We Must Have a Commander-in-chief

CommanderInChiefby Jerry Richardson2/16/15
Our next President must be, must be, a Commander-in-chief!  •  We are engaged in a war with Islamist-jihadist and it is a war of civilizations—despite all the nay-saying jihadists-deniers who wouldn’t recognize a jihadist-attack if the perpetrators screamed “Allahu Akbar” immediately before shooting them dead.

We are literally in a war for the survival of western-society.  And for the sake of our survival, we simply cannot afford another Obama-like or an Obama-lite—Hillary Clinton or any other currently known Democrat fits either description.

We must have a person who is unafraid to defend our nation with whatever force is required.  Actually, in these times, we need someone with a warrior mentality.  We must have a fighter.  A wimp is not just unacceptable; a wimp is a deadly danger to the USA and the rest of the western world.

I don’t know yet who that person is—the fighter that we need.

But, please engage in an effort to identify, motivate, and support him or her.  The person absolutely must not be a Surrenderer-in-chief such as we currently have in the White House. Our enemies are simply too vicious and too powerful. And thanks to Obama many of our former-friends have been intimidated or severally weakened.  In these terrorists-threatened times, the world needs a strong America; not the weak America that Obama is intent upon creating.

Take stock of where we are in the world.  It’s not hard to do.

The ISIS barbarians have just beheaded 21 Coptic Christians as a challenge to the civilized world, and Obama and his spox-liars will not even use the term “Christians” just as they have steadfastly refused to use the terms “Islamic terrorists” or “Islamic jihadists.” And what is the result?  Obama refuses to identify either innocent victims or ruthless terrorists; so the result is that he further endangers the innocent and increasingly emboldens the ruthless.[pullquote]In any sort of sane America, Congress would have already impeached this cowardly, Islamic-appeasing, phony President overnight.[/pullquote]

With the advent of Obama-rule, truth is an unknown commodity; courage is a discarded concept, and moral uprightness is made into a mockery.

In any sort of sane America, Congress would have already impeached this cowardly, Islamic-appeasing, phony President overnight. But it isn’t going to happen because Obama is black; and we have too many cowardly white Americans who are afraid of the blackmailing label of racism.

My appeal to anyone who reads this is: In the 2016 Presidential election, do not cast your ballot for anyone who is uncommitted or soft on the issue of the necessity for a strong American military; or for anyone who will not publically advocate and commit to the defeat and destruction, not simply the containment, of the evil and brutal Islamic-jihadists.  The world truly is not big enough for both of us.

For our next President we desperately need a real, as opposed to our current phony, Commander-in-chief.

© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (2178 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to We Must Have a Commander-in-chief

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    No doubt Feckless Leader is incapable of serving as an adequate Commander-in-Chief, but the real problem is that he really isn’t on our side. He does what he thinks he must do to survive politically, but no more, and refuses to identify the enemy as who they are — or, for that matter, their victims. (To Obama spokesliar Josh the Never Earnest, the 21 were simply unspecified Egyptians murdered by unspecified terrorists. And, sadly, even that was an improvement over their usual rhetoric.)

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” People need to realize that this perfectly describes the behavior of Jihad’s Man in the White House.

  2. Rosalys says:

    What we really need is a Commander in Chief who loves this country. It is quite apparent that Zero hates the United States. Yes he’s a traitor, but don’t hold your breath while waiting for that amorphous, gelatinous mass of unprincipled goo, aka the establishment Republicans, to begin impeachment proceedings!

    Any Democrat who gets elected from now on will not be Obama-lite; he/she/it will be Obama on steroids! Because no one willing has been able to stop his “Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead!” agenda, Obama has paved the way for whoever wishes in the future to proceed without caution.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Impeachment would do no good anyway unless there are 13 Democrats more loyal to their country than their party. Do you think they exist? Do you think there are any such Democrats?

