat missions return to base without dropping a single weapon.


With an approval rate of barely 15% among military personnel there is little wonder why the ass-clown-in-chief is ineffective as far as “degrading and destroying” ISIS is concerned. Of course that is only mind-less drivel, and that lesser mind was and is focused on solving what he views as domestic problems. Those being the right of the people to keep and bear arms and “climate change.”

Hillary will give us more of the same. About the same percentage (15%) of military folks view her favorably. We can rest assured she and Bill will work hard at pilfering every entity to pad their bank accounts … while Huma will work hard to infiltrate the government with the Muslim Brotherhood.





4 Comments leave one →
  1. November 18, 2015 8:21 am

    Obama…no longer no doubt which side he’s on…

    Enjoy Your Wednesday ✨

    Liked by 1 person

  2. November 18, 2015 8:47 am

    I have read your statement with interest … the statement that says .. “Basically he’s in this only to impose his MARXIST, anti-America agenda and nothing more.”

    I am wondering if you might just as well have written, ” Basically he’s in this only to impose some kind of MOHAMMADIST anti-American agenda and nothing more.” (?)

    Liked by 1 person

What do you think about it?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: