Barack Obama's decision to play golf on Memorial Day was disrespectful and hardly presidential

Cannot fathom the uproar if President Bush had played golf on Memorial Day and this is the second time for Obama.  What if Bush had played golf 70 times since taking office like Obama had done?  The press would be all over him but the Obama Media gives Obama a pass on this like everything else.

Was asked the other day why the media covers for Obama so much and my first reaction was to say because he has something on the media?  This may be the worst reporters in the history of our Country with the way they have covered for Obama although we are seeing signs they want to choose the GOP nominee who would be the most likely to lose to Obama and if they won would destroy the Republican Party. 

It would be nice to wake up some morning and see an article like this out of the American media because then it would at least be a step back to the Obama media telling the truth instead of spin and lies about Obama.  They do zero investigation.  How many of his adoring media even knows he has played golf 70 times?  We have to get the details from the British Media and their reporters who are not afraid to tell it like it is! 

Neil Gardner is doing what the American media should be doing -- telling the truth about Obama who just returned from a trip to Europe and would rather play golf then spend time with his daughters it looks like.   He went golfing on Father's Day last year as well after telling the rest of the Dad's to spend the day with their children.

Barack Obama's decision to play golf on Memorial Day was disrespectful and hardly presidential

By Nile Gardiner 

Last updated: May 31st, 2011

Barack Obama has played golf 70 times
(Photo: AFP)

Can you imagine David Cameron enjoying a round of golf on Remembrance Sunday? It would be inconceivable for the British Prime Minister to do so, and not just because of the usually dire weather at that time of the year. Above all, it would be viewed as an act of extremely bad taste on a day when the nation remembers and mourns her war dead. I can’t imagine the PM even considering it, and I’m sure his advisers would be horrified at the idea. And if the prime minister ever did play golf on such a sacrosanct day he would be given a massive drubbing by the British press, and it would never be repeated.

Contrast this with President Obama’s decision to play golf yesterday, Memorial Day, for the 70th time during his 28-month long presidency. For tens of millions of Americans, Memorial Day is a time for remembrance of the huge sacrifices made by servicemen and women on the battlefield. The president did pay his respects in the morning, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, but later in the day traveled to Fort Belvoir to play golf. The story has not been reported so far in a single US newspaper, but was made public by veteran White House correspondent Keith Koffler on his blog. Here’s Koffler’s report:

The business of memorializing our war dead done, President Obama headed out to the Fort Belvoir golf course today, finding his way onto the links for the ninth weekend in a row.

Obama earlier today laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and met with families of those killed in battle. But he emerged from the day’s solemnity to go golfing for the 12th time this year and the 70th time of his presidency.

The decision to golf on Memorial Day invites comparison with President George W. Bush, who gave up the game early in his presidency and said he did it out of respect for the families of those killed in Iraq.

Does it matter if the president chooses to play golf on Memorial Day, and for the second time in his presidency (he did so as well in 2009)? I think it does, and it displays extraordinarily bad judgment, not only by Obama himself but also by his advisers. His chief of staff for example should have firmly cautioned against it. President Obama is not just any American but Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. The United States is currently engaged in a major war in Afghanistan with over 100,000 troops on the ground, and more than 1,500 have already laid down their lives for their country.

The least the president can do on Memorial Day is spend the whole day with veterans and servicemen’s families while acknowledging their sacrifice. As Koffler points out above, President George W. Bush stopped playing golf out of respect for the families of Iraq War dead. This demonstrated not only good judgment but humility and respect for the men and women who keep America safe. It is little wonder that, as Gallup reveals in a new poll, US military personnel and veterans give Barack Obama lower marks for his job performance than members of the general public. The president’s actions smack of poor taste, as well a lack of empathy and support for the US military, hardly the kind of leadership the White House should be projecting at a time of war.

Source:  London Telegraph

Sen. Tom Coburn worries disability program being used for unemployment benefits

Everyday there seems to be another scam that comes out that people are getting money from the Government when they don't deserve it.  Now it is the disability program replacing unemployment benefits when they run out.  The disability program of social security is about to go broke because of all the people claiming a disability who don't have one.

Reminds us of some of the civil service at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, trying to get a disability before the changes to Civil Service took place.  Have to admit that the doctors at the clinic that they had to clear before getting a disability came up with some novel ideas.  My favorite for bad backs that kept them from working was to throw $100 bill on the floor before they walked in the room.  Except for one legitimate case, the rest bent over to pick up the $100 bill and all their claims were rejected plus they had to give back the $100.  When the head civilian doctor told my boss what was happening, all he could do was laugh but after he left he called the Commander of the Medical Center to tell him they needed to do similar things.  There were officers getting out of the service on a disability for tennis elbows before their rules changed for a disability.  In both areas, civilian and military, they were not disabled.

Don't you think that social security might want to look twice when someone claims a disability if they have been unemployed and do not have a workman's comp claim.  The first question should be 'why not?' Seems like a simple question that if you are under Workman's Comp benefits, there is a track record of injury.  If not, there is probably a good chance you are scamming the system because the unemployment benefits finally ran out.

Sen. Tom Coburn worries disability program being used for unemployment benefits 

Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund is expected to go broke within seven years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Sen. Tom Coburn said it could go broke before that because of “horrendous growth” in the program. 

BY CHRIS CASTEEL ccasteel@opubco.comMay 30, 2011

The number of people collecting Social Security disability insurance payments has risen steadily in recent years. According to agency statistics, disabled workers accounted for 17 percent of all Social Security recipients in Oklahoma in 2009, up from 13 percent in 2003.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the disability insurance trust fund paying the benefits will be exhausted in seven years.

Coburn, R-Muskogee, said in an interview the fund may go broke before that because “growth in this program has been horrendous.”

Clearing blockages

While the Social Security Administration's focus has primarily been on clearing backlogs of appeals that stretch more than a year for people first denied benefits, the agency should be working just as hard to ensure that able-bodied people aren't collecting the payments, Coburn said. 

Coburn said he has some personal experience: A man he hired in Muskogee to do some yard work told him that he was collecting Social Security disability payments. Coburn said Social Security workers from around the country have contacted him to tell of abuses in the program. 

The Social Security Administration is supposed to do regular reviews to ensure those collecting the payments still deserve them. But the agency's inspector general estimated that the backlog of Continuing Disability Reviews would reach 1.5 million this year and that more than $1 billion may be paid out to people who don't deserve the benefits. 

Coburn and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, sent a letter to the inspector general of the Social Security Administration saying they were concerned that some judges were approving appeals at unrealistic rates. 

“Given the looming collapse of (the Social Security Disability Income program), it is imperative that disability claims are properly examined to ensure that only those who are lawfully entitled to benefits receive them,” the senators wrote.

“Individuals cannot be allowed to exploit SSDI, transforming it into a supplemental source of unemployment income with enormous and crippling costs to taxpayers.” 

The senators' request followed a story in The Wall Street Journal about a judge in West Virginia who approves nearly every one of the appeals he hears from people who were first denied disability benefits. 

Applications increase

The Congressional Budget Office said disability insurance applications rose during the previous two recessions. 

“Moreover, the number of beneficiaries tends to increase even after the economy begins to recover from downturns,” the nonpartisan agency said in a report. “Many people who have been out of the labor force for extended periods find it difficult to return to work, and new beneficiaries rarely leave the DI program to return to work simply because the economy has improved. 

