Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Obama,Clinton and Terror: Obama Terrorophobia, or is it "Terrorphobia", Confirmed (even by Erin Burnett on CNN)

And some of you (all of yu?) think I have no influence.  Yesterday, I coined the word for that neurotic mental condition of Presdient Obama that prevents him from being able to use the wrod "terror" in connectin with Muslim terrorist attacks.  "Terrorophobia" was the word I coined for this condition, although critics have suggested that the last "o" is not really correctt, and that the word should be "terrorphobia".  Maybe so, although I am not sure it has the right ring.  obviusly I tried to tailor my cointed word after that leftist MADE UP (and inaccurate) word:  "homophobia". But this semantic "controversy" is irrelevant.  the point is that iI IDENTIFIED the condidtin, and suggested a roughly correct word that can be used for it.  The rest is just a matter os SPELLING. 

Thus, Erin Burnett said on her CNNshow tonight:  "President Obama seems unable, for some reason, to SAY the word 'terror'. He talked about the attack in Libya, which Hillary Clinton has now called a 'terrorist attack' linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups', thourghout his entire address to the United Nations, but avoided using the word 'terror' even oNCE in connectin with the attakc"   Thus, Erin Burnett has endorsed the "Obama disease" of "terrorophobia", or "terrorphobia", wihout using a word for it.  She noted that Obama has FAILED and REFUSED to use the word "terror' in connectin witht he Libyan attack that killed our ambassador, for the ENTIRE period of more than TWO  WEEKS after the attack, even though even his press secretary has (reluctantly) usedd the word. 

I have strongly, and correctly, criticized Erin Burnett in this blog.  She has obviusly decided that the ony way for her to IMPROVE is to PAY ATTENTIN to what this blog is saying, and go with it on her program.  This neurotic aversin by Barack Obama to the woord "terror", at least in connectin with Muslim extremism, is so marked as to be similar to the beatnik character in the TV show "Dobie Gillis" ("Maynard G. Krebs? sp.?), who just coud not say the word "work".  However, this is not a OMIC character.  This is the President of the United States, whose "aversino" to the wrod "terror" is forr POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL reasons.  From an objective point of view (since I still support neiter Obama nor Romney), this DISQUALIFIES Obama from being President of the United States, or SHOULD.  What if the American peole still reelectg him?  If lthey do, so be it.  That will be a verdict on THEM (or should I say US, even though I would never actualy vote for Obama, because of his Libyan reactino alone, if I had not already made that decision). 

Hillary Clintons sudden "conversion" , by the way, to the (obviusly correct view) taht the attack in Libya that kKILLED our abasssador--and three other Americans--was a TERRORIST ATTACK linked to al-Qaida affiliated groups, was a EVERSAL of what Clinton said a mere WEEK AGO.  A week ago--still pushing the Obama Administratin 'spontaneous mob" LIE which Obama also sent out our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, to push--Clinton had said there was "no evidence" that linked the Libyan attack to anything but that MYTHcIAL "spontaneous mob". The rats are deserting the sinking ship (CNN and Hillary Clinton being in the position of "rats" here).

I stand by this statement I have made as much as a week ago:  It is UNACCEPTABLE for an American President to react to the TERRORIST MURDER of an American ambassador with th LIE that it was the result of a "spontaneous mob" reacting to an anti-Muslim movvie.  I stand by my assertin that this particular LIE is an IMPEACHABLE offensae, although it would be absurd to attempt to "impeach" Obama over it.  No. I woulld NOT be in faovr of tryng to impeach Prfesident Obama AFTERWARD, if he WINS this electin.  The AMERICNN PEOLE know everything they need to know here.  If why want to elect Barakc Obama ANYUWAY, then they (we?)) deserve what they (we?) get.  I am perfectly aware that my own failure to push ROMNEY'S electin could be regarded as contributing, at least in a smal way, to this unacceptable resutl  But I have my own PHOBIA., and my own VOW.  I jstu can't acutally VOE for a GOIP candidate I regard as a BAD GOP establishment canddiate--which is exctly what I regard Romney as.  As a conservative who has lived through too many of these electins, I jsut CAN'T STOMACH IT. 