  3. Anniel says:

    Jerry, I have been thinking a lot about your article. Then when I heard the half-baked lunacy of Marie Harf about getting jobs for the jihadists I couldn’t believe even she was that stupid. But I guess she, and all the others like her, are so comatose as to be terminal. I’m with Rosalys on this, we do need a Commander-in-Chief who loves his country. And a Congress whose members also love the country and not their own sorry hides.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    Rosalys & Anniel,

    What we really need is a Commander in Chief who loves this country.

    Amen! and Amen!

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    It has become very clear whose side Obama is taking in the civilized-world’s war with Islamic-jihadist—he has become the world’s leading apologist for Islam.

    WASHINGTON — They’re burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama delivered a major speech Wednesday on combating violent extremism — while refusing to use the words “Muslim terrorists.”

    “No religion is responsible for terrorism — people are responsible for violence and terrorism,” Obama told a crowd that included Muslim community leaders at the White House.

    Obama’s Terrorists Summit

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, as a cartoon noticed, Satan’s Spawn is willing to blame a religion if some Christian commits a crime, and anti-religious hatred if a Muslim is a victim (as in the North Carolina attack by an atheist leftist — if you’ll pardon the redundancy). He and his fellow liberals are happy to blame any crime on conservatives even when there’s no basis for it. But when the perpetrator is a Muslim and the victim is chosen for being offensive to Islam, he refuses to see the connection, just as he and his fellow liberals refuse to make any connection between liberal political violence (e.g., Floyd Corkins) and the liberalism that incites it.

      Note that the Virginia State Assembly voted 70-2 for a relatively anodyne call for close connections with Israel. The yeas were 69 Republicans and a Democrat; the nays were 2 Democrats; the remaining Democrats left to avoid having to vote on an innocuous bill. Whether they did so because they hate Israel and didn’t want to say so openly (Jewish money, y’know) or because their constituents hate Israel, it’s another demonstration of modern liberal hostility to Israel.

  6. Jerry Richardson says:

    Rosalys & Anniel,

    We are certainly not by yourselves in believing that Obama does not love America.

    Obama doesn’t love America — and Mitt’s not much better.

    Those were the not-so-subtle views expressed by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at a Manhattan dinner party Wednesday night.

    “I do not believe — and I know this is a horrible thing to say — but I do not believe that this president loves America,” Giuliani said of President Obama.

    Obama doesn’t love America

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    Obama does not really want to defeat ISIS, he just wants to make it appear as if he does via some insufficient air-strikes; and in his desire to not defeat ISIS and to not offend Iran, Obama has alienated one of our previous long-term allies in the middle east: Egypt.

    So, Obama opposes both Israel and Egypt—how convenient for ISIS and Iran.

    The Obama administration was given multiple chances Wednesday to endorse a longtime ally’s airstrikes on America’s biggest enemy at the moment, the so-called Islamic State. Over and over again, Obama’s aides declined to back Egypt’s military operation against ISIS. It’s another sign of the growing strain between the United States and Egypt, once one of its closest friends in the Middle East.
    On Monday, Egypt unilaterally launched an airstrike campaign on the restive Libyan city of Derna in response to a gruesome video showing the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian Egyptian workers along Libya’s shores in the city of Sirte.
    The most common question Egyptians politicians, journalists and citizens alike have asked as their nation faced a mounting ISIS threat has been: “Where is the United States?”

    Obama won’t back Egypt’s attack on ISIS

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s difficult to know how to parse this. Does Obama prefer the Shia or Sunni, the revolutionary or the establishment? It’s a clusterf**k of interests and influences in the Middle East. Any country that has gone in there and tried to impose civilization has found this out, including Britain.

      But knowing Obama, we can know that he prefers Islam to Western Culture. We know he’s sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, which suggests he views some of the established governments in the Middle East as illegitimate. He possibly views them as “reactionaries” against the Islamic utopia (represented crudely by ISIS) that could no doubt arise if Western influences would just quit the region (which is why the Egyptian government is likely illegitimate in the eyes of Obama…they collude with the West).