“CBO projects that as a result of the most recent recession, the number of DI beneficiaries will continue to rise over the next few years by more than otherwise would have occurred, contributing to the long-term trend of rising enrollment already under way.” 

Source: The Oklahoman

Now we know this is a pattern during a downturn in the economy.  What is shocking is that they rarely go back to work once on disability which means the American taxpayers are stuck no matter their age.  Yet there are people who want to work who are disabled -- something is wrong with this picture.

Just one more program of the federal government that people are finding ways to get taxpayer dollars when they don't deserve them.   This is not the fault of social security but the fault of the people scamming the system who have overloaded social security with disability claims. 

Memorial Day Weekend

On this three day weekend, please take time to remember our veterans and those who gave it all for America.  Please thank a veteran for their service to this Country!

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."  

God Bless our Veterans and be with the families who have lost their sons and daughters fighting for our Country in lands far away.

Happy Memorial Day!

Gov Perry Press Conference from the Texas Capitol

Rick Perry reverses course after months of saying he's not interested

This is a headline we have been waiting to post -- all signs have been pointing to the fact that Governor Perry was going to consider running for awhile now as he changed from a definite NO to trying not to answer directly on his plans.
We love MSNBC calling Perry the "outspoken conservative" because that is what has endeared many of us to Perry running.  He tells it like it is and if you don't like it, tough!
Governor Perry in the race would give a lot of people reason to get excited about our chances including me.  Texas couldn't have a better Governor than Rick Perry who knows how to get companies and jobs to move to Texas.  Why not have him as President to get the economy running  with a sensible budget that encourages job growth.  He knows what it is like to have the federal government stick their nose in states business especially during these last two years where Obama and his people are basically shutting down the Gulf to new oil drilling and they are not doing much better on land.  Would expect one of Rick's first agenda items as President would be to tell the EPA to back off of this part of the Country.
Governor Perry reached out to the ideals of the Tea Party from Day One that Government has to do a better job of getting the budget under control and balanced by stopping runaway spending.  We cannot think of a better Republican to run than Rick Perry. 
Had the privilege of voting for Perry when he ran for Agriculture Commission in 1990 as one my first votes in Texas.  He was the one bright spot of the evening.  Perry is so good for Texas we could use him as President -- he has the experience, is conservative, and passionate about Texas and America.  Would be great to have a President who loves America once again in the White House.
Run Rick Run should be the mantra of Republicans from all over the Country.   This Texas Governor will not back down and would love seeing a debate between Rick Perry and Obama. 

Texas governor says he might run for president       
Rick Perry reverses course after months of saying he's not interested   

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the longest serving chief executive in the state's history and a politician who has never lost an election, said Friday he will consider seeking the Republican nomination for president.
The outspoken conservative, who for months said he wasn't interesting in running for the White House, said he will consider entering the race after the Texas Legislature adjourns Monday.

"I'm going to think about it," Perry said. "I think about a lot of things."
It was a stark reversal from his previous insistence that he would not seek the presidency, and one that could shake-up the GOP race. Perry would enter with unquestioned conservative bona fides and a proven fundraising record, adding a fresh voice to field narrowed by the decisions of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels not to run.
Perry has been the center of a presidential buzz during the past week, kicked up as many Republicans lamented the remaining slate of candidates vying for the opportunity to challenge President Barack Obama. The talk increased last week after his speech to Republican insiders in Dallas won rave reviews. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh spent 20 minutes on his talk show a few days later espousing Perry's appeal as a candidate. 
Excerpt:  Read More at MSNBC 

        

Boeing Case: How Unions are discouraging companies to set-up business in America

It is hard for most of us to understand why the Obama Administration thinks their hardline attack on Boeing through the NLRB is going to create jobs in this Country.   Boeing has spent millions of dollars to get the plant in South Carolina ready to operate full time and along comes Obama and his union thugs through the NLRB filing a complaint against Boeing.  Maybe Boeing should have opened their plant out of the Country so not to have to deal with the union thugs.  After striking Boeing for three years, why would Boeing ever want to do business having to use those thugs?
This article details what is going to continue to happen if the NLRB gets their way -- jobs will fly out of the Country so the companies don't have to worry about  work stoppage.  Like so many of the Obama Administration groups, the NLRB is out of control this time in favor of the unions who fund the democrat campaigns. 

Boeing Case: How Unions are discouraging companies to set-up business in America

by CampaignsReport

There is no point in coming back to the chronology of the IAM-NLRB-Boeing case nor to the underlying interests of some stakeholders in the SEIU – Sodexo case anymore than we already did. What we would like to do in this article is to open the debate on the consequences of these events on the American business.

Entrepreneurs (both Americans and foreign ones) know that our American principles have been based on two pillars: free enterprise and a free country. Recent events in our country could change this perception. In the IAM-Boeing case, the NLRB filled a complaint against the airplane manufacturer on the basis that the company’s decision to locate its second production line had not been made on rational arguments (e.g.: diversifying its production centers) but had been a retaliation against past strikes led by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers at Boeing’s plant in Everett, WA. Following the fuss made by the complaint, the NLRB felt obliged to explain that it did not order Boeing to relocate the second production line to Washington – yet this explanation was hardly convincing. A state agency that tells a company where and what to manufacture was the model adopted by some countries but had never been in place in America until now. 

The NLRB and the unions do not think on a long-term basis. The impact of the IAM-Boeing case is huge. If a company cannot choose where to locate its production in the US, the question will be raised whether to locate it abroad. Boeing could have chosen to locate the second production line in Mexico but they picked up South Carolina, creating 1,000 jobs by the way. 

In the SEIU-Sodexo case, the union has been going after the company to become the representative union of its 120,000 employees (which means collecting the 120,000 annual memberships). To do so, the union has tried to tarnish the company reputation, to make it lose contracts and put it under increasing pressure. What they do not tell is that when a client decides to terminate its contract with Sodexo, employees’ contracts are also terminated or they are put under a probationary period as this is going to be the case for all non-managerial employees of Sodexo at the Western Washington University in the coming weeks. In the end, the SEIU is weakening American workers, putting them at risk of losing their jobs. 

In both cases, American jobs are being jeopardized at a time when the economic crisis is not over yet and unemployment rate is still high. We should rather fight for our jobs instead of destroying them and our economy as unions are doing, for their short-term profits. 

Find more at CampaignsReport!

Sen Inhofe Hints ‘Arrogant’ Obama Might Need Mental Diagnosis to Explain Timing of 1967 Borders Speech

We agree 100% with Senator Inhofe and in fact, brought up that same point yesterday as much of what Obama is doing makes little sense.  Maybe it is an Oklahoma thing!

 

Source:  Breitbart TV

Obama "Declares War on American Energy Workers" -- Pro-Energy President in 2012!

Obama might as well be yelling 'Drill Brazil Drill' since that is where he wants $2B to be 'loaned' for drilling off shore. Chances of getting paid back from Brazil are probably nil to non-existent. Yet when it comes to drilling off American shores, Obama and his Administration keep withholding permit approval. There has been ONE new permit issued for a new well drilling in the Gulf since the BP disaster. Thirteen well permits have been approved to reopen but what about all the rest. They are being held hostage by this Administration while he encourages Brazil to drill. Will Brazil even sell us oil is in question.

