Romney: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.”

The minute that came out of Romney's mouth, I knew he had not prepared for the foreign policy debate because it isn't important to him.  He doesn't bother to read the papers prepared for him on foreign policy as the only thing that matters to Romney it seems is the economy and his wealthy friends getting wealthier.  Not someone I want as President.  I still cannot get over his said this again last night:

Puzzling over this tonight from Romney: “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” 

Late Update: Not the first time Romney has said this, apparently. More here.
David Kurtz

During the last night's debate when Romney talked about Iran's only route to the sea was Syria, I had a flashback to the GOP primary debate where he said the same thing and thought I must be imagining I heard it before, but I was right.  All these months later and no one has bothered to look at a map on the GOP side?

From the Washington Post site, Romney has said it six more times since then and again last night.  Why didn't his staff correct him?  I put up the first map because it shows the very reason we are talking and not attacking Iran's nuclear reactors.  To go from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and out to the Arabian Sea, you have to through the Strait of Hormuz which for years Americans and our NATO allies along with other countries on the Persian Gulf have been afraid Iran might mine that Strait.  In June of this year, it was revealed that there was a buildup in the Persian Gulf by the US and its allies:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, June 26 (UPI) -- In the wake of Iran's refusal to rein in its contentious nuclear program at talks in Moscow, the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf is gathering pace, with four more Navy mine countermeasures ships arriving at the weekend. 

The Avenger class vessels out of San Diego will join eight U.S. and British navy mine hunters deployed in the region. 

Their main mission will be to keep open the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the only way in and out of the gulf, if the Iranians carry through on a threat to close the vital energy artery through which one-fifth of the world's oil supplies pass every day. 

Iran is reported to have in excess of 2,000 sea mines, including advanced Russian weapons, that could be used to block the narrow, 112-mile strait.

These could be used in conjunction with Chinese-designed anti-ship missiles and swarm attacks by fleets of armed speedboats manned by naval forces of the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Read more:  UPI

The Air Force has joined the Navy buildup by increasing their resources in the Gulf with F-22 Raptors and F-15's moved to the region this summer.  Anyone thinking that we don't have a lot of resources in this region needs to look no farther then the fact that the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy headquartered in Bahrain.  We keep a carrier in the Persian Gulf at all times and another one in the Arabian Sea.

The Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off East Africa as far south as Kenya. It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT).

Here is a map of the Middle East where you see that Iran does NOT border Syria and has plenty of access to water as its long coastline borders the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and Gulf of Oman which connects to the Arabian Sea.

These same maps were shown over and over again during Gulf War I and Gulf War II but Romney and his consultants (other then Bush national security people advising Romney) obviously never paid attention to the countries in the Middle East.  Yet for months Romney has been saber rattling against Iran and how we need to quit talking and attack Iran.  Even Senator Lindsey Graham wants talks to stop with Iran.  Wonder what he thinks of Romney today after he went out on a limb for him or Cong Peter King on Libya?  

It is obvious that Romney didn't pay any attention during Gulf War I or II to what was happening in the region but now parrots what Fox News and Rush have to say.  That is no way to run foreign policy.  I went after McCain/Palin for not being ready on foreign policy but Romney/Ryan are even worse.  In fact, they are downright scary when you realize that Romney considers Russia our biggest geopolitical foe and thinks the World Court should indict the Iranian Leader for a speech:

During Monday’s presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Romney brought up the notion of indicting Ahmadinejad for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian dictator famously was quoted in a speech saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be somewhat inaccurate. 

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said. 

So now Romney wants Ahmadinejad indicted for speaking out even though the translation was inaccurate and this man wants to be President?  Give me a break!

Then there is the little fact that once again Romney did not mention veterans last night but Obama did.  Imagine that after the uproar from the GOP Convention not mentioning veterans, that Romney did it again.

When I first joined Republicans for Obama, I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but now I know it was the right thing to do.  Romney is not ready on any front to be President and his ability to lie without batting an eye could be a foreign policy disaster.  Mitt Romney does not have the character to be President and it is time for the American people to send him back to one of his mansions for good on November 6th.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stands with Manchin (D-WV) over Rand Paul ad

Most people who know me know what I think of Rand Paul and it isn't much.  When I received the link to this story from a good friend, all I could think of was it figures out of Paul who I consider to have the ethics and integrity of a gnat.  Paul decided pay for an ad going after the Democrat Senator Manchin who is up for re-election to a full term after filling the seat after the longtime Senator Byrd died.  His reason?  Senator Manchin voted against a Rand Paul amendment cutting off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya.  Now for the rest of the story:

The advertisements fail to point out Paul's legislation received just nine favorable votes, while 81 senators -- including 30 Republicans -- voted against it. 

Only nine Republican Senators voted for the amendment:  Crappo (ID), DeMint (SC), Grassley (IA), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Paul (KY), Risch (ID), Roberts (KS), Shelby (AL), and Toomey (PA).

Senators Not Voting:  Boozman (R-AR), Boxer (D-CA), Burr (R-NC),  Heller (R-NV), Inhofe (R-OK), Kirk (R-IL -- recovering from stroke), Murray (D-WA), Rubio (R-FL), Vitter (R-LA)

With these votes totals against his amendment, Rand Paul still got mad and is advertising against some Democrat Senators including Manchin who is bi-partisan on certain issues but in the world of Paul and his little group with DeMint, being bi-partisan is a dirty word as you always have to be partisan even when it hurts the Country.  These two Tea Party Senators are perfect examples of Party over Country no matter what.

When you have an amendment that loses by that much and gets Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to back Manchin over the Paul ad, then Republicans have a real problem in the Senate with that Hard Right group of Senators.  Senator Graham has honesty and integrity which shows when he talks about foreign affairs being bi-partisan -- he is 100% correct on that point.  He is not afraid to put Country over Party which I would bet has him on the enemies list of the Tea Party in 2014.  Bet they primary him just like what they did to Lugar in IN when the Tea Party took out Lugar.

Really wanted to Take Back the Senate at the beginning of this election cycle but changed my mind with some of the Tea Party GOP candidates running for the Senate.  I would support Manchin in a heartbeat if I lived in West Virginia.  Manchin is by far the best person for the job and was happy to see him beat the Republican in 2010 who spends more time in FL then in WV and has run for so many offices in WV losing every last one of them.  He is a very wealthy person so he just keeps wasting his own money.  My prediction: Machin in a landslide.

October 9, 2012

Sen. Lindsey Graham stands with Manchin over Rand Paul ad 

By Paul J. Nyden 

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is running television ads attacking Democratic senators who voted against his amendment to legislation on Sept. 21 that would have cut off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya. 

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., are Paul's first two targets.
"While they tear down and burn the American flag in Egypt and shout 'Death to America,' Joe Manchin votes to provide U.S. taxpayer aid to Egypt," Paul's 60-second ad states.

"While radical Islamists burn our embassy and kill our ambassador in Libya, Joe Manchin votes to send more taxpayer money to Libya." 

(snip)

The ad ends by stating, "Joe Manchin works with Barack Obama to send billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries where radicals storm our embassies, burn our flag and kill our diplomats." 

Manchin said many senators thought Paul's amendment may have been "well-intentioned but severely flawed." 

Manchin believes it would also have "jeopardized our greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.
"When we voted in September, I promised to work across the aisle to correct the problems and stop giving aid to countries that don't share our values and won't defend our interests -- and I am determined to get the right policy in place," Manchin said. 

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined Manchin in a telephone conference call about the controversial ads. 

"A lot of debate goes on about foreign aid," Graham said. "Foreign relations are not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a American issue. 

"I very much would like to have a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate. But when it comes to foreign policy and the matters of war, I think we need to be bipartisan," Graham said. 

"Most Americans are war weary. We are broke. We are $16 trillion in debt. If I thought we could withdraw from the Middle East and we would be safe, I would do it. But we don't have easy choices available to us."  

