Memorial Day Tribute to our Military

These tributes on this Memorial Day 2010 are to the men and women of America who gave everything in defense of our freedoms and our Country and to their families and friends. Today is an opportunity for all of us to say "Thank You" to all the veterans of America who have died and to those who have fought and are fighting today for Freedom and to protect this Nation.


Grew up in small town in Ohio where every Memorial Day there was a parade in our town from downtown to the cemetary with the high school marching band playing patriotic songs along with members of the military, cub scouts, girl scouts, dignataries and other groups. When the parade reached the top hill befire the cemetary the song became slow and mournful as the parade went down the hill and entered the cemetary for the speeches honoring our veterans who had died. Years later our son's Cub Scout troop marched in two parades on Memorial Day in a different small town. My Dad who had served in WWII was so proud to see his grandson marching. Will never forget the taps and gun salute when he was laid to rest in the same cemetary where our band marched each year on Memorial Day.

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program).

And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.

To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."

The first tribute is a speech from the greatest American President of our lifetime, Ronald Reagan in 1984 when he honored a Unknown Soldier from the Vietnam War.

President Reagan narrates the next video which is a tribute to Memorial Day from House Republicans.


Video Tribute to the men and women who rest at Arlington with Trace Atkins singing "Arlington"

High Flight

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee
No 412 squadron, RCAF
Killed 11 December 1941

A Tale of Two Students (Charter versus Public Schools)

Charter schools in Oklahoma are becoming more and more popular in the two largest cities. Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Capitol Hill Public School has not had a good reputation over the years. Once again we see the difference in a school where teachers have to perform versus the public schools where they can just show up if they are tenured. Their union membership protects them whether they are an outstanding, good, mediocre or a poor teacher -- makes no difference to the union.

Anyone who has been reading this site understands we are against public unions and especially teacher unions. In Chicago they have mandatory union membership for adjunct professors. The unions do nothing for their members except take their union dues to spend on political activities. One caveat is if you are a minority they will pull out all stops to protect you.

We are fortunate in Oklahoma that we are a Right to Work state so union membership is not mandatory. There is a strong counter to joining the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) union for teachers who care about their students -- Professional Oklahoma Educators.

Many teachers across Oklahoma opt to join the Professional Oklahoma Educators which is located in Norman in an area next to The University of Oklahoma. This Group has the same or greater benefits than the teachers can get from OEA and the resources for teachers provided by this organization far surpass what teachers get from the OEA

Ginger Tinney, who is the Executive Director of the Professional Oklahoma Educators, is one of the most dynamic people I have met in Oklahoma. She put together and made this organization a force in Oklahoma education. A lot of Oklahoma students today have a better education because of Ginger Tinney who had the foresight and interest to do something about OEA as the sole organization for professional teachers in Oklahoma. We could use someone like Ginger in every state and school district in America to help educate our students.

The first core value of Professional Oklahoma Educators gives the best reason that teachers should belong to this organization not the OEA:

Education is about children first.
Outstanding educators place the needs of students above their own. This means that we take a stand on important issues without impairing the learning process by leaving the classrooms in protest. Educators must be in the classroom drawing out the potential of their students in order to achieve the Professional Oklahoma Educators mission of advancing Oklahoma education through integrity, professionalism and excellence!

That paragraph should be the core value of every teacher in every state. If it was, we would have the best educated students in the world. The National Education Association and its state groups like OEA had a chance to make a difference but they were more interested in protecting weak teachers and electing Democrats to protect them than educating students in a lot of instances.

This example by the Wall Street Journal of the difference between a public and charter school shows just what union teachers can do to a school even when they have an Administrator and a few teachers who really care. There are union teachers who care but one would have to ask why any teacher in Oklahoma still belongs to the union when they have the Professional Educators Association that puts the students first and encourages teachers to keep learning in order to become better teachers and earn better pay.

We have witnessed what happens in Chicago public schools run by the Chicago Teachers Union where teachers have very high paying positions while their students are very poor performers. In Chicago Public schools you are not allowed to fail students -- pass them on even if they cannot read or write. The few teachers who do speak out about administrators changing grades are shunned for the most part in the Chicago schools. We noted one huge difference in Chicago is that they advertise the fact that they are a Teachers Union unlike places like Oklahoma that hide behind the Educators Association label when they are a union associated with the AFL/CIO.

To think that the Obama appointed the Secretary of the Department of Education who was the Superintendent of Chicago schools sends a chill up your spine. Obama would not send his own daughters to Chicago Public School. Arne Duncan should not have been Superintendent in Chicago because of all the poor performing schools so what qualified him to become Secretary of Education other than the fact he was friends with the President? American students certainly do not need the Chicago model for public schools -- high teacher salaries and low performing schools.

As you read this article from the Wall Street Journal comparing a public and charter school ask yourself why we still have teachers unions and what can be done to put the student first in every school across America.

A Tale of Two Students

In middle school, Ivan and Laura shared a brief romance and a knack for trouble. Then they parted ways. Now he is college-bound and she isn't. How different schools shaped their paths.
May 29, 2010

In middle school, Ivan Cantera ran with a Latino gang; Laura Corro was a spunky teen. At age 13, they shared their first kiss. Both made it a habit to skip class. In high school, they went their separate ways.

This fall, Ivan will enter the University of Oklahoma, armed with a prestigious scholarship. "I want to be the first Hispanic governor of Oklahoma," declares the clean-cut 18-year-old, standing on the steps of Santa Fe South High School, the charter school in the heart of this city's Hispanic enclave that he says put him on a new path.

Laura, who is 17, rose to senior class president at Capitol Hill High School, a large public school in the same neighborhood. But after scraping together enough credits to graduate, Laura isn't sure where she's headed. She never took college entrance exams.

The divergent paths taken by Laura and Ivan were shaped by many forces, but their schools played a striking role. Capitol Hill and Santa Fe South both serve the same poor, Hispanic population. Both comply with federal guidelines and meet state requirements for standardized exams and curriculum. Santa Fe South enrolls about 490 high school students, while Capitol Hill has nearly 900.

At Santa Fe South, the school day is 45 minutes longer; graduation requirements are more rigorous (four years of math, science and social studies compared with three at public schools); and there is a tough attendance policy.

This year, the majority of Santa Fe South's graduates will attend a vocational, two- or four-year college. About one-third of the graduates from Capitol Hill plan to get a higher education.

While neither school is allowed to select students, Santa Fe South can turn them down if it's full. Capitol Hill must welcome anyone who wishes to enroll. Santa Fe South, whose teachers are on a one-year renewable contract, can remove incompetent instructors more easily than Capitol Hill, where teachers are unionized.

Excerpt: Read More at the Wall Street Jouornal

SHELL STARTS PERDIDO - WORLD'S DEEPEST OFFSHORE DRILLING AND PRODUCTION FACILITY

This video explains the steps that Shell Oil has gone through to get the world's deepest offshore drilling and production facility on line. It was started in 1996 when they purchased the lease in 8,000 feet of water in the Gulf and has taken until 2010 to complete the drilling and production facility and be ready to deliver the oil and gas they discovered.

The difference is that Shell Oil doesn't cut corners, makes a full investment knowing it is going to be years to get this on line, and doesn't have a problem with safety that BP seems to have.

It has taken Shell 14 years to be ready for production. In researching, discovered that the oil-drilling lease that has led to this disaster in the Gulf was sold to BP in 2007. You don't have to be an oil production expert to figure out that a company who takes 14 years versus three years might have a better idea of what is required to drill in deep water. Shell most likely wasn't changing their plans to cut corners and save money either.

Instead of declaring a moratorium on any drilling in the Gulf for six months maybe this Administration should be looking at what Shell has done right and encourage others companies who want to drill in deep water to follow Shell's example.