      And yet even if one is sympathetic to the ISIS “rebels” (whom Obama likely views as a sort of group of “Founding Fathers” in the Middle east), one does have to find a way to rationalize all that violence. Christians being beheaded? This may shock you (although most here will not be shocked) but Obama would view that as just desserts, those nasty Christians (and Jews) being were they don’t really belong.

      As for all the other violence perpetrated by ISIS, being a true Leftist/barbarian, Obama would be of the mindset of “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs” which has been the call of dictators on the Left for some time now.

      The one point the Michael Savage makes that I think is spot-on is that liberalism is a mental disorder. Obama (the true hater) has been taught to hate the West, and all things good, by his Communist uncles, friends, and anarchists (such as Bill Ayers). He dislikes this country, is a racist himself toward whites, and is an extreme Islamophile. In his semi-psychotic world view, everything is always someone else’s fault. His ideology has Left him a truly hollow man, but like most on the Left he will look to rearranging the outer world in order to fix things (do not doubt me on this prime aspect of the Left).

      Only the delusional idealism inside his head can find some sort of order, including a worthy side to back, in the clusterf**k of the Middle East. And yet he’s not alone. George Bush did the same thing. The Middle East is sort of like a Mr. Potato Head. You put the mustache and the type of hair you want on the potato to suit your vision. The Saudis (the spreaders of Wahhabism, the very ideology behind most terrorists) are our friends, Islam is a “religion of peace,” democracy in the Middle East is as close as an election.

      Islam is something that needs to be walled-off like a disease. So, in truth, whatever Obama is dabbling in, he likely can’t come up much worse than Bush did…other than the vital matter of appeasing Iran. They should be attacked immediately and defanged of all nuclear capabilities.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Note that Jihad’s Man said nothing about ISIS atrocities as long as their visible targets were Christians. Only when the Yazidis — a minority religious group — were targeted did he decide to act on their behalf.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Well, that’s consistent with my psychological/political profile of Obama. By coincidence, Rush just a few minutes ago was going on about how liberals desire to share their misery with others. I think that’s another way of stating what I said. And it seems to be a core truth, similar to the sentiment expressed by Pascal who said, “All men’s miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.”

          This seems very true of people who get into government. Many seem to be looking outward to fix things (via government, etc.) when it’s really an internal matter. Another way of stating this is the centrality of grievance (at least for the Left…I doubt Jeb Bush, for instance, is particularly aggrieved. There are other pathologies that attract people to government).

  8. Anniel says:

    Where is the United States? Even the United States wants to know, except for the MSM and the pajama boys and girls at the State Department, DHS, etc., who all think no one will come for their heads. The United States has an autoimmune disorder.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I used to have a regular political article in FOSFAX called “Contagious Clintonosis”. The basis of the title is that a disease with an “osis” (or “asis”) ending generally refers either to the organism causing it (such as brucellosis) or the effect (such as acidosis). In some cases (such as filariasis and elephantiasis) there are alternate versions of the same disease (e.g., when filaria worms infest the body, you get badly swollen elephantine limbs). So I thought of clintonosis as a contagious ethical disease spread by exposure to the Clintons and causing people to act like them.

      • Anniel says:

        Timothy, My kids and I always play the “Name Game.” You know the kind, “Calling Dr. Pain.” Well, we kept getting bills from a hospital for a staff doc named “Gasparitis.” We decided he really did sound like the name of a throat or lung disease. My daughter finally met him and found he was nice and extremely good looking. When she said so her brother popped off with, “So now you have acute Gasparitis.” I shall ever remember him that way.

  9. Jerry Richardson says:


    The United States has an autoimmune disorder. —Anniel

    That is a choice phrase! If you didn’t borrow that somewhere, you should copyright it. No wait, don’t; I want to steal it.

    In addition, why don’t you elaborate on that; it may be the perfect explanation for multiculturalism; and acceptance of illegal aliens.

    • Anniel says:

      Thanks Jerry, my youngest daughter is in the hospital, again again again, and she has diagnosed herself with what she calls “Pervasive Autoimmune Disorder.” We were discussing the matter when the thought popped into my head that we are being destroyed by the same thing. You may use the phrase whenever and where ever you wish. It is, after all, accurate.

  10. Jerry Richardson says:


    The one point the Michael Savage makes that I think is spot-on is that liberalism is a mental disorder.—Brad Nelson

    I don’t recall when Savage first came-out with this thesis; but I do remember how much I thought it was, as you say, “spot-on”; and after all, isn’t an ideology that is so out of line with easily-discovered reality demonstrably at least a thought-disorder if not a full-blown mental-disorder?

  11. Jerry Richardson says:


    I think your phrase, ”The United States has an autoimmune disorder,” explains the larger societal reason for a psychological malady discussed in an article entitled, How ‘Islamophobia’ Policing Became Islamist Stockholm Syndrome. (link at bottom)

    ISS [Islamic Stockholm Syndrome] has also made its way into American classrooms. At UCLA, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History James L. Gelvin revealed his affliction: “In spite of international coalition waging war against the Islamic state, it is extraordinarily fragile and will very likely collapse anyway under its own weight … I believe that Barack Obama is repeating George W. Bush’s mistake, inflating a minor problem into something that is an existential threat to the United States.”

    This taxpayer-funded professor wants everyone to leave Daesh alone so they can live in peace. How about we try a little peace through strength instead?

    How ‘Islamophobia’ Policing Became Islamist Stockholm Syndrome

    • Anniel says:

      Makes one want to be very careful about inoculating your children against nutty professors. Beheading is only a “minor problem” when it isn’t YOUR head.

  12. Jerry Richardson says:


    Your comment relative to someone’s analysis of Obama’s recent actions:

    It’s difficult to know how to parse this. —Brad Nelson

    Very appropriate statement; and how about this latest jaw-dropper:

    US Said to Plan Mosul Offensive With 20,000 Iraqi Troops

    The U.S. and Iraq are planning a spring offensive to retake the city of Mosul that will require 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi troops to defeat 1,000 to 2,000 Islamic State (ISIS) fighters, according to an official from U.S. Central Command.
    The main attack force of five Iraqi army brigades will need to be trained first by U.S. advisers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity at a briefing Thursday to discuss military operations. The U.S. hasn’t ruled out delaying the offensive from a planned start in April or May if more time is required for training, most of which has yet to begin, the official said.
    While the spring timing had been previously discussed, the official offered new details on the size of the force required to recapture Iraq’s second-largest city from Islamic State, which seized Mosul in June.

    US Said to plan Mosul Offensive

    I’m going to take a shot at parsing this one.

    First I’ll rule-out the possible bluffing option. Everyone, especially including our enemies, knows full-well that Obama’s bluffs can be successfully called, and he will do nothing. All this pre-announcement of a military strategy will do is allow ISIS to better prepare their defenses. I don’t think Obama is bluffing.

    Second, could it be a strategy to cause ISIS to intentionally focus on defending instead of continuing to expand in their offensive efforts. Possible, but how would it actually prevent ISIS from doing both?

    I think the most likely parse is that our Coward-in-chief is simply showing again that he does not really what to fight to win against radical Islam.

    In elementary-school on playgrounds, boys who are playing war know that you do not tell the enemy what you plan to do. That is you don’t tell them if you want to win.

    Obama’s big, bold, silly announcement does several things:

    1) The announcement gives him and his minions a feel-good answer to “Why is Obama not doing anything against ISIS”?

    2) Allows him to finesse the question of “US boots on the ground” by touting the large number of Iraq forces that supposedly will be involved; then he can quietly slip-in however many US “advisors” needed.

    3) If Obama can finalize his appeasement of Iran in the March-April timeframe; then he can work on bringing Iran into the picture against ISIS; which of course works toward making Iran a regional power in the middle-east. But if not, then the plan

    4) Provides Obama two possible outcomes in which either is acceptable:

    Outcome A: The effort fails and ISIS wins; all the more incentive for Iran to act; and be applauded by Obama if they do act; And Obama can blame the failure on Iraq—yes, must have a scape-goat.

    Outcome B: The effort succeeds and Obama takes victory laps.

    What is, or should be, most obvious is that Obama is not at all interested in defeating radical Islam. Why? He doesn’t belief that real “Islam” is radical; and he is intent on demonstrating that.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      At some point, it would be nice to think that even mainstream liberals — those few who actually do support America — will have to realize that Barry Zero is not on our side, and in fact is actively treasonous. But I agree that the basic point is that the announcement gives them some political cover — and if it means that the actual attack, if and when it finally occurs, is a bloody failure the Obama Gang really doesn’t care. The short-term interest was served, and in a couple of months they can deal with the next short-term crisis.

    • Anniel says:

      As young as I was in WWII, I remember the “Loose Lips Sink Ships” posters. I think they were in every public building.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        As a number of critics of Feckless Leader have pointed out, this sort of information release would get anyone else court-martialed or tried even if accidental — and this was deliberate.

        • Anniel says:

          You’re not telling us that the “anonymous” official who leaked all of this was told to are you? Who is the high-placed official who would put the commander-in-chief in such a position? We can’t blame the president, can we? Oh, right, this is Obama’s Regime we’re discussing here. Maybe the new News Director Jen Psaki can pspeak the truth to us.

  13. Jerry Richardson says:

    Two political facts are beginning to become very clear due to the information that has begun to leak concerning the proposed Obama/Iran “deal”:

    GENEVA (AP) — Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

    Obama Headed toward a ‘historic’ compromise with Iran

    How are the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran playing out in the Iranian press? Well, the U.S. is being portrayed as desperate.

    In an article by Press TV, an Iranian propaganda organ, the headline reads, “Obama ‘under pressure’ to reach nuclear agreement with Iran: Analyst.”

    US President Barack Obama is “under pressure” to reach an agreement with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear energy program, an American foreign policy analyst says.

    “It’s quite obvious to everyone that Mr. Obama would like to have a deal with Iran,” said James George Jatras, a former US diplomat and adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.

    “He’s under a lot of pressure to try to bring negotiations to a conclusion that he can defend domestically,” Jatras said Sunday during a phone interview with Press TV.

    “I doubt very much that the United States would walk away from the negotiations because this is such a strong priority for Mr. Obama who otherwise has very little to show in the realm of foreign policy,” he added.

    US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif began a new round of talks in Geneva on Tehran’s nuclear program on Sunday.

    Iran Press: Obama desperate for nuclear deal

    The two political facts that are becoming very clear are

    1) The USA desperately needs a real—as opposed to a phony—Commander-in-chief not just to provide courageous and competent civilian-leadership for our military; but also to dismantle our cowardly, cave-in-and-give-away-security foreign policy.

    2) It is becoming completely obvious why Obama and his administration are doing everything in their power to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from addressing Congress and the American people: They fear, and for good reason, that Netanyahu will verbally destroy Obama’s foolish and Chamberlain-like excuses for caving-in to Iran’s goal of getting to a nuclear weapon.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One interesting aspect of the report, as you point out, is that we currently have a “leader” who really has no interest in protecting us or our friends. Another is a reminder of what happens when someone who wants to make some sort of deal — any deal — on a subject faces someone with a specific goal. (I noticed this over 20 years ago when Bush was dealing with the Demagogues over a new civil rights bill. I refer to this as “short-term pragmatism”.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *