Obama Apologists Quit Covering For Obama's Mistakes By Claiming He is Intelligent but just Does not Understand!

f




Every time Obama fails, those who are asked why, reply he does not understand. Yet, these same people will tell you Obama is intelligent.  After six years of mostly failed policies, domestic and foreign, I submit this response and rationale must change.  You cannot be intelligent and continue failing. You cannot continue to argue that a disregard of following the logical course is due to a failure to understand if you are intelligent.

After 6 years,  I contend Obama's failures are purposeful.  They are planned, they are parts of a puzzle whose aim is to weaken our nation, to destroy our unity,  to pit citizen against citizen in order to cause distrust and discord.

Obama knows what he is doing and, in retrospect, he told us he wanted to be transformational.  He even wrote, with assistance from his radical friend, about who he was and how he became radical. We were unwilling to listen, to believe because we did not want to appear racial, to come across  suspicious because he was educated, not overly black according to Biden and spoke well.

Obama's history from childhood is revealing if you are truly interested in connecting the dots that led him to be who he is, think the way he does and act as has has been doing. Add to this that , in my humble opinion, he is psychologically immature and feels privileged, I contend, the remaining two years of his term will gather momentum as America continues to slide.



Obama plays through Iranian attack on Israel! (See 1 below.)

The press has perpetuated a false narrative but what is new? (See 1a and 1b below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  Iran Knows Obama Won’t Walk Away

By Jonathan S. Tobin 

The latest round of talks between the West and Iran in Lausanne, Switzerland  broke up today with both sides saying differences still remainbetween the parties. Though the basic principles of the agreement allowing Iran to hold onto a vast nuclear infrastructure are already set, reportedly there are gaps between the sides on the amount of centrifuges it will keep as well as on the timing of the suspension of sanctions that have been imposed on the Islamist regime. The White House is claiming that President Obama is standing firm on his insistence that sanctions remain in place after the deal is signed. But if Iran is confident that he will eventually give in, it’s hard to blame them. The president has already made so many important concessions to Tehran and been willing to expend so much political capital in battles with both Congress and Israel that it’s hard to believe him when he says he will walk away from the negotiations if Iran doesn’t give in to his demands.

Talks will resume in Switzerland next week with what appears to be a still long list of differences to work out. But in spite of the president’s tough talk about not backing down, Iran knows that the administration has gone too far to give up. That’s been their strategy since the president opened up a secret talks with the regime in 2013. On point after point, the U.S. has abandoned the principles upon which the international coalition against Iran was formed and upon which President Obama campaigned for re-election in 2012.

In the interim deal signed in November 2013, the administration gave their tacit approval to an Iranian “right” to enrich uranium and started the process of loosening sanctions. That was supposed to be followed by a finite period of six months during which a subsequent agreement was to be negotiated. But that deadline has been extended three times since then as the Western powers became hostages to the process they had initiated. Having already discarded the impressive economic and military leverage it possessed over Iran, the P5+1 group felt it had no choice but to continue along the same path. Just as Secretary of State John Kerry defended the interim deal on the grounds that the minimal restrictions imposed and the concessions granted to Iran was better than no deal at all, so, too, have the current talks continued because the West was committed to a deal at all costs, no matter the terms.

In this way, the Iranians have wrung permission to keep thousands of centrifuges and a “sunset” clause that will eventually end restrictions on their nuclear program out of President Obama. Any such agreement will, at the very least, make Iran a threshold nuclear power, a development that rightly frightens moderate Arab nations as well as posing a potential existential threat to Israel.

The administration defends these concessions as being insignificant because the deal would make it impossible for Iran to “break out” to build a weapon in less than a year. Given the lack of inspections and the paucity of Western intelligence about Iran and the near certainty that there are nuclear facilities that aren’t currently under scrutiny such promises ring hollow. But even in the unlikely event that Iran keeps its promises the sunset clause ensures that they can eventually build a bomb even by following its terms.

That said, it is not too late for the United States to walk away from the negotiations if Iran refuses to agree that sanctions must be only gradually removed or abide by restrictions on their nuclear and military research (a point on which the lack of inspections has made it difficult to know just how much progress they’ve made in the past). But having stood their ground on every important facet of this negotiation up until now, why should the Iranians think the president will hold his ground on these points?

The president has already committed himself to signing a deal that will not be submitted to Congress but has already started talks at the United Nations to rescind international sanctions. He has publicly feuded with the prime minister of Israel and demanded that Democrats stay loyal to him rather than support bipartisan legislation calling for any agreement to be voted upon by Congress or for toughened sanctions to strengthen the administration’s hand in the talks. To give up now when he has gambled so heavily on what his staff has termed the ObamaCare of his second term, the notion that he would throw it all away now isn’t credible.

It should also be remembered that there is more here at stake for the president than the question of an Iranian bomb. The president has already committed himself to détente with Iran as his overall strategy for the Middle East. To back away from the talks and increase sanctions or even threaten force, as he has always claimed he would if a good deal couldn’t be obtained, would require him to rethink his approach to the conflict with ISIS where he has embraced Iran as a partner or to the civil war in Syria where the U.S. has acquiesced to the survival of Iran’s ally Bashar Assad. The nuclear deal is merely the excuse that he has used to justify an entente with Tehran that has been his goal all along.

So, as they have for the last two years, the Iranians are banking on the president’s zeal for a deal to allow them to get their way on these final points of disagreement. Since watering down the already desperately weak U.S. offer to Iran on the table isn’t going to be any less disgraceful than what he has already conceded, there’s really no reason for the administration to take a stand no

1a) Obama, Media Lied About Netanyahu and the Palestinian State

For the last several days, the entire Western media has run with a false story: the story that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he no longer would, under any circumstances, endorse the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Ha’aretz, a left-wing Israeli newspaper opposing Netanyahu, reported Netanyahu’s supposed comment with this headline: “Netanyahu: If I’m Elected, There Will Be No Palestinian State.” The rest of the media quickly followed. Days later, when Netanyahu said that he had never disavowed his prior support for the possibility of a Palestinian state – support he expressed in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009 – the media accused Netanyahu of flip-flopping.

There is only one problem: Netanyahu never said that a Palestinian state was out of the question.

The interview in which Netanyahu expressed the much-misinterpreted remark took place with the conservative Israeli publication NRG. It also took place in Hebrew, a language virtually none of the members of the Western press read or speak; most simply took the Ha’aretz report and ran with it. Netanyahu was asked directly about whether his Bar-Ilan speech was “irrelevant.” Here is what Netanyahu actually said:

NETANYAHU: I think anyone who is going to build a Palestinian state today will be freeing up space to give an attack area to radical Islam against Israel. This is the reality created here in recent years. Anyone who ignores this sticks his head in the sand. The left does this, burying its head in the sand again and again. We are realistic and understand


1b) Brilliant Analysis of Why Likud Won!

On the morning of Election Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to be interviewed on Israel’s Channel 10, but not before requesting that reporter Ben Caspit leave the studio. "Those defaming me and defaming my family," he told his hosts, "there is nothing obligating me to honor them … they who disguise themselves as journalists."

Caspit is one of too many journalists who use their profession to shape public opinion against Netanyahu.

Mingling among the cheering crowd celebrating the Likud victory, Channel 10 reporter Israel Rosner asked one about his feelings. "Tomorrow, God willing, we are going to shut down Channel 10," the reveler beamed at the stunned reporter. "But I'll be without a job," complained the reporter. "Don't worry," the interviewee responded, "I'll get you a job at the post office."

Channel 10 is not alone. In an unprecedented move Netanyahu told his Facebook followers that the time has come "to put things on the table." Noni Moses, owner of Yediot Acharonot and Ynet, "is using any means possible to overthrow the government of the Likud under my leadership, shut down Israel Hayom and regain monopoly over the written media."

Netanyahu and the Likud activist suggesting Rosner work at the post office are not hyper-sensitive. Rather, they tell the story of a biased Israeli media that failed miserably in its scheme to outline the major currents of Israeli society.

If there was ever any doubt, the outcome of these elections is proof that "many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand" (Proverbs 19:21).

It is nothing short of amazing that massive support from the Obama Administration, Europe and Israeli and foreign media proved ineffective in ousting Netanyahu. The best propaganda minds, statistical analysts, campaign geniuses and anonymous donors were powerless in their effort to bring the Israeli Left back to power.

These powers have all failed to understand that these last elections were not about hope for better income, health services or affordable housing. As the Obama Administration revealed in its delayed congratulation to Netanyahu and its threat to impose the "two-state solution," these elections were about the identity and the future of Israel.

The Likud won in spite of Netanyahu, rather than because of him. Many Israelis are fully aware of the problematic domestic policies of Netanyahu, and they blame him for failing to defeat Hamas. And yet, they are willing to turn a blind eye because of his resolute stand against those seeking to compromise Israel's security.

The Likud won because the majority of Jews in Israel still prefer a "Jewish" democratic state over just a democratic one. Their healthy senses tell them that the Left's vision for democratic Israel will end up badly for all of us.

The Likud won because the majority of Israeli Jews want to replace the left-wing elite that still controls the Supreme Court, media and academia.

The Likud won because in reality Israel is not as bad as many would have them believe.

Israelis can see with their own eyes the enormous railway and highway projects. They know about the revolutionary desalination plants along Israel's coast, and they are aware of the support pouring now into Israel's south.

The Likud won because many Israelis sense that the leftist "Zionist Camp" has lost its desire to see the fulfillment of Israel' Declaration of Independence. A party that is willing to cooperate with anti-Zionist forces, they reason, will bring despair instead of hope, strife instead of peace.

Likud’s victory is also an Israeli response to disrespectful Obama and hateful Europe. Likud’s victory, therefore, is a vote for Jewish life, pure and simple

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