Senator Vitter comment on BP Top Kill Failure

Sen. David Vitter, R-La.:
"Obviously, this news is enormously disappointing, frustrating - maddening. BP, in consultation with experts worldwide, must immediately begin their next closure attempt. And the president must make the important changes in the federal effort at coastal and marsh protection that we urged on him yesterday. That federal response must be turned around immediately, starting with full federal approval of our entire emergency dredging/barrier island plan."

'Top Kill' Fails to Plug Leak; BP Readies Next Approach

When is BP actually going to start asking other oil companies for help or taking their advice? This 'Top Kill' approach was not recommended by some people in the oil industry as they thought the mud would come back almost immediately which is what happened. A BP technician tells the truth which is bolded in the article.

BP management has not been telling the truth from day one and when it came out in the hearings they had not used 'o' rings on a well oil people started suspecting this was more of the cutting corners BP is famous for in the operation. BP getting a safety award must have cost them big bucks. The idea that they changed procedures two days before the explosion defies belief and then didn't the necessary testing before removing the mud should see people sent to the prison.

The BP's spokesman has the nerve to say how many people they have on the beaches cleaning up when we learned the 400 yesterday were bused in for the Obama photo op and as soon as he left, they were bused back out.

BP estimates it has nearly 2,000 workers already along the coast, according to David Nicholas, a BP spokesman. Mr. Suttles said the company was somewhat hampered in its efforts to be aggressive by the delicate nature of the ecosystem. “We don’t want to create more harm in doing the cleanup than the oil creates on its own,” he said.

Would bet Grand Isle and other places along the Louisiana Gulf would love to be seeing these 2,000 people BP claims they have working. At most 10-20 show up occasionally on the beach. Why not hire workers who have been laid off because of BP?

When is BP going to tell the truth? In fact, when is Obama going to tell the truth? They knew almost right away that pumping mud was not working as it was coming back at them but yet kept telling people they were continuing to pump when they were not -- in fact the CEO of BP said there was a 60-70% chance 'Top Kill' would work when most in the industry were convinced there was a slim to none chance it would work. Then BP tried the junk shots which they knew didn't work almost immediately. Yet it took them until this afternoon to admit it had all failed. Guess Obama's trip to the Gulf was useless because BP is still in charge of the operation.

Where is the Navy that is more equipped to handle this then the Coast Guard? Guess the Navy doesn't fit the Obama agenda of wanting the US to be dependent on foreign oil just like he has suspended drilling for six months for company with little to no safety problems or problems with their offshore drilling. Guess Obama would like to bankrupt the oil producing states which are RED States!

'Top Kill’ Fails to Plug Leak; BP Readies Next ApproachBy LESLIE KAUFMAN, CLIFFORD KRAUSS and SARAH WHEATON

NEW ORLEANS — BP engineers said Saturday that the “top kill” effort to stem the flow of oil gushing from a well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico had failed and, after consultation with government officials, they had decided to move on to another strategy.

The announcement marked the latest setback in the attempt to plug the spill that is polluting gulf waters at an estimated rate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. It is already the largest spill in American history.

“This scares everybody, the fact that we can’t make this well stop flowing, or the fact that we haven’t succeeded so far,” Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer for exploration and production, said Saturday at a news conference in Robert, La.
The more immediate focus is now on containing the flow, rather than stopping it.

Mr. Suttles said the next step would be called a “lower marine riser package cap” and involves smoothly cutting the riser that the oil is leaking from and placing a device atop it to capture the escaping oil. Equipment has already been deployed on land and on the sea bed, he said, but it could take four to seven days to deploy.
“
We have made the decision to move on to the next option,” Mr. Suttles said. “Repeated pumping, we don’t believe, will likely achieve success.”

The failure of the top kill procedure, which was thought to be the company’s best option for stopping the leak, was announced after about 30,000 barrels of mud was injected into the well and three attempts were made at what is termed the “junk shot,” a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope, and golf balls into the blowout preventer, the five-story safety device atop the well.

A technician who has been working on the project to stem the oil leak said Saturday that neither the top kill nor an earlier effort known as the “junk shot” came close to succeeding because the pressure of oil and gas escaping from the well was simply too powerful to overcome. He added that engineers never had a complete enough understanding of the inner workings of drill pipe casing or blowout preventer rams to make the efforts work.

“Simply too much of what we pumped in was escaping,” said the technician, who spoke on condition of remaining unnamed since he is not authorized to speak publicly for the company.

“The engineers are disappointed and management is upset,” said the technician. “Nothing is good, nothing is good.”

As BP continues to devise techniques to actually stop the leak, “the next thing to do is try to capture all of the flow or as much of the flow as we can,” Mr. Suttles said.

“This operation should be able to capture most of the oil,” he said, cautioning that some could leak out around the cap.

“We’re confident the job will work, but obviously we cannot guarantee success at this time,” Mr. Suttles said, adding that the technique had never been tried before.
Officials said it would take four to seven days to determine if the capping effort is successful.

The cap draws on lessons from an earlier effort to place a containment dome over the flow. That method failed after hydrate crystals formed around its opening. This time, an additional pipe will pump hot water to try to prevent the hydrates, which form when gas mixes with water at low temperatures and high pressure.

Work is continuing on drilling a relief well, the option experts say would most reliably put an end to the catastrophe. BP is “ahead of our plan right now,” Mr. Suttles said, though “the farther we go, the harder it gets.” He estimated the relief well would be completed in early August.

“People want to know which technique is going to work, and I don’t know. It hasn’t been done at these depths and that’s why we’ve had multiple options working parallel.”

Mr. Suttles also used the news conference Saturday afternoon to defend BP’s cleanup efforts, which have come under fierce criticism from local politicians for being too little, too late.

(snip)

Leslie Kaufman reported from New Orleans, Clifford Krauss from Houston and Sarah Wheaton from New York.

Excerpt: Read more at NY Times

Matt Simmons: "Theres another leak, much bigger, 5 to 6 miles away".flv

Must see video:

More Lies on the Gulf Oil Disaster -- BP had stopped pumping mud Wednesday night

We are learning in the middle of the night that BP stopped pumping the drilling mud on Wednesday night and did not resume pumping until Thursday night. So much for the Coast Guard spokesman that said oil well was getting under control. Mud and oil were coming out of the well so they stopped drilling for 24 hours but it is just coming out tonight.

That means that this President during his Press Conference and his Administration along with BP led everyone to believe the pumping was going very well today when they were not pumping. With the NY Times writing this article it is beginning to show that the media is waking up to this President as his word is worth ZERO. That press conference is turning out to be a fraud when it comes to the BP Gulf Oil Disaster. Before it is done we will most likely learn that the whole press conference was a fraud. Can Obama tell the truth or is he going to blame others for this as well?

BP Resumes Work to Plug Oil Leak After Facing SetbackBy CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 27, 2010

HOUSTON — BP on Thursday night restarted its most ambitious effort yet to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, trying to revive hopes that it might cap the well with a “top kill” technique that involved pumping heavy drilling liquids to counteract the pressure of the gushing oil.

BP officials, who along with government officials created the impression early in the day that the strategy was working, disclosed later that they had stopped pumping the night before when engineers saw that too much of the drilling fluid was escaping along with the oil.

It was the latest setback in the effort to shut off the leaking oil, which federal officials said was pouring into the gulf at a far higher rate than original estimates suggested.

If the new estimates are accurate, the spill would be far bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 and the worst in United States history.

Excerpt: Read More at New York Times

NRSC "Never Again": Obama and the BP Oil Spill

NOTE: This may be the best video ever put out by the NRSC. Congratulations to the people who put these facts together for this video.

Pence: "It Is Unacceptable That Democrat Leaders in Congress Have Abdicated Their Duty to Write A Budget"

Congressman Pence (R-IN) has now brought it the attention of the American people that "we are about to adjourn for Memorial Day break for the first time since 1974, with a House of Representatives that has not passed a budget. It is an abdication of their duty and responsibility to the American people."

Instead of rushing to pass a healthcare bill they didn't read that has turned out to be disaster or any of the rest of the Obama agenda that he demanded from Congress, they should have first done the job they are sent to Congress to do -- Budget for the United States Government. Are they afraid to tackle the budget before the November elections because then they will have to admit just how large of deficit we are talking about and how much money they plan to waste on earmarks and pork?

This should be enough to get the entire Democrat leadership of Congress kicked out on November 2, 2010, for abdicating their responsibility given them by the Constitution. No wonder the Democrats want to ignore the Constitution because they can ignore their responsibility.

Pence: "It Is Unacceptable That Democrat Leaders in Congress Have Abdicated Their Duty to Write A Budget"

Washington, DC, 05/27/10 - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, made the following remarks at a press conference today in criticism of the Democrats’ inability to produce a budget:

"The American people are anxious. They know in their hearts that this tidal wave of debt is coming. And they also know that the Democratic leadership of the Congress has no plan to deal with it. Even this administration back in February offered a budget, a ten-year budget plan. You heard today, Republican solutions that are in the debate are available on the Internet.

"And yet, we are about to adjourn for Memorial Day break for the first time since 1974, with a House of Representatives that has not passed a budget. It is an abdication of their duty and responsibility to the American people.

"When families and small business, and family farms face difficult times, they sit down at the table, they sharpen their pencils, they write a budget and figure a way forward.

"It is unacceptable that Democrat leaders in Congress have abdicated their duty to write a budget. That's no answer for the American people and it shouldn't be acceptable to any American."

Obama Defends (Lies about) Response to Oil Spill Disaster in Gulf

We thought Bill Clinton when he was President lied and spun on almost every subject which culminated in Monicagate and his impeachment for lying even though he wasn't removed. However, Clinton cannot compare to this President. It doesn't take much researching to find the opposite of what Obama said today in his press conference. Does he not think that the American people remember?

5/27/10: "I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure this thing is shut down," Obama declared

(snip)

"The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort," Obama said. He was reacting to criticism that his administration had been slow to act and had left BP in charge of plugging the leak.

Compare to what he said on Apr 29, 2010

President Obama says BP 'ultimately responsible' for spill clean-up
President Barack Obama said BP was "ultimately responsible" for the cost and clean-up of an growing oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico which threatens to develop into an environmental catastrophe.

The US President is to dispatch two senior members of his cabinet to the site of the spill today to ensure that the British oil giant is "doing everything possible not just to respond to this incident but also to determine its cause".

The explosion happened on April 20, 2010 and yet Obama waited until April 29 to even announce he was sending two senior members of his cabinet to the site. Yet he wants us to believe they were hands on from Day One. Sorry but the facts say they were not and sending two inexperienced cabinet people to oversee this effort has to be some kind of a joke. Never have we seen people so unqualified to hold cabinet positions as the Obama appointees, and it is beginning to show.

Another of Obama's contributions to this disaster was to snap "just plug the damn hole." That is really not something you would expect the President to say in answer to the catastrophe and more proof he has not been on top of this from Day One.

James Carville, the Democrat strategist, who can never be called conservative took after Obama in a Huffington Post article for his lack of action on the BP catastrophe:

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration's response to the spill has been "lackadaisical" and that Obama was "naive" to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

"I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here," he said. "They're naive! BP is trying to save money, save everything they can... They won't tell us anything, and oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, 'These people don't wish you well! They're going to take you down!'"

Carville also accused the White House of going along with what he called the "let BP handle it" strategy.

"I'm as good a Democrat as most people, and I think this administration has done some good things. They are risking everything by this 'go along with BP' strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this, and Doug is right, they seem like they're inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it'll all go away. It's not going away. It's growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they've got to go to Plan B."

Several others from Louisiana like Cokie Roberts and Donna Brazile have had similar statements.

Then we had this from Chris Matthews of MSNBC from the Huffington Post article about James Carville linked above which shocked us to the core:

Likewise, Chris Matthews argued during a "Tonight Show" appearance that the President was "acting a little like a Vatican Observer."

"The President scares me," he said. "When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."

We are talking about Matthews who during the campaign said Obama sent a tingle up his leg and now is criticizing him for lack of action.

Yet, today Obama said the Administration has been in charge from Day One! This is one big fat lie on top of so many we have lost count. The lies today are outrageous and just glad we are not as dumb as he thinks we are. We don't believe he would have held a press conference this morning except he is catching flack from the Democrats now as much as Republicans.

Obama is showing himself to be inept and is lying to cover up the facts he and his Administration have done little on this disaster.

Governor Jindal of Louisiana to Obama: "We’re tired of waiting for the feds to help with the spill" has been asking for help to build up the barrier islands along the Louisiana coast for weeks and received no answer from the Obama Administration so he is going ahead without help of the Feds. Yet this President wants everyone to think he is on top of everything.

Would Obama have held this news conference today if he had not had lunch with Republican Senators this week when David Vitter (R-LA) took him to task about his lack of interest in this Gulf oil crises. We believe the answer would be NO! Obama also never mentioned sending any troops to the border or more money for Border Security until he had the meeting and was challenged by McCain and Kyl. Thirty minutes after the meeting broke up he announced sending 1200 troops to the border which are turning out to be desk jobs not boots on the ground which they need a lot worse. Circumstantial evidence is mounting that Obama has to be challenged by Republican Senators before he will act.

Obama Defends (Lies about) Response to Oil Spill Disaster in Gulf
Jennifer Loven and Tom Raum

AP WASHINGTON (May 27) - President Barack Obama defensively and sometimes testily insisted on Thursday that his administration, not oil giant BP, was calling the shots in responding to the worst oil spill in the nation's history.

"I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure this thing is shut down," Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill dominated the hour-long session.

He called the spill, now in its sixth week, an "unprecedented disaster" and blasted a "scandalously close relationship" between Big Oil and government regulators.

Obama announced new steps to deal with the aftermath of the spill, including continuing a moratorium on drilling permits for six months. He also said he was suspending planned exploration drilling off the coasts of Alaska and Virginia and on 33 wells under way in the Gulf of Mexico.

The president's direct language on being in charge of the spill, which he repeated several times, marked a change in emphasis from earlier administration assertions that, while the government was overseeing the operation, BP had the expertise and equipment to make the decisions on how to stop the flow.

Taking control carried its own political risks for Obama, because any failure to stop the gusher would then belong to the president. But Obama could suffer politically if his administration was seen as falling short of staying on top of the problem or not working hard to find a solution.

(snip)

Obama said many critics failed to realize "this has been our highest priority."

"My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill."

Excerpt: Read More at AOL News

Angry Obama Hits McCain, GOP Senators

Is the Democrat Senatorial Committee paying for this trip of Obama's to California this afternoon? Reason we ask is the Democrats and their lapdog media asked every time President Bush made a campaign trip if Republicans were paying which they always did. We don't remember seeing our MSM asking if the Democrats are paying for Obama's trip.

As the Senate wrapped up its business Tuesday, Obama was flying to California to headline a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of Congress' most liberal members and a top GOP target this fall.

It has been rumored for years that Obama is thin skinned and cannot take criticism. Turns out it is true in the meeting he had with Senate Republicans yesterday. We have always considered Pat Roberts of Kansas a pretty mild mannered person so to see this quote said it all about the demeanor of Obama:

"He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters. "He's pretty thin-skinned."

No amount of spin on the part of the Administration is going to change the fact that a United States Senator said he needs to take Valium before talking to Republicans. Shows that he was raised with no criticism and now cannot take it which makes us wonder how he could he could dish it out against President Bush with no problem but now that he is President he wants not one to criticize him. Hypocrite!

It also makes sense about his announcement yesterday afternoon that he is intending to send 1,200 military to the border and allocating money after this meeting when McCain and Kyl became very vocal about Border Security. One problem with the troops Obama is sending is that it came out today they are mostly desk jobs according to Fox News:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said he's heard that "the 1,200 border patrol troops are, in effect, desk jobs."

"They aren't boots on the ground at the border," he said, adding that "they were not intended to be deployed to the border."

"Rather they'll be investigating, administrative support, maybe training," he said. "Now that's all fine...but the real value of the National Guard is to be seen."

Was this a publicity stunt by Obama since he didn't bother to tell Senators McCain and Kyl this was planned? Will he really send the troops and ask for the money? In our lifetime we have never witnessed a President that his word is worth nothing. When he said he read the Arizona Immigration Bill, they should have quizzed him on the bill because if he read it, he didn't comprehend the bill.

Last night Greta on Fox News talked to Sen McCain by phone who had this to say after Obama never mentioning a word about sending more troops to the border and 30 minutes after the meeting makes the announcement:

MCCAIN: I don't know, Greta, but I know that this is the most partisan administration that I've ever dealt with. And the fact is that they have not kept us informed on a lot of things. I'm the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. They don't inform us -- inform me on a number of issues. But it is what it is. And the fact is that Americans have finally got the message through that we need to secure our border and we need to secure our border first.

How he had the nerve to show up at the Republican luncheon and attempt to lecture on bi-partisanship is beyond us. Sen Corker of TN got it right along with McCain and others who were in no mood to be talked down to by this President who is clueless on most issues when pressed without having a teleprompter so someone can tell him what to say.

Even some members of the media are waking up to the fact that Obama does not have the demeanor of a President and cannot take any critcism which is becoming more painfully obvious by the day. Just who is this man we know nothing about because no records are allowed to be released. Maybe refusing to hold a press conference or take questions from members of the media is wearing thin. It should be because the job of the White House Press Corps is to keep America apprised of what is happening when all they get is spin from the Press Secretary.

Someone needs to remind Obama he is a President not a dictator!

Angry Obama Hits McCain, GOP Senators
Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:18 PM

If President Barack Obama thought having a private lunch with Republican senators would ease partisan tensions in Congress, he grabbed the wrong recipe.

The president walked into a remarkably contentious 80-minute session Tuesday in which GOP senators accused him of duplicity, audacity and unbending partisanship. Lawmakers said the testy exchange left legislative logjams intact, and one GOP leader said nothing is likely to change before the November elections.

Obama's sharpest accuser was Bob Corker of Tennessee, a first-term senator who feels the administration undermined his efforts to craft a bipartisan financial regulation bill.

"I told him I thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today after what happened with financial regulation," Corker told reporters, with perhaps a dig at Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope."

"I just wanted him to tell me how, when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?"

Four people who were in the room said Obama bristled and defended his administration's handling of negotiations. On the way out, Corker said, Obama approached him and both men repeated their main points.

"I told him there was a tremendous disconnect from his words and the actions of his administration," Corker said.

White House spokesman Bill Burton, who attended the session in the Capitol, said the exchange "was actually pretty civil."

The senators applauded Obama, who had requested the luncheon, when he entered and left the room. Obama told reporters as he departed, "It was a good, frank discussion about a whole range of issues."

Some Republicans were less kind.

"He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters. "He's pretty thin-skinned."

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said he addressed Obama, "trying to demand overdue action" on the giant oil spill damaging Gulf coast states. He said got "no specific response" except Obama's pledge to have an authoritative White House official call him within hours.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, said he pressed the president on immigration issues. McCain said he told Obama "we need to secure the border first" before taking other steps. "The president didn't agree," he said.

Later, McCain said his views were unchanged by Obama's decision to send an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

At the lunch, McCain said he defended his state's pending immigration law, which Obama says could lead to discrimination. It directs police, when questioning people about possible law violations, to ask about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.

At the luncheon, McCain said, "I pointed out that members of his administration who have not read the law have mischaracterized the law — a very egregious act on their part."

Burton said Obama told McCain that he has read the Arizona law himself, and his concerns remain.

After the luncheon, no one suggested the two parties were even a smidgen closer to resolving differences over energy, immigration and other issues that Obama has said he wants to act on this year.

"We simply have a large difference of opinion that's not likely to be settled until November about taxes, spending and the debt," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

Senators said the November elections — all 435 House seats, 36 Senate seats and another three dozen governors' seats are up for grabs — were not overtly mentioned. But they were an unmistakable backdrop.

Republicans hope for big gains, maybe even control of the House. They are banking on voter resentment of Obama initiatives such as the new health care law, and many see little point in cooperating with Obama and Democratic lawmakers at this point.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., complained to Obama about the partisan genesis of the health care law, enacted without a single Republican vote in Congress. Administration aides repeatedly have said GOP input was welcome, but none within reason turned up.

It's hard to know if Obama genuinely thought his luncheon visit would melt some of the partisan iciness. Several Republican senators and aides in the room said he seemed to be going through the motions, not making real efforts at consensus.

"What's really important is not so much the symbolism of bipartisanship as it is the action of bipartisanship," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters later.

Citing the scant or zero Republican support for the health care law, financial regulation bill and last year's financial stimulus, Thune said, "What we haven't seen is sort of the matchup between the rhetoric and the actions to follow through."

As the Senate wrapped up its business Tuesday, Obama was flying to California to headline a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of Congress' most liberal members and a top GOP target this fall.

Source: Newsmax

America to Speaking Out Website by House Republicans

Yesterday the House Republicans launched their new website America Speaking Out which gives the American people a chance to submit their positive solutions that Republicans will make part of their agenda for the next Congress in January 2011.

Cong Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Deputy Whip is in charge of the project:



This is a great idea but wouldn't want to be the person who has to put up with all the spam that is going to come from the likes of SEIU, Daily KOS, and DU who are paid to visit website to cause problems. Might be fun to spend a day tossing them off though.

Today Cong Mike Pence, Chair of the House Republican Conference, made his remarks on the floor of the House announcing this website:



Transcript of Cong Pence's Remarks:

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, gave the following statement today on the House floor addressing House Republicans' new governing agenda, America Speaking Out:

"Well, after years of being shut out of the debates here on Capitol Hill, seeing runaway federal spending, bailouts and takeovers built behind closed doors, the American people finally have a way in. An unambiguous seat at the table. It's called Americaspeakingout.com.

"Since the outset of this Congress, Republicans have been offering positive solutions to the challenges facing this country in building a governing agenda for this Congress. Republicans have been listening to the American people and Americaspeakingout.com is a continuation of that process.

"Now let me say, this is not a listening tour. House Republicans are not a party in search of our principles. We know what we believe. We're committed to the principles of economic growth, fiscal discipline, a strong defense and traditional American values. But we simply believe that the best ideas in America come from the American people. That's why we launched Americaspeakingout.com.

"So I urge all Hoosiers and frankly all my countrymen, whatever your politics, whatever your philosophy, join us at Americaspeakingout.com. House Republicans are listening."

BREAKING NEWS NY Times: BP Begins New Attempt to Seal Gushing Oil Well in Gulf

We sincerely hope this works. Since this top kill has never been tried under water, we will be anxious to see the results. Every thing has been in place for several days to start the procedure. This afternoon BP is going ahead with pumping the heavy fluids into the stack. It works on land, but now they will be able to determine if the procedure will also work under water which could be a something that if it works could be used in the future for any under water oil leaks.

BP has been at odds with the Administration for weeks on how much oil is coming out each day which is not surprising. Soon enough we will learn who was telling the truth about this whole disaster. Lessons Learned is going to be huge.

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times
Wed, May 26, 2010, 2:27 PM ET

BP Begins New Attempt to Seal Gushing Oil Well in Gulf
BP went ahead on Wednesday afternoon with its most ambitious-- and potentially most consequential -- effort to plug the mile-deep gusher of oil that has been streaming into the Gulfof Mexico for more than a month.

The procedure, known as a top kill, was begun at 1 p.m. Central time, the company said.

The procedure involves pumping thousands of pounds of heavy fluids into a five-story stack of pipes in an effort to clog the well and stop the torrent of oil. BP officials said the method of containing spills had never been tried so far underwater, and that it could take days to determine whether it had succeeded. They cautioned there was no guarantee that the gambit would work.

Tony Hayward, chief executive office of BP said, it would be"a day or two before we can have certainty that it's worked."

On the other hand, failure could become apparent withinminutes or hours, a technician involved in the proceduresaid.

Read More: New York Times

Who In the MSM Will Stand Up For Michael Yon?

It is more evident by the day that if you criticize anything about Obama's agenda you pay the price. McChystal is so much in Obama's hip pocket now that he sends the best war correspondent in Afghanistan to Thailand as he bans him as an enbed reporter in Afghanistan. Why? Looks like Obama didn't like the facts that Michael Yon was reporting so he banished him from Afghanistan.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the puppet behind McChystal is Obama -- must have been quite a dressing down McChystal took earlier from Obama when Obama summoned McChystal to Copenhagen while Obama was at the Chicago Olympic fiasco. So now when Obama says "jump," McChrystal says "how high?" There are times in a mililtary career, a general officer with honesty and integrity will stand up, but looks like McChystal is not one of those generals with his banning Yon as an embed reporter. Afghanistan has been going downhill since McChystal took over Command and it looks to be getting worse. Now we have lost the voice of honesty in Michael Yon.

This paragraph from Ron Futrell stands out and sent chills up the spine:

"If there is any time that the American public needs someone in country to give us an honest assessment of what is happening there it’s right now — and that man is Michael Yon. Are honest assessments something that makes this administration uncomfortable?"

There are no reporters left in Afghanistan who will speak the facts unless they decide now is the time to get some journalistic integrity and start reporting the truth instead of the Obama/McChrystal white wash. Our soldiers deserve no less than honest reporting.

It is looking more and more like Afghanistan has turned into political war with Obama and his advisors calling the shots -- shades of LBJ and Vietnam. We have zero confidence that Secretary of Defense Gates will stand up to Obama.

Obama/Gates/McChrystal and the National Security advisors with this action shout that they don't want the American people to learn the truth of what is happening in Afghanistan. The new Obama Rules of Engagement that Obama instituted is having our military fight with one hand behind their back while Obama has given the edge to the Taliban who are becoming stronger once again. Our soldiers are being killed in ambushes, sniper attacks, roadside bombs and any other way the Taliban can cause harm to our military. What happens? McChyrstal bans their one voice who was getting out the truth.

The mainstream media is slowly waking up to the fact they know little about the background of this man who is the President as he continues to freeze out the media but will they stand up for Michael Yon? We doubt they will go that far.

God be with our Soldiers in Afghanistan as they have now lost the one embed reporter who was not afraid to tell the truth about what happening which means Obama/Gates/McChystal couldn't keep covering up.

Who In the MSM Will Stand Up For Michael Yon?
Ron Futrell May 25th 2010 at 3:52 pm

The best war journalist of our time has been kicked out of Afghanistan and the media could not care less.

Let the administration boot Helen Thomas out of her seat in the front of a White House press conference and there would be outrage. Remove Jonathan Karl from the Capitol and media would revolt. Kick Andrea Kremer off Sunday Night Football and there would be pandemonium.

And yet nobody in the media seems to have much of a problem with Michael Yon being removed from the front lines by Obama/General McChrystal. Yon has openly stated the problems in Afghanistan right now and how we could lose this war, unless changes are made. He has been critical of the current rules of engagement that have put our troops in danger and could actually make this war like the Vietnam that the leftist media claimed it was early and often when Bush was president (it’s strange you don’t hear those comparisons from them anymore).

Yon’s reward? He’s lost his embed status, banished to Bangkok. Yon could return but his access might be limited and you can’t just pop in and out of that theater like it’s the neighborhood movie palace. Mess with Yon enough and his resources wear thin, but his patience will not. You will not stop this soldier. He is the ultimate warrior for those who fight and die for this country. His reports are honest, chilling, gripping and are as reflective of the battles they represent as anything I have ever read. But this administration is making it as difficult for him to do his job. You can’t believe this is by accident. The most critical battle in Afghanistan is about to take place, the battle for Kandahar, and the voice of the American soldier is not allowed in.

(snip)

Stand up in a show of force and find out exactly why Yon is not where he wants to be and where he should be right now. Yon has always offered his spot-on reporting and remarkable photographs free of charge to other media. They have taken advantage of that, rightly so. He survives on donations and is a truly independent voice in the war zone.

As we near this Memorial Day and we think of the ultimate sacrifice that has been given by those who serve, my challenge to the media who can’t wait to get to the Indy 500, the picnics at the parks, and the parades, is to man up and demand to know of this administration why the voice of the soldiers has been silenced in Afghanistan.

Excerpt: Read More at Big Journalism

Senator Tom Coburn: JUST the FACTS: United National Edition

We have been a proponent of the United States out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the United States for a long time and this doesn't change our mind. With the US taxpayers funding nearly 1/4 of the UN budget, it is time to consider the offer of Dubai to take the UN. We think that would be a wise choice and at the same time cut our contributions to a group of Nations that love to trash the United States. Think we should offer Obama as the new head of the UN when it goes to Dubai as an additional incentive.

JUST THE FACTS: United Nations Edition
May 24, 2010

As a result of your requests, I am returning to my occasional “Just the Facts” series this week. As American taxpayers are easily the largest financial contributors to the United Nations, it is time to take a closer look at its track record:

American taxpayers provide nearly a quarter of the entire UN budget (and more than a quarter of peacekeeping operations), or about $6 billion annually. Comprehensive data on the UN spending is scarce and very difficult to obtain—even by the U.S. Congress.

Over forty percent of all UN contracts audited in 2007 were found to include fraudulent spending. Of the $1.4 billion in contracts reviewed, $630 million of it was found to include “significant fraud and corruption schemes.”

According to the Associated Press, last week “seven countries accused of human rights violations have won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council in an uncontested election, including Libya, Angola and Malaysia.”

The UN has been regularly criticized for its lack of transparency and commitment to ethics reform. For example, an American whistleblower acting as a high ranking official for the United Nations in Kosovo was fired three years ago after assisting with an internal investigation looking at corruption. The Secretary General has refused requests from agency inspectors for key documents related to this and other ethics investigations.

The UN Environment Program, which manages the UN’s global warming initiatives, spends in excess of $1 billion annually and lacks significant transparency or oversight. According to a key task force report in 2008, it would take the program’s auditor 17 years to review identified high-risk areas. The program continues to delay efforts to bring greater transparency to its work.

Renovations of the United Nations’ headquarters in New York City, which were originally estimated to cost $1.2 billion, are now forecast to cost $2 billion. Cost overruns continue to plague the project. U.S. taxpayers will be responsible for at least $485 million.

Between 2004 and 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), along with other federal agencies, contributed over $400 million to the United Nations Office for Special Projects. Yet, when serious allegations of fraud within the program prompted the attention of U.S. investigators, the program denied the United States access to key records and limited interviews with agency managers.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), whose mission focus includes global poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the promotion of democracy, receives over $200 million annually from U.S. taxpayers. Investigations by a Senate committee revealed that UNDP accounts have been used by North Korea to hide financial transactions. Worse, UNDP funds may have ended up in the hands of an entity used to sell North Korean weapons. Internal UN audits of UNDP programs have been kept from American inspectors.

In response to systemic failures of the United Nations to operate transparently, and to eliminate widespread fraud, I have done the following:

An amendment to eliminate $3 billion in annual funding for the United Nations and transfer it to a federal program that will assist family caregivers of disabled American veterans. This amendment was rejected by the Senate.

An amendment to require a yearly report on U.S. contributions to United Nations programs that will be available in a searchable online format. The Senate accepted this amendment unanimously.

Held numerous committee hearings on fraud and lack of transparency within the UN and led an investigation that exposed the UN headquarters renovation debacle.

An amendment to the budget that barred the release of U.S. funds to the United Nations until the U.S. State Department certified that the UN had become fully transparent, with an emphasis on its procurement and grant making processes. The Senate approved this amendment in 2007, by a vote 92-1. However, it was later removed by House-Senate negotiators behind closed doors.

Obama cries Uncle -- Sending 1200 troops to the Mexican Border

Less than a week after Obama stood by and allowed the Mexican President Calderon trash Arizona and his own trashing of Arizona, he has now decided to send troops to the Border which Arizona Governor and Senators asked for over a year ago. Now he is going to request $500 million in Border Security? What changed?

Is Obama going to admit that Arizona followed the federal law and has done nothing wrong now? We highly doubt it as it doesn't fit the Obama agenda of Red States being wrong all the time!

Los Angeles Times May 25, 2010 12:52 p.m.

The Obama administration plans to announce today that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, a congresswoman from Arizona said.

Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords also said in a statement released today that President Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.

More at http://latimes.com

BP's Trade with Iran: From Environmental Disaster to National Security Threat

This video of Frank Gaffney who heads the Center for Security Policy interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC sends chills up your spine.

Makes you wonder why this Administration has not been more on the offensive against BP with the oil leak in the Gulf. From Day One there has been something wrong about this whole deal from no fire booms on the coast required by the 1994 regulations to BP changing the procedures that very easily could have led to the disaster that killed 11 men. Why has Obama and his Administration been so slow to act? Are they are hiding something or just inept?

Gov Jindal of Louisiana has chosen to proceed with building sand berms skirting the coast line to try and stop this oil from getting into more marshlands of Louisiana. Oil is already pushing at least 12 miles into Louisiana’s marshes and two major pelican rookeries are now coated in crude. Gov Jindal has waiting weeks for a response from this Administration but they have stayed silent on his request.

Why has the Obama Administration been so slow to act? Guess BP knew what they were doing when they gave a lot of campaign contributions to Obama. Getting more obvious if you live in a Red State that this Administration is not quick to help out your State. He reminds a lot of people of some little kid who didn't get his way and threw a temper tantrum. He was definitely not ready to assume the responsibilities of becoming President and it shows. He would rather play than work. No one can ever complain that Obama is a workaholic -- more like a playaholic -- basketball or golf versus work and they win out every time.

BP's trade with Iran: From environmental disaster to national security threat
CNBC May 25, 2010

Frank Gaffney joins Larry Kudlow on CNBC to discuss the national security implications of British Petroleum's trade with Iran. While a BP rig exploded in the Gulf, the company was allowing the mullahs in Tehran to finance, among other things, its nuclear weapons project. The US military purchases hundreds of millions worth of oil from BP; under existing laws, the US has the right to cut ties with the petroleum company unless they stop doing business with the Islamic Republic.

For more information, see the Wall Street Journal article, "Oil Trade With Iran Thrives, Discreetly."

Breaking News: Dow Jones plunged below 10,000 Update now at 4:14 -- Stocks nearly unchanged

BREAKING News UPDATE from NY Times at 4:14:

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Tue, May 25, 2010 -- 4:14 PM ET
-----

Stocks Erase Losses Late in the Day, Finishing Nearly Unchanged

Shares on Wall Street recouped almost all of their earlier
losses to end the day flat. At one point, indexes were down
more than 2 percent.

At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 22.82
points, or 0.23 percent; the Standard & Poor's 500-stock
index actually turned positive, gaining less than a point,
while the Nasdaq declined 2.6 points or 0.12 percent.

Read More:
New York Times

BREAKING NEWS from Los Angeles Times shows the Dow Jones plunging -- will it continue to plunge or recover by the end of the day is the question many investors are starting to ask. What is this Administration doing to calm the markets?

Los Angeles Times May 25, 2010 6:59 a.m.

The Dow Jones industrials plunged below 10,000 today as investors, worried about a global economic slowdown and tension between North and South Korea, turned away from stocks.

The Dow fell 248.79, or 2.5%, to 9,817.78. It closed at 10,066 on Monday and has fallen 1,388 points, or more than 12%, from its recent high of 11,205, reached April 26.

More at http://www.latimes.com/

Jindal tired of waiting for approval, to build sand booms

This is the second Governor who has asked this Administration for Federal help recently and nothing happens. The first was Governor Brewer of Arizona who is still waiting for the National Guard. Kind of reminds you of the pictures of NERO fiddling while Rome was burning. Obama throws a lavish party at the White House for the Mexican President while continuing to ignore the Gulf except to appoint a Commission. Lot of good that is going to do right now.

Did the President even acknowledge the floods in TN? Becoming perfectly clear if you are a Red State don't expect any help. Maybe Crist wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the Obama visit if Florida had been red instead of blue as Obama most likely would have stayed away.

Glad to see that Governor Jindal has finally had it, and is taking action. Obama and his slow to act Administration have cost Louisiana and other states time that they could have used to protect their shores from the oil. Where is the media in going after Obama like they did Bush on Katrina? A lot of Katrina was caused by their Democrat Governor's refusal to ask for help not to mention the tactics of several media outlets in reporting conditions worse then they were for people on the bridge. We thought Carter was a horrible President but this man posing as President is much worse sad to say.



NECN: Barataria Bay, La. - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana's marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.

Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.

"It is so much better for us. We don't want oil on one inch of Louisiana's coastline, but we'd much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.

The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.

"We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it," Jindal said.

"We can either fight battle -- we can fight this oil -- on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option. "Every day we're not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil."

The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.

"It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here," Gov. Jindal said. "Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies."

Material from The Associated Press used in this report.

Source: NECN,Barataria Bay, LA)

Obama renounces military force to secure our national interests and says he will rely on "cooperation and partnerships

On this bright, warm, sunny Sunday morning, we decided this article was worth a full read. The author has done an excellent job in pointing out the failures of the Obama foreign policy and how Obama was received by the cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. We are seeing more and more where local papers are doing a much better job of covering what happens at events than our MSM who are out to cover for Obama. You want the truth -- read your local editorial pages in Red State America.

The last comment in this article about the United Nations as Obama seems bored being President made us start thinking. First of all, he would have to go through Bill Clinton who has always wanted to head the UN but his health could be an issue now. Then there is the "slight" problem of his being an "American" from one of the five permanent members of the Security Council which will most likely disqualify him.

Then it hit -- is this when he comes forward and tells the American people that he is not a native born citizen of the United States but was born a citizen of Kenya so he can become the head of the United Nations? Would he tell us that he didn't know he wasn't qualified to become President until after he was elected and didn't know what to do? Some people would probably swallow that especially most of the national news media. If you are going to put a tin foil hat on, might as well put it on all the way!

Maybe this is our chance to get the UN out of the US and move it to Kenya!

Food for thought on this lovely Sunday morning.

Obama renounces military force to secure our national interests and says he will rely on "cooperation and partnerships

"U. S. Military Academy cadets give him a cool reception"
May 24, 2010

In what some observers, including this one, see as a return to the national security strategy of the Jimmy Carter administration President Obama, in a commencement address at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point, told the graduates that he believes America must rely on its allies, expressing faith in "cooperation and partnerships to confront economic, military and environmental challenges of the future according to the Washington Post report on the speech.

"Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds..." he said is what he sees America must be about.You can listen to a portion of the speech at the link above.

You will note the very weak applause and response to his remarks by the cadets. Some will recall when he visited the Academy last year to make his announcement of what he was going to do about Afghanistan that the faculty had to warn the cadets that they would be taking names of those who did not applaud when signaled to do so. Apparently the same "rules of engagement" were in operation this time also.

He did not mention the recent "trial balloon" the Pentagon released saying they are considering awarding a "medal for restraint" by soldiers, marines and sailors in the face of enemy action if responding threatens collateral damage, or something like that.

Nor did he mention the lack of success his strategy has produced in the Middle East, where some observers, including this one, believe the world is closer to war there than it has been since World War II. And he did not explain how his overtures to the Islamic world have not thwarted terrorists attacks on America. They still hate us. And he failed to explain how his idea of diplomacy has not succeeded in slowing Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. He did not mention his lack success in getting Russia, Turkey and Brazil (or anyone else for that matter) to not feed Iran's ambitions. And certainly he did not explain how his approach pulled the rug out from under those who tried to overthrow the Iran theocracy. And he failed to how, in his new world order, North Korea can feel immunity to sink an ally's ship.

In fact, he had nothing to offer as an example ow how his "vision" has produced any positive outcomes in 17 months.

Is it little wonder the cadets were quiet. One has to wonder how they feel about the commitment they made five years ago when they applied for admission to West Point.

Commentary

Our "in-house" Obama expert, Jim Bispo, has a theory about all this. He postulates that Obama has already tired of being just President of the United States, as he tired of doing other gigs he's had all his life, and is setting himself up to become the head honcho at the United Nations. Kind of makes you wonder does it not?

Source: Beaufort Observer

Obama has Enraged the "Citizen Class"

This article by Austin Hill says what so many of us have been thinking since January 2009 when Obama took the Oath of Office. It is not surprising in my state that I hear negative comments about this President because only 34% of voters of Oklahoma voted for Obama, but I am seeing the same words from people from other states.

The most telling for me was last summer when I was in Chicago and except for Ebony magazine who had Obama's pictures displayed, only saw one Obama sign in an apartment window. No Obama bumperstrips -- no sign he was President and this is where he had lived. When I pulled the car into be parked the attendant says -- Red State Oklahoma -- they knew we had not gone for Obama. In one of the McDonald's where they honor blacks like Martin Luther King, sports figures, business leaders, and other blacks, we could not find one picture of Obama.

The tide is changing and with the Republican Djou's win in Obama's home district where he grew up, we are wondering what the spin is going to be from the Democrats. Republicans doubled the amount of voters from 2008 which is very telling.

Believe that a large group of Americans will be glad to be known as the "Citizen Class!"

Obama has Enraged the "Citizen Class"
by Austin Hill
Sunday, May 23, 2010

The “citizen class” is horrified.

We’re speaking here of those Americans who, while they may disagree on a variety of social and public policy issues, nonetheless agree on a few, crucial matters.

Those of us among the citizen class generally agree that the United States is a good country. While far from perfect, we see our nation as being a place of tremendous opportunity, and a force for goodness around the world.

(snip)

Our nation is good, U.S. citizenship is distinct, and national sovereignty is non-negotiable. In a nutshell, this is the mindset, the worldview, of the citizen class. It has nothing to do with one’s ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation, or gender. It has everything to do with one’s most deeply held beliefs.

Not every U.S. citizen possesses the “citizen class” view (clearly some Americans don’t understand the blessing of their status), yet a majority of us still do. And no matter how much we may disagree on other matters, those of us in the citizen class won’t budge on these three items.

And this why President Obama has enraged the citizen class. He has planted the seeds of doubt regarding our nation’s goodness, and has implied that U.S. citizenship, and national sovereignty, are irrelevant.

Excerpt: Read More at Town Hall

Response to President Calderon by Rep Tom McClintock (R-CA)

Outstanding response and something every American should see!

Washington Times Editorial: Go back to Mexico

Out of the editorials protesting the remarks of Calderon we have read, we believe the Washington Times has the best editorial which is clear and concise.

"Uncouth President Calderon wore out his welcome" has to be the understatement of the year. Can think of a lot of names that fit Calderon and Obama who not only listened by chimed in against Arizona. That doesn't even include the numskulls pretending to be Democrat Congressman who acted like Cheerleaders for the Mexican President against Arizona.

That outrageous display of cheerleading by Congressional Democrats agreeing with a foreign leader will make very good campaign commercials. To have a foreign president attack one of our states, and then have an American President and his Party of Democrats in Congress agreeing with the foreign leader is beyond disgusting. Calderon comes from a Country who has been cited for numerous human rights violations but he attacks Arizona? Yet Democrats applaud him?

The Mexican Government is responsible for the lack of jobs and a decent standard of living for its citizens and for years has expected the United States to pick up the slack. President Calderon needs to understand the gravy train for Mexico's citizens in the United States illegally is coming to a halt -- Mexico needs to take care of their own citizens. How many Americans want to enter Mexico illegally? We bet the number is extremely low as it is a dangerous country.

The American people have had enough of these anti-American Democrats that reside in the White House and Halls of Congress. November 2, 2010, cannot come soon enough to restore common sense to Congress and kick out the Anti-American Democrats!

EDITORIAL: Go back to Mexico
Uncouth President Calderon wore out his welcome
May 24, 2010

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon ought to know a lot about illegal immigrant abuse. His country has one of the worst migrant human-rights records in the world.
During his state visit last week, Mr. Calderon repeatedly - and with support and encouragement from the White House and congressional Democrats - made his opinions known on a variety of American domestic issues, including immigration and gun control. He took particular aim at Arizona's new law concerning illegal aliens, absurdly describing it as "violating the human rights of all people."

Criticism from Mexico on immigration issues is nothing new, but rarely has it been so bold, and such salvos have never been launched from U.S. soil. It might be considered bad manners except for the fact that the foreign leader was promoting President Obama's domestic agenda.

Boiled down in simplest terms, it is hypocritical for Mr. Calderon to criticize Arizona's law when his country has similar or more severe statutes. Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law mirrors Arizona's law by requiring federal, state and municipal officials to "demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any [other] issues." Mexico's constitution gives the president authority to summarily expel both legal and illegal aliens without due process. When CNN's Wolf Blitzer confronted the Mexican president with some of these contradictions, Mr. Calderon was oblivious to the double standard. Asked about Mexico's policy for dealing with illegals sneaking in from Central America looking for work, Mr. Calderon quipped, "If somebody [does] that without permission, we send [them] back." If only Mr. Obama had such enlightened views.

Illegals in Mexico are lucky if deportation is all that happens to them. An April 2010 report from Amnesty International entitled "Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico" called the trip from Central America to the border with the United States "one of the most dangerous in the world."

According to Amnesty researcher Rupert Knox, "Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human-rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses." The report says that "Mexico's irregular migrants are condemned to a life on the margins, vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs and corrupt officials and largely ignored by many of those in authority who should be protecting them from human-rights abuses."
Common abuses committed by Mexican officials include extortion, excessive use of force and violence against women. Arizona is a paradise by comparison.

Mr. Calderon's government recently issued a travel advisory about the "dangers" Mexicans might face in Arizona, but being there is much safer than staying home. In February, the State Department issued a travel advisory regarding Mexico that noted drug gang conflicts resembling "small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades." The circular also warns against robbery, kidnapping and other relatively common crimes. Meanwhile, gang-related beheadings are virtually unknown in Arizona, which is more than Mr. Calderon can claim for his own country.

America doesn't need self-righteous lectures from officials from the developing world. Mexico has its own problems, including pervasive violence, openly armed drug cartels, pollution, widespread institutional corruption and lack of economic opportunity. If Mexicans are flooding north over our border, it is for many very good reasons. Mr. Calderon should stick to trying to fix his own basket-case country, if he can.

Read more on the visit at Washington Times

Mexican President Calderon on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room

This interview on Wolf Blitzer's show with the Mexican President Calderon is very telling. He attacks Arizona yet in Mexico the laws on illegal immigrants are tougher as you will see below. Word that comes to mind is 'hypocrite' for the Mexican President which is nice to what most people are thinking.

Time to send a clear message to Calderon and Mexico that American citizens are fed up with the problems that "ILLEGALS" have caused in the United States in recent years. No one has all the answers but Mexico and its President Calderon have to take responsibility for its own citizens and stop wanting the United States to take care of 12 million plus Mexican citizens here illegally.

The amnesty in the 1980's did not stop the flood of illegals but made it worse. We actually understand why people would want to come to the United States to live, but we also know there ways to become legal immigrants to the United States. It would help if the Mexican Government would start discouraging people coming here and instead provide them jobs to pay for housing, necessities, and good healthcare. The Mexican government is who let its people down not Arizona. Attacking Arizona is a way to deflect the spotlight on the poor job Mexico does in providing for their own citizens.

THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview with Mexican President Felipe Calderon; Analysis of Special Election Results

Aired May 19, 2010 - 17:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Thanks very much, guys.

Happening now, the presidents of the United States and New Mexico standing together against Arizona's controversial immigration law.

But is Mexico just as tough -- or even tougher -- on illegal immigrants?

(snip)

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

President Obama today ratcheted up his criticism of Arizona's immigration law -- one of the darkest clouds over his relationship with the visiting president of Mexico. And it may just have been just what Felipe Calderon wanted to hear. Mr. Obama explained why his administration may, in fact, go ahead and challenge the Arizona law in court -- a law that he calls a misdirected expression of frustration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are being suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

What I have directed my Justice Department to do is to look very carefully at the language of this law to see whether it comports both with our core values and existing legal standards, as well as the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy. And I expect to get a final report back from the Justice Department soon, at which point, we'll make some decisions in terms of how we are going to address that law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: After president Calderon's visit to the White House, he came right here to THE SITUATION ROOM for an exclusive interview. This is his only television interview during his state visit to Washington.

I asked him, what's wrong with the folks in Arizona wanting to protect their border?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRES. FELIPE CALDERON, MEXICO: That is not exactly the problem. I fully respect the right of any nation to establish the legislation that that nation wants -- or their people -- and, of course, the right of any nation to enforce the law and protect their own borders.

But the problem is first that we need to -- to face this challenge in a comprehensive way as President Obama says. And that implies to recognize the rights and the contribution of the people to the growth of this great nation.

But, on the other hand, and in particular, in Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it is against any sense of human rights and, of course, is provoking a very disappointing things -- or a very disappointing opinion in Mexico and around the world, even here, in America.

BLITZER: Because the governor of Arizona says there is no racial profiling, that they're not going to simply stop someone who looks Mexican. They're going to have to have -- the police are going to have to a reason for stopping someone. And if that reason then asks -- results in them asking for papers, that's a different matter.

CALDERON: It could be. And I fully respect the opinion of the governor. But from the point of view of not only Mexican people, but also Mexican-American people and specialists and analyzed the new law precisely had this kind of risk.

BLITZER: Even the amendments that were made -- the changes that were made in this law in Arizona?

CALDERON: Even with that, because what is -- the reason is we need to clarify -- and, in particular, it would be fine if the judicial authorities are able to clarify how dangerous or how bad is the law. If the authorities say it is good, we will respect.

But, anyway, I think that we need to focus in a different way the solution of my -- of immigration here in the States. BLITZER: You heard the president of the United States say that he doesn't have the votes in the Senate, maybe not in the House of Representatives, to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to citizenship -- U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants.

So what -- in the meantime, is there anything wrong with states trying to tighten up their security?

CALDERON: The point is to introduce these kinds of elements, especially racial profiling aspects that are attempting against what we consider human rights. It's the principle of discrimination, which is against the values of this great nation.

BLITZER: Has your foreign ministry issued a travel advisory to Mexicans not to visit Arizona?

CALDERON: Yes, because according with this law, it's -- there is some risk for Mexican people, especially because...

BLITZER: And so if a tourist goes to Mex -- to Arizona and has the proper visas, the proper papers, what's the risk?

CALDERON: The risk is that it -- well, they looks like Mexicans. And, exactly, they are Mexican, even they are visiting and buying things in Arizona.

Let me tell you what the Mexican -- Mexican consumption in Arizona implied like $3 billion a year. So the tourism and other activities of Mexican people in Arizona works a lot for Arizona's economy.

BLITZER: So you think Arizona will pay a price for this -- this new law?

CALDERON: I don't want that. I only want an -- a mutual understanding. And, in particular, I don't want to move these controversial feelings. I don't want to exacerbate bad feelings between Mexicans and Americans. We need to find out a solution.

What is clear for me is that that law is not a solution at all.

BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals."

Is that true?

CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...

BLITZER: So if...

CALDERON: -- (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?

And if they explain...

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.

CALDERON: Yes.

BLITZER: But once they're in...

CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.

BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?

CALDERON: It's not a crime.

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...

CALDERON: No, no.

BLITZER: They can work.

CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.

BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?

CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.

BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.

CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy.

And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.

Source: CNN

Hot Air followed up this Wolf Blitzer interview with more facts about Mexican Immigration law. Makes us wonder how Calderon has the nerve to criticize Arizona's law. If he thought that was going to win him friends in this Country, he had better think again because 65% of Americans agree with the Arizona law that today is still not as strict as the Mexican law which has now taken away the felony charge for being in the Country illegally:

Sounds like he’s saying (or trying to say) that you have to show papers at the border to get in but maybe not once you’re inside — unless, of course, Mexican police need to see them to “enforce the law.” Rush’s cuts leave out the border part. What exactly is “the law” in Mexico, though? Well, the boss emeritus has this:

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

That’s from a 2006 study on Mexican immigration law, some of which is now out of date. For instance, Calderon was right when he told CNN yesterday that it’s no longer a criminal offense, as it was until last year, to be caught illegally inside the country. But then there’s this:

Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

Arizona’s policy, which Calderon derided on Wednesday as “discriminatory” and assailed again on Thursday, requires law enforcement to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant — provided they are already in contact with that person. They can’t randomly stop people and demand papers and the law prohibits racial profiling.

The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are “required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”
.

Would Calderon like Arizona's law better if it mirrored Mexico's? We highly doubt that to be the case. Seems to us he wants open borders and the United States to take more and more of his people so he doesn't have to bother with them. Why should he go after jobs for his people when he can send them to the United States to work and they send their money back to Mexico?

Time to put an end to illegal immigration and have all the states with the problem pass laws similar to AZ and then see what Calderon and Obama have to say. With 65% of the people supporting Arizona, they might not like what they see in the future. American people are fed up with footing the bill for illegals and the demand they be treated special when they are breaking the law by being here illegally.

For a foreign leader to come into this Country and attack a state's law while the President of the United States not only stands by but verbally agrees with him makes us question the loyalty of this President to the United States. When he is not apologizing for the United States, he is attacking states now. Which state will be next in Obama's bullseye? On top of that disgusting press conference yesterday, Democrats in Congress stand up to applaud and support Calderon's attacks on Arizona. Bet most of those applauding never bothered to read the AZ law.

Our laws on the books need enforced not ignored. The vast majority of Americans support legal immigration with open arms but are fed up with the number of people who keep coming across the border illegally and bringing crime from Mexico into the United States. We wouldn't have this problem if the Mexican Government had taken better care of their people instead of expecting the United States to do the job.