It bould be the BEST thing to ever happen to this country if a THRRD PARTY canddiate would WIN a Presidential electin  We jsut can't afford "politics as usual".  Yet, we keep ending up in a situation of "ppolitgics as usual".  Until we break that vicious cycle, I don't see how we ever get through to our politicans.  No, I don't thinkk we can SRUVIVE more 'politics as usual", which means I do not think we SURVVIVE the results of tghis elecitn (Obama or Romney)--at least as the kind of country we have been.

However, I can't accept Obama's Big Lie on Libya as "politics as usual".  I don't think George W. Bush would have done it.  I don't think Bill Clinton would have done it.  I don't think ANY other Presdient, of whom I am aware, would have LIED abouta the MURDER of a U.S. ambassador the way that Barack Obama did.  MAYBE the LEFT has become so DISHOENST than MOST LEFITST politicans would have done it.  But I doubt it.  This particular PHOBIA, and sociopathic//psychopathic lies, seems to be mainly an OBAMA PROBLEM.  I say that, but the LEFT in general is willihng to still EXCUSE Obama for this FATAL LFLAW.  To me, that is also unacceptable.  The idea that this is just ACCEPTABLE POLITICCS is one I caN't even fathom, even from our LEFT.  It is not "acceptable politics". Again, it DISQUALIFEIS Obama fro being President of the United States, for rational people not totally blinded by partisan politics.

It is jsut not acceptable for our P:RESIDENT to have a PHOBIA (basedon POLITICS and IDEOLOGY)  whcih causes him to MISLEAD the Amerifan peole as to a TERRORIST ATTACK which KILLED Americans--including an American ambassador.  That--kiling an Aemrican ambassador--is an ACT OF WAR.  But Obama siimpy seems unable to get his mind around a WAR ON TERROR--even as he "ifghts" that WAR with PREDATOR DRONES that KILL PEOPLE WIHOUT TRIAL.  The man--Obama--is "schizophrenic" in the true meaning of that word:  disassociated from reality.

No. It does not MATTER if we had CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack at the beginning.  Many peole said so, including the Libyan President.  But the probblem heere is not the President being "cautiuos" abut putting out the wrong informatin  That is EXACTLY what the Obama Administratin did;  PUT OUT THE WRONG INFORMATIN, for POLITICAL REASONS.  The problem here is not being to " cautious", but PUSHING the "rush to judgment"--for POLITICAL REASONS--that this TERRORIST ATTACK was really jsut "spontaneous mob actin" keye to that "video' which the Obama Administratin wantte d to BLAME for ALL of the violence in the Arab world. It was bad enough--uunacceptable--to try to balme ANTI-AMEIRCAN attacks on our EMBASSIES on this "video".  To try to b"blame" the vidoeo, and "spontaneous mob actin", for the Libyan attack was DESPICALBE.  There can be NO "justificatin for it.  It was UNWORHTY of AnY Pesident of the United Sates.  It really is hard to see how Obama thought he could get away with this.  And WILL Romney really take it to him, n the debates, on this/  I wonder.  He sould.  No matter.  There is NOTHING Obma can say or do to excuse this MORAL CRIME of "pplaying politics" with the TERRORRIST MURDER of a united States ambassador.  Obama is obviusly COUN TING ON the media to COVER for him--at least to the point of just looking at this as "politics as usua"--no big deal. 

The media hsuld be UPSET that Obama expects them to COVER for this kind of MORAL FAILURE of a United States lPresident  George W. Bush could NEVER have SURVIVED this.  Obama should not survive it.  We will see.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  This is just th elatest of MANY instances where what this blog says seem to affectg what happens in the maisntream media the very next day, or within a few days.  Do I INFLUENCE what is "reported", or merely ANTICIPATE TRUTHS so obiuvs that even the media cannot keep ignoring them?  Either way, it shows why you should keep reading this blgg. 

No comments: