I Would Feel More Confident if Roger Federer Were President! Too Many Wrong Cue Cards? Maybe Throw Vegetables At ISIS! Iran Still Going Nuclear!

b
                                                                                See what Klavan has to say about Opposite Day in 3                                                                                   Below!
===                                                                         ===
More Israel medical technology from a nation that is the scourge of the world:  Click here: The Operating Room of the Future - InSightec - Dr. Kobi Vortman Technion Alumnus - Safeshare.TV

===

Many worry about Obama's lack of a strategy.  I will be more worried when he backs into one! 

Can you imagine how anyone Obama sends to meet ISIS must be wondering what kind of support they will  receive?  Perhaps Michelle will convince her husband we should throw vegetables at ISIS.

Frankly, I would feel more confident if Roger Federer was president! 

Perhaps one of Obama's aid's has been holding up too many wrong cue cards! (See 1 and 1a below.)

===

Will ISIS provide cover for Iran's nuclear ambitions? (See 2 below.)

===

Revolting "Opposite Day"  by Andrew Klavan:    (See 3 below.)

===

Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) 73% WORRY ABOUT OBAMA'S LACK OF STRATEGY FOR ISIS

Source:  rasmussenreports.com.     

Voters regard the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS as a major threat to the United States and are very worried that President Obama doesn’t have a strategy for dealing with the problem. They remain reluctant to send U.S. troops back to Iraq to take on ISIS, but support is growing.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters consider the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a serious threat to this country. Just 13% disagree, while another 20% are not sure. (To see survey questions wording, click here.)

The president said last week at a press conference that the United States doesn’t have a strategy yet for dealing with the group which threatens to defeat democratic forces in Iraq and send the messy civil war in Syria further out of control.  Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters are concerned that the United States does not have a strategy for dealing with this military group, with 47% who are Very Concerned. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not concerned by this lack of a strategy, but that includes only four percent (4%) who are Not At All Concerned.

The president has authorized selective U.S. airstrikes to halt ISIS advances but has ruled out sending troops back to Iraq. Just 30% think the United States should send troops to defeat ISIS, but that’s up from 12% last December.  Opposition to sending troops back to Iraq has fallen dramatically from 71% in December to 58% a month ago. Now just 41% feel that way. A sizable 29% are undecided.

Most voters approve of the president’s decision to launch U.S. military airstrikes against ISIS forces in Iraq but still think the radical Islamic insurgents are likely to take control of the country.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) rate the Obama administration’s response to ISIS as good or excellent, while 42% say it’s done a poor job.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 30-31, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Belief that the United States is winning the War on Terror has plummeted to its lowest level in over 10 years of regular tracking.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters say they have been following recent news reports about the fighting in Iraq and Syria, with 45% who have been following Very Closely.

The reason for the president’s hesitancy may be explained in part by the finding that just 52% of Democrats consider ISIS a serious threat to the United States, compared to 82% of Republicans and 70% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Democrats are much less concerned about the president’s lack of a strategy for dealing with the radical Islamic group.

Forty-four percent (44%) of Republicans think the United States should send troops back to Iraq to defeat ISIS, but only 21% of Democrats and 26% of unaffiliated voters agree.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of the Political Class think the administration has done a good or excellent job responding to the threat from ISIS.  Fifty-three percent (53%) of Mainstream voters rate the administration’s performance in this area as poor.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters who consider ISIS a serious threat to the United States believe the administration has done a poor job. By a 40% to 33% margin, these voters favor sending U.S. troops to Iraq.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of all voters think the U.S. government should hunt down the ISIS terrorist who beheaded a U.S. journalist on a video posted online, and even more voters think he should receive the death penalty if tried in a U.S. court.

Voter perceptions of U.S.-Islamic relations continue to deteriorate since President Obama’s highly publicized speech in Cairo, Egypt five years ago reaching out to the Islamic world.

Voters have long expressed little enthusiasm for getting more involved in Middle East politics, but they are slightly less likely to think this involvement hurts both the region and the United States.

Sixty percent (60%) think America’s political leaders send U.S. soldiers into harm’s way too often, and 48% believe the United States is too involved in the affairs of other countries.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

1a)  Obama’s Been Pickpocketed By Reality

By Seth Mandel 

A liberal who has been mugged by reality may turn to conservatism, as Irving Kristol famously said. Or that liberal might blame society on behalf of his mugger and redouble his liberalism. But in either case the liberal knows he’s been victimized. What happens to a liberal who, instead, has been pickpocketed by reality–robbed and victimized but who assumes he’s just misplaced his wallet? The last few days have given us our clearest answer yet, in the incoherent ramblings of President Obama on the nature of the threats to the free world.

And over the weekend Democrats tried desperately to convince him he’s been mugged. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he’s being “too cautious” on ISIS. That’s her way of saying that she’s privy to enough intel to wonder what Obama sees when he looks at the same information. Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thinks Obama needs to be doing more to fend off Russia’s invasion of Ukraine–and yes, by the way, he used the word “invasion” rather than participate in the administration’s Orwellian word games to deny reality and make excuses for abandoning American allies.

And the Washington Post editorial board laid into Obama’s swirling confusion over the complexity of the world:

 This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.

 The first has to do with simple competence. One can only imagine the whiplash that foreign leaders must be suffering…

 Similarly, his senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree…

When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.

One can almost imagine the Post’s editors intended the editorial to be read aloud, slowly and with exaggerated elocution, as if speaking to a child. And so the president hasn’t really been mugged by reality, because he doesn’t seem to know he’s been hit.

The Post editorial was right to call attention to the bewilderment America’s allies around the world must be experiencing. But it’s worth dwelling on the same confusion America’s enemies must be feeling. Their actions have resulted in a propaganda windfall because they surely expected the American president not to parrot their talking points or shrug off their murderous intent.

When it was revealed in August that President Obama had downgraded American security cooperation with Israel and was withholding weapons transfers to Israel during wartime, Times of Israel editor David Horovitz wrote a column headlined “US livid with Israel? Hamas can’t believe its luck.” Indeed, Hamas probably expects at best empty words from Obama about Israel’s right to defend itself, but it’s doubtful they ever imagined they would start a war with Israel only to have the American president withhold military support from Israel during that war and then fume that the U.S.-Israel military relationship is such that both sides assume America will have Israel’s back, at least during wartime. Obama wants Israel to make no such assumptions.

Similarly, could Vladimir Putin have expected the Obama administration to help him obfuscate the fact that he has invaded Ukraine–again? Administration officials “have a perfectly clear idea what Russian President Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine,” the Daily Beast’s Christopher Dickey wrote late last week. “They just don’t want to say the word out loud.” Putin must be giddy.

And when video surfaced revealing that, in the words of CNN, “Libyan militia members have apparently turned the abandoned U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, into a water park,” U.S. Ambassador Deborah Jones protested the coverage of an event the symbolism of which was impossible to ignore. It was not true that those ransacking the compound were ransacking the compound, she claimed; they were, um, guarding it. We are truly in the best of hands.

What is most troublesome about this, and what might be responsible for bringing Democrats out of the woodwork to denounce Obama’s foreign-policy silliness, is the fact that there doesn’t appear to be anything that can get the president to confront reality. It’s always been assumed that at some point Obama will wake up; Democrats are no longer convinced that’s the case, and have gone public to try to assure friends and foes alike that not everyone in the U.S. government is so steeped in comforting delusions while the world burns. 

Someone’s at the wheel, in other words, just not the president. And now it’s the rest of the world’s turn to believe the spin coming out of Washington, instead of hoping American officials don’t believe the spin coming in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) WILL ISIS HELP PAVE WAY FOR  Iran ian Nuke?

Author(:  Jonathan S. Tobin 

Source:  Commentary Magazine.     

One of the ongoing conundrums of Middle East politics is the fact that the United States and Iran have wound up on the same side in the conflict against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But in this case the enemy of our enemy isn’t necessarily our friend. Or at least it shouldn’t serve to help weaken American resolve to stop Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon.

The complicated mess in Iraq is the sort of game in which, as the old baseball expression goes, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard. But by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his minority Baathist Sunni rule over a majority Shiite country, the U.S. unwittingly put the U.S. on the side of Iran, Saddam’s deadly enemy and a patron of Shiite dissidents against his despotic rule. Since Saddam’s fall, the U.S. and Iran have danced a delicate minuet in which Tehran alternately opposed and then sometimes backed America’s effort to stabilize Iraq and leave it with a working democracy. Suffice it to say that while the U.S. and Iran share a common agenda in not wishing to see Sunni extremists overrun Iraq, the differences between the two on the future of the country are considerable.

The Obama administration fled Iraq prematurely while staying out of the Syria conflict and thus set in motion the chain of events that led to the frightening rise of ISIS. So it is not in much of a position to pick and choose its allies in its halting efforts to stop the terrorist movement from taking Baghdad and extending the reach of its so-called caliphate. That means it has to welcome any help from Iran to the Shiite-dominated government but should also be extremely leery about allowing it to deploy its own forces, let alone letting Tehran’s terrorist auxiliaries run free in Iraq.

But that uneasy relationship should not be allowed to play any role whatsoever in the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran which will resume later this month in New York ahead of the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Yet the tenor of those talks, which were extended into the fall after missing a July deadline, seems to indicate that the Obama administration is more interested in détente with Iran than in halting its nuclear ambitions.

Last fall, the administration discarded most of its enormous economic and political leverage over Iran when it signed onto an interim nuclear agreement that loosened sanctions and tacitly recognized their “right” to enrich uranium in exchange for largely meaningless gestures that did not significantly halt the Islamist state’s progress toward a weapon. Since then it has pursued negotiations toward a final deal but has been given the same runaround that Tehran’s past negotiating partners experienced. Iran has signaled that it no longer regards President Obama’s threats as serious and its negotiating position—in which it has sought Western approval for keeping its nuclear toys rather than pledging to dismantle them—has hardened.

Even before the current crisis in Iraq, there seemed little likelihood that the administration would show any resolve in the nuclear talks with Iran. Rather than persuading the Iranians to negotiate safeguards that would mandate the end of their nuclear program, Secretary of State John Kerry’s concessions seemed to have persuaded Tehran that it can keep its uranium stockpile, nuclear plants, and military research facilities while sanctions gradually collapse. The fact that the administration thinks it needs to appease the Iranians on Iraq will only deepen their conviction that they can hang tough without facing any consequences.

If anyone doubted Iran’s resolve and its arrogant dismissal of Western attempts to monitor their nuclear program, the regime’s continued stalling of the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate their program should convince them. Without real information about Iran’s military nuclear research any agreement, whether one with tough terms or one as weak as the document signed last fall by Kerry, will be meaningless.

It is to be hoped that President Obama will finally show some grit and destroy ISIS before it is too late. But if in the course of that effort he is prepared to appease Iran further, that will be a poor bargain. The U.S. doesn’t have to choose between an ISIS-run Iraq and a nuclear Iran. Both are disasters that must be averted at all costs. Strong American leadership could rally the world behind the fight against ISIS and efforts to isolate Iran until it renounces its nuclear ambitions forever. Unfortunately, that appears to be the one thing lacking in Washington these days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)  Andrew Klavan, recounts the litany of assurances Barack Obama and his leftist companions have made, none of which are true...

TRANSCRIPT:

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

Hurrah!  It’s Opposite Day — the day when everything is exactly the opposite from what we were told it would be.

For instance, remember in 2011 when Barack Obama told us “the tide of war is receding?”  Remember during his re-election campaign that year, when he said Al Qaeda had been decimated.  Remember afterwards, when he withdrew all our troops from Iraq and he said, we were “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” and “America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

Well, yahoo!  It’s Opposite Day!.  Everything Obama said is just the opposite!  The tide of war is in full flood and engulfing much of the middle east.  Al Qaeda’s murderous warriors have reconvened as the Islamic State, more powerful and more brutal than ever.  And of course Iraq is awash in bloodshed and if the U.S. doesn’t stop it there, it’ll soon be right here with us!  

What a crazy day.

Hey, here’s another one.  This is fun, huh?  Remember the 2004 speech when Obama said “There’s not a black America and a white America... there’s the United States of America...”  Remember when the Economist and the New Yorker and NPR all told us Barack Obama’s election signaled a post-racial age.  And the New York Times heralded his election with the headline:  “Obama moves America Beyond Racial Politics.” 

Surprise!  It’s Opposite Day!  Yes, Ferguson Missouri has been rocked by the worst racial riots in years. A New York Times CBS poll says 87 percent of Americans feel that race relations in our country have either stayed the same or gotten worse since Obama’s election.  And it’s Obama’s own administration that has stoked the tensions, with corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder playing the race card every time he gets caught in a new scandal, and Joe Biden accusing Republicans of wanting black people back in chains, and Obama himself repeatedly suggesting his opponents are driven by racism.

This is a great day, right?  Ha, gotcha!  It’s the opposite.

Let’s not stop now!  Remember when Obama pressed the reset button to improve our relations with Russia — those guys who are currently invading the Ukraine.  Or remember when Obama promised a transparent and ethical administration that would “do our business in the light of day” instead of arresting opposition filmmakers on trumped up charges and bugging investigative journalists and auditing conservative groups to shut them up and enforcing only those laws he likes while rewriting other laws without the consent of congress.

Oh - and hey, remember how leftists felt virtuous for supporting Obama and his policies.  Oh, wait, never mind, leftists still feel virtuous...  because for them it’s always...   Opposite Day!

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------