Excerpt:  Read More at the West Virginia Gazette

My non-political comment about the article -- looked really strange to see the Big 12 advertised when I clicked on the link and then remembered West Virginia is our newest member.  Glad they are in the Big 12 this year.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is running television ads attacking Democratic senators who voted against his amendment to legislation on Sept. 21 that would have cut off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., are Paul's first two targets.
"While they tear down and burn the American flag in Egypt and shout 'Death to America,' Joe Manchin votes to provide U.S. taxpayer aid to Egypt," Paul's 60-second ad states.
"While radical Islamists burn our embassy and kill our ambassador in Libya, Joe Manchin votes to send more taxpayer money to Libya."
The advertisements fail to point out Paul's legislation received just nine favorable votes, while 81 senators -- including 30 Republicans -- voted against it.
The ad ends by stating, "Joe Manchin works with Barack Obama to send billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries where radicals storm our embassies, burn our flag and kill our diplomats."
Manchin said many senators thought Paul's amendment may have been "well-intentioned but severely flawed."
Manchin believes it would also have "jeopardized our greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.
"When we voted in September, I promised to work across the aisle to correct the problems and stop giving aid to countries that don't share our values and won't defend our interests -- and I am determined to get the right policy in place," Manchin said.
On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined Manchin in a telephone conference call about the controversial ads.
"A lot of debate goes on about foreign aid," Graham said. "Foreign relations are not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a American issue.
"I very much would like to have a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate. But when it comes to foreign policy and the matters of war, I think we need to be bipartisan," Graham said.
"Most Americans are war weary. We are broke. We are $16 trillion in debt. If I thought we could withdraw from the Middle East and we would be safe, I would do it. But we don't have easy choices available to us."
Graham, who has traveled widely in the Middle East, said the U.S. already has criteria in place that could, under certain circumstances, terminate aid to countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Libya -- the three countries Paul's ad focuses on.
"Al-Qaida, the Taliban and radical Islamists would like nothing more than to have America withdraw from the region."
Graham then focused on the negative impacts from withdrawing all U.S. aid.
"If we stopped our assistance to Egypt at this point, that would destroy the Camp David accords -- the worst thing we could have done to the state of Israel. This new government in Egypt is a work in progress. We cannot write off the largest nation in the Arab world."
Graham believes the people who recently killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya need to be brought to justice.
"But they do not represent the Libyan government. Most people in Libya want to move forward, not backward," Graham said. "People in Libya want to go a different way. We have to help them."
Graham believes Pakistan is a very complex country.
"The Pakistanis allow us to ship supplies into Afghanistan and are working better with us killing terrorists on the Pakistani border.
"The Rand Paul amendment would have required us to withdraw assistance to these three countries that are critically important to our national security."
Several other Republicans spoke out in strong opposition to Paul's amendment last month, including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz, and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
McCain said cutting off all assistance to Libya "would abandon our friends to our terrorist enemies, destroy America's moral standing in the world, and do egregious harm to our national interests."
Corker believes "we need to reform foreign aid in a way that leads to greater accountability, but Sen. Paul's amendment is not the answer.
"If terrorists in any country that we are aiding trespass at one of our embassies or consulates, this amendment forces the aid to be withdrawn, even if the country is cooperating with us and working as an ally."
Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com

Democrat Convention Honors Our Military and Veterans; Republican Convention Ignored Them

UPDATE from Mitt Romney on why he didn't mention the military in Afghanistan or foreign policy on his Fox interview with Bret Baier:

September 07, 2012
Bonus Quote of the Day 

"I only regret you're repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president's decision to cut our military." 

-- Mitt Romney, in an interview on Fox News, on why he didn't mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week. 

Romney says in a speech you talk about things that are important -- guess our troops in Afghanistan are not important or our veterans to Romney.  The words I would love to use against Romney should not be used on a website.

******


This has been a strange two weeks for Republicans who have close ties to members of the military and veterans.  We sat through watching the Republican Convention expecting to hear thanks to our military now serving along with the veterans.  Basically nothing was said even by former Secretary of State Condi Rice.  It was disgusting and something that made me tune into the Democrat Convention to see if they were willing to support our troops and veterans.

I was blown away by the Democrats with their honoring our veterans starting on the first night.  First Lady Michelle Obama talked about meeting with the military and their families who have suffered through all of the deployments.  So many of the military and veterans you hear talk have tremendous respect for her continual outreach to the military, veterans, and their families so I wanted to watch her speech.  I was blown away at how much I enjoyed her speech compared to Ann Romney's who seemed condescending.

The comments coming from those at Fort Bliss where Obama made a visit last Friday to announce more mental health benefits and the draw down in Afghanistan was continuing on schedule made a huge impact on my view of President Obama.  They waited four hours in the heat to be able to see and hear the President speak not to mention the people waiting outside.  Can vouch for how hot it was as we were there for the OU/UTEP game which even at 10:00 p.m. it was still warm.