While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?
We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.
We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

If you were in court, all the documentation would favor the oil drilling companies going back to drilling the Gulf.   Wait, a federal judge did rule against the Obama Administration on their moratorium so what do they do? Slow down the permit process to basically keep the moratorium in place. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has been an outspoken Senator against the Obama Administration on their oil drilling policies in the Gulf as seen in the video below.

President Obama "Declares War on American Energy Workers"
May 25, 2011 Posted by John at 7:44 PM
This video, produced jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research, exposes the fiction that the Obama administration has been anything other than a disaster for America's energy industry. There is no conceivable explanation--no rational explanation, anyway--for Obama's encouragement of Brazil's drilling for new oil in the Atlantic, and promising to be Brazil's best customer, at the same time that he is condemning energy workers here in the United States to unemployment.



All presidents deal with tough circumstances; it is the nature of the job. But we expect them to try, at least, to make things better for the United States and its citizens. When a president favors Brazilian workers over American workers, and puts American taxpayers' dollars behind that preference, what are we to conclude?
Source: Power Line Blog

We need a President who understands American energy development including oil and gas drilling as  Obama is harming the oil producing states of the Gulf and others like Oklahoma with his energy policies. Every time you turn around the EPA is suing our oil and gas industry. In the Permian Basin of West Texas is some lizard that they want to use to stop drilling in one of the riches oil areas of the United States.

It is time for Americans get off the dime and eject Obama from the White House in November 2012 and elect someone like Governor Rick Perry from Texas who would promote our own energy resources instead of sending money to Brazil to drill off shore. Governors Perry and Jindal have been the leading voices against the oil moratorium put on by the Obama Administration that has harmed the Gulf Coast oil and gas employment and devastated some companies.

Does Obama hate oil and gas producing states? Looking more and more like it by the day!

CNN Breaking News: SCOTUS Upholds Arizona Law Punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants!

Finally Arizona one of our border states is getting a break with this ruling by SCOTUS. Now other states can pass the same law as it has been ruled Constitutional. The question becomes whether the Obama Administration will stop their harassment of the states when they want to make sure that employers hire legal immigrants and citizens:

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The 5-3 ruling is a victory for supporters of a crackdown on illegal immigration. Opponents of the law, including the Obama administration, say it steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

Texas Gov. Perry: Security at Border a 'National Disgrace' That's Only Going to Get Worse

This video of Governor Perry from his appearance on Greta last night on Fox is another reason he needs to run for President. He understands the border and what needs to be done -- something Obama doesn't have a clue about!



Transcript:

TEXAS GOV. RICK PERRY: I was very disheartened when the president came into El Paso a couple of weeks ago, had a photo-op out at the city of El Paso and proclaimed that the border was as safe as it's ever been.

And that's just nonsense. You ask these men and women who are putting their lives on the line every night, the border patrol agents, the ICE agents, the Texas Department of Public Safety, folks in that helicopter, our SWAT teams that are out there, the local law enforcement.

All of those individuals know that this border not only is porous, but the people that are coming across this border we have no idea -- well, unfortunately, we do know where some of them are from, and they are from countries that have very close ties to al Qaeda, whether it's Yemeni or Afghanistan, Pakistan, China. It is an absolute national disgrace.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: The thing that surprised me today is that I always knew there was drugs and guns and smuggling of humans back and forth here. What I hadn't realized until I talked to your people today is how many different nationalities come across this border illegally. That's what surprised me. And of course, you know, there are some that are red flags -- countries like Pakistan or Yemen, of course. We all -- you know, we don't want to be alarmist, but those happen to be countries that have been most unfriendly, to put it politely.

PERRY: We have now for upwards of five or six years been going to Washington, D.C., explaining to Congress, administrations that we have a real and a serious and a present danger that has to be addressed. Some 12 Democrat sheriffs, people who are not in my political party, went with us to Washington a few years back to share the story about what's happening on that border. And it's only gotten worse.

Obama's England Trip Shows Out of Touch President

This is how President Obama signed the guestbook at Westminster Abbey earlier today, where he got a tour from the Very Reverend Dr. John Hall and laid a wreath on the Grave of the Unknown Warrior.

It is a great privilege to commemorate our common heritage, and common sacrifice.
Barack Obama
24 May 2008

White House is claiming jet lag for signing the wrong date? But since he chose 2008, makes you wonder if he is going back to the 2008 campaign.

What is the White House staff excuse for his toast to the Queen where he forgot to wait for the band to play "God Save the Queen?" 

 

From Hot Air: Protocol, apparently, requires the toastmaster to wait until after “God Save the Queen” plays and then begin the toast. But the almighty O waits for no sovereign, so he launched straight into his shpiel. To which I say, good for him. What else was the American revolution about, if not the right of the president to half-ass some formulaic niceties about the British monarch? He should have punctuated it with a weary “whatever” and downed the glass in one gulp.

More and more people are starting to question if Obama is having some memory problems. Without a teleprompter he has real problems with his communication skills. Since the American people have no knowledge of his medical records or any other records, it is hard for anyone to know. Is this what his staff is covering up?

After being around someone with decreased memory, it sneaks up on you and most times you don't realize it is happening as it starts out small but I am seeing the same pattern with Obama. It is much easier to see when you are looking from a distance. Signing 2010 could be explained but 2008? It is like he is reliving his glory days of the 2008 campaign.

If Obama is truly having memory or medical problems, then we would think it is time for some staff to step forward and tell the truth.  They need to stop protecting and making excuses for all his gaffes that keep happening.  If it is not a memory or mental problem that keeps happening, then he is far from the smartest man in the world.  Without a teleprompter he has trouble putting words together without 'ummm' and then we always have the many "I's" that he uses.  It is not a normal speech pattern unless he reads from the teleprompter or from a piece of paper like the toast.  Why would the President need to read the toast when it is so short?

Some of us have believed there were signs that President Reagan's Alzheimers started when he was still President.  At the beginning, the symptoms start out as small lapses and then it gets more and more to where it is very noticeable. 

We are not saying that Obama has the beginning of a memory disease, but we believe something is really wrong and being covered up.   He gives a speech one day and next day tries to change what he said. 

Obama is oblivious to the wind:

Sen Harry Reid Publicly Rejects Obama's decision on Israel

This video of Senator Harry Reid's remarks at AIPAC distances himself from Obama's plan for Israel. This is shocking that he would make this speech but for years he has been a strong support Israel in the Congress. We didn't expect this out of Reid but it does show how out of touch Obama is with Congress and the majority of the America people when it comes to Israel.

The most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Monday night publicly rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to use a recent speech to lay out aspects of a potential peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”

When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.

Source: Read more: Politico

Looks like Reid got the standing ovation that Obama didn't get.  Guess Reid's people didn't have to tell the crowd not to 'boo' either like Obama's people did. 

American 'Black' President finds White Irish Roots in time for the Campaign

In 2008, we were called racist for having the audacity to say that he was 50% white. Some blacks were threatened by his supporters for pointing out his Mother was white. His being half white was a non-starter then but fast forward to the 2012 campaign and now Obama is finding his white Irish roots for photo ops for the campaign. All the while his wife does not look happy in the video at the Pub.

Can we safely say that we are no longer racist when we criticize Obama as we no longer have the first black President as now he is has found his Irish roots like so many of our presidents? This is almost too ludicrous to write after years of people being called 'racist' but this is the latest chapter in the leopard changing his spots to get elected. Is he now going to want it both ways with 'no criticism allowed' from whites or blacks because he is both which we knew all along. Wonder how all this 'Irish lovefest' is sitting with the people of South Chicago?

Don't forget in July 2009 when Obama said Cambridge, Mass., police "acted stupidly" in arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. He wrongly assumed without getting the facts that a white policeman was wrong and this was a typical white cop arrests black man stereotype.

If Obama thinks the American people are as dumb as the media, he has a wake-up call coming. This is also the candidate that talked about his grandparents when he was a teenager over some black negative comments after his grandmother had to walk through some black thugs. Then he threw his grandmother who raised him under the bus as a racist in the 2008 campaign. We have always said he will say and do anything to get elected and this trip to Ireland proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We could care less if he was black, purple or whatever, but the number of times any criticism of Obama is met with racism calls is astounding. If he thinks finding his white roots is going to erase away all of that, he is not living in reality.

This trip on the taxpayers nickle is all for show for his campaign and as someone with British roots including Irish, it is beyong disgusting at how the media is treating this. Their memories are short, they are flat out clueless or are intentionally disregarding all the racist calls Obama and his staff made during 2008 and beyond.  We believe it was the latter as they are the same reporters that didn't blink an eye when Obama called us 'racist' for daring to disagree with him.  Is Obama going to stop calling us racist now he has found his 'white Irish roots?'  What part of Obama being half white has not been evident all along?

If he thinks going to Great Britain is going to erase the stain of his dissing our closest ally for several years, he needs another dose of realilty. Obama is the same person who has shown dislike of Great Britain by his comments starting with sending back the Churchill bust at the beginning of his term in office, but he is now playing up to them? What's he afraid of that they might release the real information on him since he was a British citizen when he was born because of his Father?

Obama says Irish roots could have helped early in career
By LYNN SWEET
May 24, 2011 05:07AM

President Obama, in Ireland on Monday, after a visit to his maternal grandfather’s grandfather’s town, praised Chicago’s Irish and said it would have been “handy” earlier in his political career to have known about his Irish roots.

In a Dublin speech, Obama played up his Irish heritage — and said he would have probably had a better spot in Chicago’s St. Patrick’s Day parade if he could have claimed Irish ancestory and marched as O’Bama. Chicago’s Irish political clans — Daley, Hynes and Madigan — were a powerful political force when Obama came on the political scene.

Obama only confirmed his Irish roots during his run for president.

“Until recently, I could not unequivocally claim that I was one of those Irish-Americans.”

He thanked the genealogists who traced his family tree.

“Now, I do wish somebody had provided me all this evidence earlier, because it would have come in handy back when I was first running in my hometown of Chicago because Chicago is the Irish capital of the Midwest, a city where it was once said you could stand on 79th Street and hear the brogue of every county in Ireland.

“So naturally a politician like me craved a (spot) in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. The problem was, not many people knew me or could even pronounce my name. I told them it was a Gaelic name; they didn’t believe me.

“So one year a few volunteers and I did make it into the parade, but we were literally the last marchers. After two hours, finally it was our turn. And while we rode the route and we smiled and we waved, the city workers were right behind us cleaning up the garbage.”

Source: Chicago Sun Times

Cafe Hayek: Bill “Chicken Little” McKibben

The climate change 'sky is falling' crowd is coming out once again following a deadly tornado that hit Joplin, Missouri, on Sunday. When the deadly tornado hit Ohio taking dead aim at Xenia in the early 70's, the climate change crowd was non-existent. All we heard then was the climate goes in cycles which we still believe today and the facts and figures say the same thing.

We found this article from Cafe Hayek short and to the point that once again the climate change crowd in the media is bringing out climate change once again after a disaster.

Bill “Chicken Little” McKibben
by Don Boudreaux on May 24, 2011

Writing in today’s Washington Post, Bill McKibben blames deadly recent weather events on climate change. And he snarkily dismisses as naive the argument that humankind can adapt well to such change.

Let’s look at data from the National Weather Service on annual fatalities in the U.S. caused by tornados, floods, and hurricanes from 1940 through 2009. Naturally, these data show that the number of such fatalities varies from year to year. For example, in 1972 the number of persons killed by these weather events was 703 while in 1988 the number was 72. On average, however, the trend is clear and encouraging: the number of such fatalities, especially since 1980, is declining.

The average annual number of such fatalities over this entire 70-year span is 248. In each of the four decades prior to 1980, the average annual number of fatalities was higher than 248; in particular:

1940-49: 272

1950-59: 308

1960-69: 282

1970-79: 296

The average annual number of such fatalities over the full 40 years 1940-1979 was 290.

But in each of the three decades starting in 1980, the average annual number of fatalities caused by tornados, floods, and hurricanes was lower than 248; in particular:

1980-89: 173

1990-99: 171

2000-09: 238

The average annual number of such fatalities over the full 30 years 1980-2009 was 194. (This number falls to 160 – just over half of the 1940-79 number of 290 – if we exclude the deaths attributed to hurricane Katrina, the great majority of which were caused by a levee that breached a day after the storm passed.)

This decline in the absolute number of deaths caused by tornados, floods, and hurricanes is even more impressive considering that U.S. population more than doubled over these 70 years, from 132 million in 1940 to 308 million today.

Seems that McKibben’s apocalyptic prognostications about humanity’s future are as fact-based as are those of the Rev. Harold Camping.

Source: Cafe Hayek.com

London Telegraph: O'Bama? Oh puh-lease!

The British writers know exactly how to portray Obama as this article is 100% correct. The Obama media traveling with Obama on another vacation are all gushy, gushy as usual. How they continue that with a straight face is beyond me.

Mr. Delingpole captured the true Obama and is not fooled at all. Our thanks to him for showing the American media how to write a real story since they don't seem to get it as they spin for Obama. This British writer is smart enough to know that the Obama's cannot stand Great Britain and are just there for video/pictures for his campaign in the US. Obama is not going to fool America like he did the first time and frankly the Obama media continues to lose what little respect they had left as they breathlessly report on Obama.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama made perfectly clear he was black and as far as he was concerned did not claim the white side. Now all of a sudden he wants to go back to his roots which is nothing more than a campaign ploy and our media with their short memories go gaga.

Tip of the hat to the London Telegraph for this article!

O'Bama? Oh puh-lease!
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: May 23rd, 2011

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

And in the Middle East, where he is Al-Barak Hussein Obama, Protector of the Holy Shrine, Smiter of the Kuffar, Lion of the Desert, Tent-Loving-Aficionado-of-the-Oversweetened-Coffee, Chomper of Sheeps’ Eyeballs, Restorer of the Caliphate.

Etc.

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

My colleague Damian Thompson appears to be under the impression that Obama is a great guy because he said nice things about the Queen. Look, I think the Queen’s great too, but did it really not occur to my distinguished colleague (and editor) that there might have been a hint of an ulterior motive here? Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like some presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

To see the picture of Obama planting a tree in Ireland (bet he has never done that before), please visit this article at London Telegraph

Decided not to ruin this article by putting up a picture of Obama planting a tree so hope you don't mind going to the link if you want to see the picture.