Last night veterans were on stage at the Democrat Convention along with a video honoring our active duty military and those veterans who served which brought tears to my eyes.  When the video of Vice President Joe Biden aired it showed when he was talking to those families who had lost loved ones, it came from the heart.  He lost his first wife and young daughter years ago in a car accident when they were hit by a truck.  His son has been deployed to the Middle East so he knows what it is like to be a parent with a son or daughter who is deployed.  Know what it is like to have a daughter deployed -- it seems like forever until they return.  The worst part of her deployment was the flight over and back in a plane that should have been sent to the boneyard.

A lot of the military had doubts about the President and First Lady but in four years the Obama's have shown how much they care for our men and women in uniform along with the veterans by their actions not just words.  Can truthfully say this is one issue that has swayed me to the side of Barack Obama.  He was willing to make the call on the mission to take out Bin Laden when Romney thought it was a waste of time.  Obama was right and Bin Laden sleeps with the sharks in the Indian Ocean.  Romney believes that Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat while Obama still thinks it is Al Qaeda and the terrorists.  Obama wins that one hands down as well.  Whoever is advising Romney is living in the Cold War days which ended in the early 90's.  Maybe Romney forgets he is running in 2012 not 1994.

What kind of Republican Party fails to honor our military at their Convention?  The Romney Republican Party has lost any chance I would ever vote for Romney/Ryan after watching the Democrat Convention and their showcasing the military and foreign policy.  Listening to their speeches this week, it felt more at home then the GOP which were more about I, I, I.  Jeb Bush is right that Ronald Reagan would never be elected by today's Republican Party.  This Republican Party with their lurch to the far right has basically told the rest of us to take a hike.  After November 6, 2012, a lot of us may take them up on it and walk out the door.

A Changing of the Guard
The Democratic Party is now the dominant foreign-policy party.
By Fred Kaplan|Posted Friday, Sept. 7, 2012, at 1:27 AM ET

The conventions these past two weeks—and particularly the final speeches Thursday night—have cemented the fact that the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water’s edge. 

For anyone who’s followed American politics the past 40 years, since the election between George McGovern and Richard Nixon, this is a staggering shift. 

It was the Democrats who talked Thursday night of their president’s “backbone” and “courage,” of the clear message he sent—as Vice President Joe Biden put it when talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound—that “if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the ends of the world.” By contrast, Biden recalled, Republican challenger Mitt Romney once said that it wasn’t worth “moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars, just to catch one person.” 

More extraordinary still, it was the Democrats who saluted, mourned, and celebrated the “fallen angels” and “wounded warriors” of the U.S. military. Romney observed no such ritual, leaving Sen. John Kerry to note, in his speech Thursday night, never before had a wartime nominee for president, of either party, “failed to pay tribute to our troops overseas in his acceptance speech.” 

Not even the Republican convention’s foreign-policy surrogate, Condoleezza Rice, said much about the veterans—or anything at all about the Iraq or Afghanistan war, even though she had been George W. Bush’s most trusted foreign policy adviser for all eight years of his presidency and had thus played a big role in starting those wars. 

The clearest sign of the change in party dynamics was this: The Democrats feel so assured in their new role as guardians of national defense that they also talked openly about seeking peace, negotiating arms-reduction treaties with the Russians (which Romney opposes on the flimsiest of grounds), withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and shifting money that was once spent on fighting wars to revitalizing our own cities—as Obama put it, “to do some nation-building right here at home.” 

Excerpt:  Read More at Slate

Herman Cain Backs Collective Bargaining For Public Employees

On November 14th, Cain sat down with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board for a series of interviews which show him to be much more liberal then he portrays, out of touch on foreign policy, and a lack of knowledge on how Government works.  To be running for President and not know that federal employees don't have collective bargaining shows a lack of interest in even learning how Government works.  Is he another person who wants all the benefits to feed his massive ego but not the work that comes with the Presidency.  We do not need another Obama who is not sure if he has any core values as they change so much.

As one poster put it on the 3 am phone call, "Cain probably wouldn't be able to find the phone!"


Was astounded when I saw the headline.  Then it hit me and I started chuckling because Cain who considers himself to be the Koch Brothers 'other brother' is going against a campaign that the Koch Brothers have been fighting for years to have Right to Work in states and end collective bargaining for public employees.

Why is it different at the state and local level when there is no collective bargaining at the federal level on pay or benefits and you are not allowed to strike?  Herman Cain didn't know that and now that he found out wants to make it the same for federal employees to have collective bargaining.  Why is he considered a conservative?  Republican Conservatives like me believe no public employee should be allowed to strike.  When there was a rash of teacher strikes in the past, I found it unconscionable that teachers whose job is to teach our students went on strike in mostly major cities for more money.  Unions get all upset when you want to tie performance with raises.  Why?  Shouldn't parents be able to expect their child's teacher to be the best teacher possible and just not be one of those teachers who does the bare minimum?

Now along comes Herman Cain who seems to have little core conservative values but tries to talk the talk? Cain has has run into a wall in the last couple of weeks and his more liberal side is coming out.  Typical politician to blame the media but how do you blame the media for your own interview?  How long before Cain goes out and says he didn't mean what he said after the Koch Brothers get in touch with him.  This is what Cain would have to flip flop on with his own words:

On the issue of collective bargaining, Cain said he supported the right of public employees to bargain collectively. 

"But not collective hijacking. What I mean by that, if they have gotten so much for so many years and it's going to bankrupt the state, I don't think that's good. It appears that in some instances, they really don't care."

Asked about last week's vote in Ohio, in which the state's new collective bargaining law was rejected by voters, Cain said that "maybe they tried to get too much and as a result it failed."

Just a short rundown on some of the non-conservative issues Cain supports:

• affirmative action (Senate campaign in 2004) 
• empowerment zones in urban areas who would pay less taxes in his 9-9-9 plan which morphs depending on the audience 
• electrified fence for the border, would rely on advisers to make the decisions on foreign policy, 
• black minister who follows Malcolm X for inspiration in a very liberal Baptist Church where he is an associate minister
• releasing terrorist to get back one hostage
• collective bargaining for government employees including federal

Those are for starters so the question once again is "Why does Cain consider himself a conservative?"  That list doesn't even include his lies which are harder to ignore on sexual harassment with him now saying he doesn't remember before he remembers when confronted with facts.

His latest in his interview with the Milwaukee Journal on foreign policy concerning Libya  makes you cringe and shows he is not ready for that 3am phone call.

Finding out he backs collective bargaining even for federal employees and astounded that they didn't already have it is mind boggling.  Where was Cain when President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers for striking?  Thanks to Cain's comments the AFSCME, Federal employees union immediately pounced with their comments as he played right into their hands.

My biggest question is why give these answers in Milwaukee when they Democrats/unions are launching a recall drive for Governor Walker?  Is he trying to tank Walker in the recall drive which will not make his 'brothers' very happy as the Koch Brothers are heavily invested in Walker.

You be the judge after reading this article and tell me if he is not running in the wrong Party.

Herman Cain Backs Collective Bargaining For Public Employees
Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter 

First Posted: 11/14/11 05:07 PM ET Updated: 11/14/11 06:15 PM ET  

In a move that will undoubtedly puzzle if not enrage conservative voters, Herman Cain said in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Monday that he supported the rights of public workers to collectively bargain. He also said he believed that Ohio Gov. John Kasich went too far when he tried to strip those rights with Senate Bill 5. 

(snip - see above quote) 

Cain also said in the interview that he would support collective bargaining for federal employees. In fact, he seemed to believe they currently enjoy those rights, the Journal Sentinel reported. "Asked if he thought federal employees should have the ability to bargain collectively, Cain said: 'They already have it, don't they?'" 

Cain's answer means he is more progressive on the issue than Mitt Romney, who notably endorsed Kasich's SB 5, then declined to comment on a campaign to repeal it before finally coming out against that campaign. And while it may make some political sense for Cain to make this case in the course of a general election campaign -- Kasich's polling numbers have plummeted -- it will do him no favors in the primary. 

Also notable is the fact that Cain gave his response to a Milwaukee-based newspaper, as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, like Kasich, is staunchly anti-union and has advanced legislation that curbs collective bargaining rights. 