Quote of the Day by Tim Pawlenty, Republican Candidate for President

The following is a quote from Gov Pawlenty as he announces in Iowa his formal entry into the GOP Primary for President:

"I'm Tim Pawlenty, and I'm running for president of the United States," he told a rally in Des Moines, Iowa. "If we want a new and better direction, we need a new and better president."

More from Gov Pawlenty on his formal announcement from Iowa:

In an outdoor speech, with the State Capitol in the backdrop, Mr. Pawlenty presented a new policy message here Monday, including challenging the state’s sacred ethanol subsidies. He said the nation’s debt burden meant that all areas – including Iowa’s farmers who have grown accustomed to subsidies – must be reconsidered.

“The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.”

While Mr. Pawlenty kept his focus squarely on Mr. Obama, the themes of his introductory speech also offered a glimpse into how he intends to distinguish himself from the field of Republican candidates. He made repeated references to honesty, truth and his ability to acknowledge when he makes a mistake.

“President Obama’s policies have failed, but more than that, he won’t even tell us the truth about what it’s really going to take to get out of the mess we’re in,” Mr. Pawlenty said. He added, “I’m going to take a different approach. I am going to tell you the truth.”

Excerpt: Read More at The Caucus

Gov Pawlenty is off and running in his quest for the Republican nomination. You don't get much more backbone then he has when he takes on the huge ethonol subsidies in the State of Iowa. That left those of us in the other 49 states cheering!

Exclusive interview with Tim Pawlenty by Ed Morrissey of Hot Air this morning:




Video streaming by Ustream

Patton: Can We Trade Barack For Bibi?

We couldn't agree more with Doug Patton -- trading for someone who understands what it is like to be vital part of the United States allies versus the current occupant of the White House who disses our allies and plays up to our enemies is a trade we would approve.

What makes the difference now if Bibi is not a natural born citizen because neither is Obama? Since that is the case, I would take Bibi in 100 milliseconds over Obama.

On so many levels Bibi outshines Obama who is nothing more than that skinny kid who was the community organizer who sat around and talked. The inexperienced Obama has not grown into the job as by all accounts he is still as lazy today as we was then except now he has Air Force One at his beck and call to fly away when it gets too "hot" in DC as he continues to try to take America to the left.

Five Hundred people on his latest boondoggle to Europe when we have such a huge deficit is just one more piece of evidence that Obama thinks of himself as king and we are all his servants to make sure he gets is way.

Why worry about security because what terrorist would go after him? They know who was behind the Bin Laden killing and it wasn't Obama. They also understand his playing favorites for Muslim countries over our allies. President Bush was an actual target but then he had a backbone and stood up for our allies and dissed our enemies something Obama doesn't understand or wants to understand.

We agree a trade of Obama for Bibi is an excellent idea!

Patton: Can We Trade Barack For Bibi?
By Doug Patton May 23, 2011 6:40 am

Let's just get it out in the open right now. I would like to trade Barack Obama for Benjamin Netanyahu. I know, I know, Netanyahu was not born in the United States, but then…well, let's don't open that can of worms again. The bottom line is that the Israeli prime minister is one of the premier leaders in the world today, while Obama is one of the premier aspiring dictators. Ask yourself; wouldn't you honestly prefer an Israeli conservative to a Muslim sympathizer?

In the 63 years since the creation of modern Israel, every American president has met the responsibilities expected of a friend and an ally — until now. From Harry Truman to George W. Bush, the tiny Jewish state could count on the United States of America to honor its commitments. Not any more. Barack Obama has thrown Israel under the international bus and is making no apologies for it.

In his recent speech on the subject of Israeli-Palestinian "peace," Obama informed the world that he expected Israel to go back to its pre-1967 borders. Who does this arrogant man think that he is? Can you imagine Mexico telling Texans they should go back to their pre-1836 borders? (Actually, there are a lot of Mexicans who believe that is exactly what should happen, but that is a topic for another day.)

Obama's incredible hubris was a direct slap in Netanyahu's face and the face of Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton evidently gave the prime minister 48 hours notice of Obama's intentions to announce his ridiculous demands before the speech was actually delivered. In fact, Netanyahu was scheduled to fly to the United States for an official visit to the White House and to address Congress, and was actually in the air at the time of the speech. Coincidence? Hardly.

....

"So it's not going to happen," Netanyahu told a tight-jawed Obama in front of the president's adoring sycophants in the press. "Everybody knows it's not going to happen. And I think it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it's not going to happen."

Excerpt: Read More at: GOPUSA.com

Gov Tim Pawlenty Announcement Video for President

Former Minnesota Governor's video is a preview of his campaign. With his plain spoken words and lack of cliche's, he is already at the top of the list for a roll out that is classy. He is right about one thing -- he is conservative and he governed the liberal state of Minnesota for 8 years bringing conservative values to state government. Minnesota is in much better shape then when he was first elected and in a few years it will be in much worse shape with the new Democrat Government.

Welcome to the race Governor!

Obama: his remarks last week that Israel-Palestinian negotiations should start from pre-1967 borders was "not based in substance."

Has Bill Clinton the 2nd taken over as this is a reminder of what the word 'is' is.  Obama lied in his speech to AIRPAC where attendees were instructed not to boo the President.  His lie continues about longstanding US policy when it is only Obama policy:

Obama also told the AIPAC meeting that his speech Thursday made clear a long accepted outline for the negotiations.

"There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations," Obama said.

It was widely reported following the Obama speech on Thursday that President Bush sent a letter in 2004 to Ariel Sharon discussing that it would be impossible to go back to the pre-1967 borders because it would create a lack of security of Israel.   Now Obama gives a speech a few days later and once again repeats the lie it has been long standing US policy to go back to the pre-1967 borders.  On top of that lie he  he tells AIPAC that his comments on the pre-1967 borders was "not based in substance" which is nothing short of astounding.  Who writes Obama speeches or does he go off on his own because saying a part of his Thursday speech was "not based in substance" makes you wonder what is going on.

May 22nd, 2011

Obama rejects controversy over his stance on Middle East peace talks

By: CNN's Tom Cohen
(CNN) - President Barack Obama said Sunday that any controversy over his remarks last week that Israel-Palestinian negotiations should start from pre-1967 borders and include land swaps was "not based in substance." 

In his first speech as president to the main American-Israeli lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama said his reference to the border issue in a major policy speech on the Middle East "means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," the eve of the six-day war in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip and other territory.
Excerpt:  Read More at CNN

Not often you will find me speechless but this Obama speech is one of those moments. You are left with did he mean what he said, did some speechwriter put in "not based in substance" or did he go off from reading the teleprompter and add it himself? Whatever the reason, this President needs a break from making speeches before he gets this Country in more trouble. His obvious lack of reality is catching up.
Cannot believe he is running again for President based on his performance that has people from across all the political spectrum scratching their heads at what they have been witnessing. He seems totally over his head with a bad temper on top of that. To tell people in an audience not to boo the President is unheard of especially being said on behalf of the former community organizer whose experience was to get people to agitate and go after speakers. But when it comes to Obama, you are to applaud politely and tell him what a great job he is doing seems to be the mantra.   Does he have such a thin-skin that he cannot take criticism?  Maybe he truly does believe he can walk on water the way he acts.  Obama would never have lasted with the hatred aimed at President Bush including the leftist setting up camp to protest when he came to Crawford, TX.

Lieberman Calls Parts of Obama’s Speech ‘Profoundly Ill-Advised’

Since the Obama speech Thursday on the Middle East, especially the part about Israel, Obama  has been roundly criticized by many people in this Country.  We have found no one who expresses more accurate criticism of Obama for his part of speech that included Israel than Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who is the only orthodox Jew in the Senate.  It has been well documented that Senator Lieberman has been unhappy with Obama's stance on Israel, but this latest demand for Israel to return to their pre-1967 borders caught even a lot of Democrats off guard.
We have noted crickets chirping out of many Senate Democrats.  Are they trying to figure out what to say next so not to make Obama mad or hurt his chances for donations with the Jewish community?  Everything is about politics with some of the Senate Democrats so why would this be different?  
For as long as we can remember, Senator Lieberman was never part of that group of Senate Democrats that no matter the issue would back Obama.  He has been extremely outspoken since he supported Senator McCain in the 2008 election because of his stance on the military versus Obama.  We noted that the Democrats didn't have the nerve to censure  him because of his support of Sen McCain.  A lot of rhetoric but no action was taken.

May 20, 2011, 12:23 PM ET
Lieberman Calls Parts of Obama’s Speech ‘Profoundly Ill-Advised’
By Naftali Bendavid 

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, among the highest-profile Jewish officeholders in American government, blasted President Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East Friday, calling portions of it “profoundly ill-advised.”

It was a notable criticism from the Connecticut senator, an independent who generally votes with the Democrats and is considered part of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. Mr. Lieberman did support Republican nominee John McCain for president in 2008, infuriating many Democrats, citing in part Mr. McCain’s strong defense record.
Mr. Obama’s Thursday speech paid tribute to the new democracy movements springing up across the Middle East and sought to align the U.S. with them. But the president also tackled the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a new way, saying any peace settlement should be based on the 1967 borders, which exclude the West Bank, while allowing for mutually-agreed land swaps.
Mr. Lieberman, who is retiring from the Senate next year, called the president’s words “an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back."
He added: “As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.”
Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal 

Are Jewish donors who contribute heavily to Democrats and Obama going to continue with the donations or are they finally going to realize that this group of Obama Democrats is not their friend or a friend of Israel?  Time will tell but surely after this, they will see the light that Obama is bad for the Nation of Israel as he continues to support the Palestinian Government who now contains terrorists organization members.  Why doesn't Obama tell the Palestinians that they have to eject the members of the terrorists organizations from their Government?  We don't expect to hear that from Obama as he continues to dis our allies and support our enemies.

BiBi Netanyahu and Barry Soetoro in their early twenties

BiBi Netanyahu and Barry Soetoro in their early twenties

Happy to hear that Netanyahu schooled him on the history of Israel since Obama obviously missed World History when he was in school. Looks like he missed American history first since he doesn't believe the Constitution applies to him.
We have a community organizer as President and Israel has a patriot who fought for his Country.  That kind of sums it up as Obama from day one has acted like he is still the community organizer and everyone is hanging on to his every word.  When he speaks, the world is supposed to listen.  Whoever put in his head that he knows what is best for the world including America did Americans a disservice.   Lack of experience has been showing from Day One combined with extreme arrogance has been bad for the image of America and for the country as a whole. 
There are a lot of unhappy Obama voters who didn't get who they thought they were getting when they cast their vote for him.  He is much more radical and leftist then a lot of people could imagine.  His handlers did a great job of selling him to the media as a centrist who in turn covered for the real Barack Obama.  Now he decides what media he wants at events like at his Boston fundraiser where he shut out the Boston Herald from full coverage.  Wonder what some media members are thinking but the key question is if the will they have the backbone to stand up and report the truth on this man who is acting like a spoiled brat who just happens to be the President?
Less than two years to evict Obama from the White House since he never should have been elected as a non-natural born citizen which the Constitution requires.

Is Jobs Report being Manipulated for Political Purposes?

We found these comments from Town Hall Finance very interesting as it sheds new light on the figures that the Obama Administration releases monthly which frankly have seemed out of touch with reality. 

The biggest one is unemployment. Some are saying that the uptick to 9 percent is good because it implies more people are looking for work. You have to be looking for work to be considered unemployed. 

But as IBT points out the numbers participating in the job market have not risen.
"The labor force participation rate remained stuck at 64.2%, hence the increase in the unemployment rate to 9% from 8.8% is interesting. Usually you'd expect in recovery for more people to flood back into the job market seeking work, which is why the unemployment rate rising would not necessarily be a bad thing. However that was not the case in April. A more typical 66-67% labor force participation rate would add a few % to the unemployment rate."
Shedlock concludes:

"The official unemployment rate is 9.9%. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is ....much higher at 15.9 percent."

We could ask the question why the Obama Administration is not being truthful but what good would that do.  The Obama media won't say a peep when they know Obama or his political appointees are lying -- they ignore it acting like everything is okay.  Without the Internet, the facts would never get out as the Obama media twists the facts to suit their liberal agenda.  Looks at their spin on his second outreach to Muslim major speech at the 1967 borders of Israel being rolled back.  They acted like it was United States policy instead of Obama policy.  With that in mind, why would we expect any less of the media when it comes to the jobs report they breathlessly report every month.  If Obama's Administration says it is fact to them it is absolutely the truth without any further investigation so the American people get a false sense of what is reality from the Obama Media.

Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Email John Ransom | Columnist's Archive  

Before joining Townhall, I was both a political consultant and a writer. I wrote mostly about the stock market. My father was a banker. His father was a banker.

Starting in 1994, I followed in my family’s tradition and I worked as an investment executive to several NYSE-member investment firms. I also co-founded a small boutique investment firm and worked for a merchant banker.

Then 19 hijackers crashed planes into buildings in NY City and Washington, D.C.
Because of that event, I altered the goals of my life considerably.

Welcome to Townhall Finance.

Coopmeister wrote: Businesses have added a net total of more than 250,000 jobs per month, on average, in the past three months. That's the fastest hiring spree in five years. –in response to my column O-pocalypse Now

Dear Coop,

As Mark Twain observed “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

When he said “statistics” he might as well called out the government by name.
The problems with the jobs report is that it can be manipulated, and usually is, for political purposes.

I noted on our blog the Ticker on May 6^th, “The BLS estimates birth and death of private companies and consequent jobs created by them. These numbers have no basis in fact. They are just numbers pulled out of the air.”

IBT confirmed it: "For those of you keeping track at home, the birth death adjustment was 175K [jobs], a quite massive figure."

And Townhall Finance columnist Mike Shedlock said at the time, "In recent years Birth/Death methodology has been so screwed up and there have been so many revisions that it has been painful to watch."

But getting past the numbers: Are you really trying to argue that the economy is in the best shape in five years? Is that why our debt has been downgraded and the dollar is tanking?

Is that why notable liberals like Warren Buffet and PIMCO’s Bill Gross are betting against the dollar and Treasuries?  

Source:  Town Hall

How many states are not allowing people to file new claims or repeat claims in the days before the ending report for the month in order to prop up the Obama numbers? It happened a few times in Oklahoma when we had a Democrat Governor as claims could not be filed on line for 4-5 days. Once you say there was a problem with the system, but twice, and then the third time at the same time of the month? We don't believe in coincidences. With a Republican Governor now we haven't heard of any problems with the system. Either her IT people are much better or more likely there is no manipulation going on today.

Alan Dershowitz: Obama Torpedoed Peace Process

Most of us learned to know who Alan Dershowitz was during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings when he along with others would be on cable television explaining what was happening.  At times he seemed as incredulous as those of us watching what was going on with Clinton.  Remember one moment when Clinton tried to explain the meaning of 'is' that  he was almost at a loss for words.  He was also an advisor during the OJ Simpson trial to the defense.  We haven't always agreed with him on some issues but when it comes to the Arab/Israeli conflict, we follow what he has to say because his comments reflect a very deep understanding of the subject.

Shame that Obama doesn't have advisers like Dershowitz around preferring to listen to advisers who are pro-Palestinian in the peace process like Valerie Jarrett and Hillary Clinton.  This attitude of favoring the Palestinians with Hamas and Hezbollah involved with the Government has now led to a real set-back with the Obama speech favoring a return to pre-1967 borders.  Although we are not sure that it ever was completely on track since Obama was elected and one of his first speeches he gave was in Egypt to the Muslim World.

Obama wants us to believe that he does not have Muslim leanings but everything he does about the Middle East says the opposite.  Sitting in Rev Wright's Church 20 years has done nothing to dispel the Muslim rumors.  Rev Wright was a 'former' Muslim who pals around with the head of the National of Islam, Louis Farrakhan,  In fact, Trinity Church of Christ in December 2007 gave Farrakhan the Lifetime Achievement Award "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet" Award.  Why would a 'so-called' Protestant Church give the head of the Nation of Islam that award?  Why didn't the media ask questions instead of reporting that Obama said in his church for 20 years and never heard any of the black separatist talk.  That defied common sense but was part of the media plan to prop up Obama and as he threw his past associates under the bus with his adoring pretending they didn't exist at all.

Dershowitz: Obama Torpedoed Peace ProcessFriday, 20 May 2011 01:51 PM
By Henry J. Reske and Kathleen Walter

President Barack Obama’s call for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on the 1967 Israeli border dealt a serious blow to the peace process and damaged the global image of the United States, Israeli advocate and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.TV.

Dershowitz was commenting on Obama’s Thursday address at the State Department in which he pressed Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and set the 1967 border as it existed before the Six-Day War as a starting point. Obama’s position “hurt the peace process gravely,” he said, adding that the president’s declaring such a marker repeated a negotiating error that led to an earlier breakdown in talks when he insisted on a freeze of Israeli settlements in occupied territories.

“He made the same mistake again in this speech,” Dershowitz said. “He put himself ahead of the Palestinians. That is he insisted Israel go back to ’67 borders with land swaps, but he did not demand that the Palestinians give up the right of return.” 

The former Supreme Court law clerk and noted defense lawyer believes the speech will have a “terrible impact” on U.S. Israeli relations and increased the level of distrust dramatically, although “polite discourse” will continue. 

"The tragedy is during the Obama administration the prospect of peace has gone further away than it’s ever been in recent years since Israel offered to give the Palestinians a state . . . He’s been ham-handed in how he has dealt with the issue of negotiations and the result is we’re further away than ever before from negotiated peace and that’s in large part the fault of President Obama and I think that’s the terrible tragedy of how he’s handled this process.”
Dershowitz also maintained the speech will damage the country’s image. 

“I think also the speech was not particularly good for the United States,” he said. “It set us out in a way that showed naiveté and created a situation where neither side will be encouraged to move toward peace by what the president said. So I think on balance it was a net loss rather than a net gain. And I am disappointed because I favor a two-state solution, I voted for Obama and I was hoping he would have a more sophisticated and realistic approach to negotiations which he doesn’t seem to have. He has twice now set back the prospects for negations and a two state solution.”
Dershowitz also criticized how little time Obama spent on the question of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Obama devoted few words to the issue in his speech, noting at one point that the United States’ “opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.”
“The thousand-pound elephant in the room that threatens Israel’s security more than the Palestinians, or the Syrians or the Egyptians is the prospect that Iran will develop nuclear weapons,” Dershowitz said. “Although he threw a little bone against Iranian development of nuclear weapons he did not guarantee Israel that Iran would not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. In fact he had a big statement saying Israel will have to be prepared to defend itself alone.” 

Such language increases the “distress most Israeli’s have in Obama,” Dershowitz said.
“It would have been far better had he not make that speech than that he included the few paragraphs he did about Israel which were ill conceived and I think not helpful to the peace process,” he said. 

Excerpt:  See the video on Newsmax.com: Dershowitz: Obama Torpedoed Peace Process

Marco Rubio, Adam Hasner Step up Republican Attack on Obama's Mideast Policy

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Speaker of the Florida House, is making his mark on DC as he is not afraid to speak out and challenge the President on his Mideast policy which favors the Palestinians.

“Unfortunately, the president’s reference to Israel’s 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not predetermine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region.

We have become appalled at the Obama media now saying that Obama is just carrying on United States policy when that couldn't be further from the truth. President Bush wrote a letter to Ariel Sharron in 2004 expressing the committment of the United States to retain those 1967 borders for the protection of Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

Our so called mainstream media like the NY Times continues to go downhill rather than print the truth about what Obama said in his speech by pointing out this has not been the policy of the United States. If I can find the letter from President George W. Bush to Ariel Sharron, then it should have been a simple task for the NY Times and other Obama media to do likewise.  Obviously they didn't want to read the letter because then they might have to admit that Obama changed United States policy toward Israel which would conflict with their willingness to print anything they think will help Obama even if it is a lie.

Adam Hasner, former Majority Leader of the Florida House, is going to run for the Senate seat in Florida currently held by Democrat Bill Nelson. Right now he needs a good look for the position following in the footsteps of Marco Rubio who came from the Florida House. We thought this statement by Hasner speaks for what a lot of us are saying:

"Whatever statements the president made in defense of Israel or aspirations for democracy in the region have been undermined by his actions, his repeated appeasement and indifference to Palestinian violence toward Israel, and his mixed messages in places like Egypt, Syria and Libya.

With a message like that Adam Hasner should get a strong look as a candidate for the Senate in the 2012 Florida election. We will have more in the months ahead on where he stands on various issues but for today Adam Hasner is voicing an opinion we can agree with 100%.

Marco Rubio, Adam Hasner Step Up Republican Attack on Obama's Mideast Policy
Kenric Ward's blog | Posted: May 19, 2011 4:45 PM

In separate statements Thursday, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and Senate hopeful Adam Hasner joined the Republican attack on President Barack Obama's speech on the Mideast.

While applauding calls for peace and democracy, Rubio, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "We need to back up our words with actions and policies."

"Our actions should leave no doubt that America is on the side of those who strive for freedom, and it should always be clear that we’re against despots like [Syrian President Basser] Assad who run their countries like they are living centuries in the past. To continue to hold hope for democratic reform to come under Assad ignores the reality that he is a brutal tyrant. Assad has lost the legitimacy to rule and must go now.

“Unfortunately, the president’s reference to Israel’s 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not predetermine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be in encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides, and to continue playing an important role as a security guarantor in the region.

“Everywhere we look in the Middle East, there is unrest as millions of Arabs have finally had enough and are demanding the freedoms that have been denied to them for far too long. America must always be a clear force for freedom that works with willing allies and partners to uphold and protect democratic values wherever they are threatened," Rubio concluded.

Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader running for U.S. Senate, said:

"Today, President Obama spoke of 'the world as it should be,' and made several valid points about supporting reform and democratic transitions. But his speech lacked moral clarity and was undermined by his call to return to the 1967 borders, his statement that Israel is an occupying force, and his continued hostility toward Israel's self-defense.

"As one who has seen the region firsthand, the Jordan Rift Valley is key to the military defensibility of Israel's heartland. His demand to return to the 1967 borders undermines the ability of Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a settlement for themselves and places Israel's vital security needs at serious risk.

"Whatever statements the president made in defense of Israel or aspirations for democracy in the region have been undermined by his actions, his repeated appeasement and indifference to Palestinian violence toward Israel, and his mixed messages in places like Egypt, Syria and Libya.

"Furthermore, with America approaching a $15 trillion debt, and at a time when unknown forces with questionable intentions are gathering in places like Egypt and Syria, President Obama's calls for an open-ended and unaccountable American financial commitment to the region make little sense economically or strategically.

"Perhaps most disappointing is that President Obama failed again to go far enough in condemning anti-Israeli violence and the Palestinian Authority's continued rejection of Israel's right to exist. This conflict is not simply about land. Rather than legitimizing the idea that 'occupation' is the cause of hostilities,

"America has an important obligation to stand firmly for freedom, and the president of the United States has a responsibility to call out the enemies of freedom by name. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the Jewish people, and her allies. There can be no peace with the Palestinian Authority so long as Hamas is a part of it. Drawing a moral equivalence between the Hamas-dominated Palestinian authority and the government of Israel, as President Obama did today, is an unwise departure from decades of bipartisan foreign policy," Hasner stated.

Source: Sunshinestatenews.com

Obama's Muslim Outreach 2.0: Doing business with the Muslim Brotherhood

Wanted everyone to read the latest from one of the foremost experts on National Security, Frank Gaffney, on the speech to the Muslim World by Obama where he wants Israel to pull back to the 1967 borders and put their existence in jeopardy.  We have had out doubts about Obama from Day One but no more -- this is just the latest where he has dissed our friends and supported the enemies of not only Israel but America.  Terrorists want to destroy America and Israel, but it makes zero difference to this President.  The Muslim Brotherhood are not our friends no matter how much this Democrat President reaches out to them.

What do the people who supported Obama who also support Israel think of their choice now?  Many voted for Obama so not to be called a racist.  Personally have thought from the beginning that Obama didn't like America and the values we have held for over 200 years and it is becoming more obvious today that he will put the Muslim World ahead of America and our allies.

Read this article from Frank Gaffney and then decide for yourself how important it is for someone like Governor Rick Perry of Texas to get in the race who is not afraid to go toe to toe with Obama.  We know Rick loves America and our allies would not have to worry about his support.  This election is too important to not have one of our outstanding Governors get in the race.  We have already seen him in action against Obama which is what we need to win this election and put this Country back on the right track where our allies can depend on us not sell us out!

Obama's Muslim Outreach 2.0: Doing business with the Muslim Brotherhood

Center for Security Policy | May 19, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

President Obama's latest paean to what he calls "the Muslim world," delivered at the State Department today, was an exercise in whistling past the graveyard of real and growing dangers and a litany of misleading statements that borders on official malpractice. Its most important upshot is this: The United States is now prepared to do business with the Muslim Brotherhood.

While Mr. Obama did not use those exact words in his Muslim Outreach 2.0 speech, that was surely the practical effect of his effusively depicting the so-called "Arab Spring" as a welcome expression of democratic sentiment throughout the region. By so doing, he studiously ignored the reality on the ground in virtually every country in the Middle East and North Africa now undergoing political turmoil: Islamists associated with or akin to the totalitarian, salafist Muslim Brotherhood are poised to be the principal beneficiaries of any balloting that ultimately occurs in Egypt and Tunisia - and, perhaps in due course in, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and beyond.

Mr. Obama seeks to provide the putative, newly minted "democracies" with tangible evidence of his commitment to their future success. He declared that the United States would give up to a billion dollars in debt relief to Egypt and economic, trade and technical aid to the Egyptians and Tunisians. Other nations stand to get similar treatment if only they replace their present autocrats with new ones - provided the latter are prepared to come to power via elections.

With such a policy, the United States stands to compound the mistake now being made in Libya - where al Qaeda operatives, former Guantanamo Bay detainees and other Islamists are already being given "non-lethal" and "humanitarian assistance" and U.S. political support. Without knowing precisely who are likely to be the beneficiaries of such assistance, we run the very considerable risk that we will effectively be arming, as well as legitimating, our enemies.

In his wishful thinking about the region and its future, the President glossed over the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood is not the "moderate" and "modernizing" movement - let alone, as his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once put it, "a largely secular organization" that "eschews violence." In fact, the Brotherhood is a virulently fascistic group that is explicitly committed to waging jihad to achieve the triumph of the supremacist Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine known as shariah, and the establishment of a global caliphate to rule in accordance with it.

Neither did Mr. Obama mention the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood's operations inside the United States - a vast array of front groups that have as their common mission "destroying Western civilization from within" and that are executing a phased plan for achieving that objective. [Link to my column this week.] Such organizations would also be legitimated by the President's embrace of their comrades elsewhere - and certain to gain still greater access and influence inside his administration.

Particularly worrying is the President's contribution to the growing peril facing our friends in Israel. His earlier, vociferous denunciations of Israeli housing-construction activities, combined with his highly public, contemptuous mistreatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, contributed to the widespread perception in the region that what he rhetorically insists is the "inseverable bond" between the United States and Israel has, in fact, been greatly weakened. If the sense takes hold that there is daylight between Washington and Jerusalem, the problem will not be confined to the train-wreck in the making of yet-another Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence. It will translate into war.

The President sought to finesse what should properly be understood as an insuperable impediment to peace negotiations between the Israelis and a Palestinian government that includes the Brotherhood's local franchise, the designated terrorist organization Hamas. He said what he depicted as "that question" needs to be sorted out in coming months, but immediately declared that the United States and its "Quartet partners" were going to press on to get negotiations going and concluded as soon as possible.

Add in his view that Israel must withdraw fully to the 1967 borders (albeit with some "swaps" of territory) - what amounts, implicitly, if not explicitly to a call for the re-partitioning of Jerusalem - and the expectations can only be fanned among Israel's many enemies that the moment is arriving at last, to drive the Jews into the sea. Lip service paid to Israel having secure and defensible borders will founder on the reality that the 1967 borders are wholly incompatible with either security or the defense of Israel, and the growing readiness and ability of her foes to exploit that reality.

The President's ongoing efforts to align the United States with Muslims, irrespective of whether they seek to impose shariah or otherwise seek our destruction, is a prescription for furthering what has emerged as the Obama Doctine: Emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country. It is also a formula for disaster. It should be challenged at every turn, in favor of a policy that makes clear we differentiate between Muslims who do not seek to impose shariah upon the rest of us and those who do. The former are our natural allies; the latter our unalterable foes. We had better start making that distinction, and act accordingly. 

Source:  National Security Policy