The timing of the discussion with the Journal Sentinel's editorial board struck some as odd, given that Wisconsin does not play an active role in the early part of the primary season. Ellen Carmichael, Cain's former spokeswoman, tweeted: "Question not meant to disparage Herman or the great state of Wisconsin: why would someone meet with the Journal Sentinel ed board right now?" 

UPDATE: 6:15 p.m. -- AFSCME, the union that represents public workers, quickly praised Cain's stance Monday afternoon. Marty Beil, executive director of AFSCME Council 24 in Wisconsin, sent the following statement to The Huffington Post: 

Voters from across party lines and the country support collective bargaining. Even Herman Cain can read a poll. We hope that he took advantage of his time in the state to call Governor Walker to urge him to repeal the anti-worker legislation he rammed through this year.

To view video of this interview, please click on the link:  Huffington Post 

The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace

Almost immediately after President Obama was sworn in a little over a year ago, it appears he set out to destroy the relationship we have with Great Britain, our strongest ally, who has been a strong partner for the United States for years. "Why?" we have been asking for months as it makes no sense unless you consider that Obama considers himself a son of Kenya.

Obama may go down in history as the most anti-American President in history as shown by his almost hostile relationship with most of our NATO allies, his playing up to our enemies, and his endless apologies around the World for the United States. Immigrants from various countries have looked at America as a Beacon of Freedom over the years as they come to our Country looking for a better life for them and their families. Ellis Island has log book after log book filled with names of people who came to America for Freedom. Now we have an American President who wants to destroy 'Freedoms' in this Country.

Obama bows to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor while treating the Queen of England as his next door neighbor with little regard to protocol. American President's do not bow to anyone. At the Organization of American States Summit he played up to the dictators of the Western Hemisphere while dissing the countries loyal to the United States like Colombia who we are helping in their drug lord war fight. He seems to have never met a dictator or communist head of state he doesn't like but if a country was an ally, they are now on Obama's hit list.

We are not the only ones who have noticed this as we found this paragraph from the London Telegraph telling:

Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be “kiss your enemies and kick your allies”, this is a new low. The White House’s neutrality in a major dispute between America’s closest friend and the likes of Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez, Argentina’s biggest backer, represents the appalling appeasement of an alliance of anti-Western Latin American regimes, stretching from Caracas to Havana – combined with a callous indifference towards the Anglo-American alliance.

Countries around the world have Obama pegged, and they are correct relationships will be strained while he is in the White House. Our allies are not the only ones waking up to what this President is, but so are our enemies.

This President is spineless, rude, arrogant, and acts like a spoiled brat when he doesn't he get his way as witnessed by what happened yesterday in the Healthcare Summit where Obama lectured for more minutes then either the Democrats told their sob stories or Republicans told the facts of Democrat Healthcare bills. If what we witnessed yesterday is an indication of how he handles being in meetings with foreign leaders, it is no wonder our allies question his actions on foreign policy.

Our State Department is not any better so anyone thinking Hillary would have been better as President, think again as witnessed by their quotes on The Falklands and their actions on Honduras -- BTW, whatever happened in Honduras after their elections as we hear nothing more about how wrong it was to kick out a President who went against the Constitution. Is Obama afraid that it might come back to bite?

From the State Department spokesman:

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

The remarks had echoes of an earlier statement by a senior State Department protocol official who, when asked about the shoddy treatment of the British Prime Minister in March last year, responded:

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

This Administration is a disgrace on the world stage. We would bet if the Olympics had been held in Venzuela, Obama would have gone instead of sending the "do nothing" Biden as he describes his job as Vice President.

The next time the American people are faced with a Presidential election, they had better be demanding candidates show everything from a formal birth certificate to academic paperwork to anything they have written as adults plus their medical record all of which Obama has kept secret.

One problem we see even when we acknowledge that Obama was most likely born in Hawaii was that he was not raised in an environment that could be called American. He spent his formative young years in Indonesia going to a Catholic school as a Muslim, went to live in Hawaii with his grandparents and was under the influence of family friend, Communist Franklin Marshal Davis, who introduced him into the Chicago political scene and to the Ayers Family. As an adult, Obama attended Rev Wright's Church which is known for its black liberation philosophy and support for black Afrocentrists. Rev Wright, as a former Muslim, caters to other Muslims so they can attend a 'Christian' church for business purposes and cover up the fact they are Muslim.

You may ask yourself what the last paragraph has to do with the United States and its special relationship with Great Britian, but you need to look no farther then the fact Obama's father was a Kenyan socialist. When Obama Sr was born and growing up, Kenya was a Crown Colony under the rule of Great Britain. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was in the process of becoming an independent country from Great Britain. This may be an underlying cause for Obama's contempt for Great Britain. It is as good of theory as any.

In 2012 we need to elect a President who understands our special relationships around the World especially with Great Britain and honor those relationships not kick them to the curb as Obama as done. In one year Obama has managed to wreck our foreign policy that has stood for years and the American economy. Obama likes the perks as President as he travels on AF One at the drop of a hat and hosts parties every week but allows others (Chicago White House Mafia?) determine policy.

After his arrogant, self-centered, long winded lecture yesterday, it is obvioius that he doesn't even grasp what is in the healthcare bill he has been touting for years. With that we can safely assume, that policy making in the White House is not being done by the President. Who is the main voice behind Obama on policy? Is it Emanual, Jarrett, Axelrod, or Soros who is outside the Administration. Do we have a shadow government calling the shots? Maybe when history is written, we will find out the truth.

Read this article and ask yourself what have the American people done in putting a son of a Kenyan socialist, someone mentored by a Communist friend of his mother's family, who is/was a friend of domestic terrorists, and had a minister who preaches black liberation in the Office of the President of the United States.

The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace

By Nile Gardiner World
Last updated: February 25th, 2010

The Obama administration’s decision to remain neutral in the dispute between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is a shameful decision that will go down very badly across the Atlantic. As The Times has just reported, Washington has point blank refused to support British sovereignty over the Falklands, and is adopting a strictly neutral approach.

(snip)

Over the course of the last year, we’ve seen a staggering array of foreign policy follies by this administration, from the throwing under the bus of the Poles and the Czechs over missile defence to siding with Marxists in Honduras. But this latest pronouncement surely takes the biscuit as the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally.

As the Obama government is amply aware, the tensions between London and Buenos Aires are escalating dramatically, with British military contingency planning already under way. In effect, Washington declared today that it would remain neutral in the event of another war in the South Atlantic, a stunning declaration to make.

(snip)

To put it bluntly, the Obama administration is killing the Special Relationship, and the prospects of a recovery look extremely bleak as long as Barack Obama remains in the White House.

I am in no doubt though that messages of support for Britain will begin to flow in the coming days from Senators and Congressmen who actually understand the importance of Anglo-American friendship and loyalty, and who recognize the tremendous value of the ancestral, linguistic, economic, cultural, military and intelligence ties that bind the two greatest nations in the world. And I am very sure that the vast majority of Americans will reject the spineless neutrality of the White House and State Department, and wholeheartedly support the British people in the event of another conflict.

Excerpt: Read More at London Telegraph

Powerline this morning has another take on this and lends credibility to the question of "Why does Obama hate England?":

Mel and Barack: What do they have in Common?
Feb 25, 2010

They both hate England, apparently. The difference is that Mel Gibson's antipathy, as expressed in Braveheart and The Patriot, is mostly fictional. Why Barack Obama hates England is hard to say, but his antipathy is distressingly real. Now, Obama has declared that the U.S. is neutral with regard to the Falklands. The Telegraph headlines: "Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need"

Excerpt: Read More at Powerline

We are Back!

We are back and gearing up for the 2010 elections. The last month has given the American people real insight into the Democrat controlled Congress and this Democrat President from who knows where.

One thing we do know is that he was never on the Mainland until he was 18 and started college in California. Where was he born? Toss a dart because he has spent over $1M, yes $1,000,000, to keep his birth certificate secret. He has had all his academic records sealed as well so we have no idea if he registered as an American student or as a foreign student as has been rumored. Was Frank Marshall Davis his mentor during his teen years and responsible for him going to Chicago? When did he meet Bill Ayers? Who were his friends in Chicago besides Ayers, Dohrn, Rev Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan? All kinds of questions that need answers, but where are the members of the mainstream media? MIA it seems.

Recently it has come out that there is proof that his first book, Dreams of My Father, was mostly ghost written by his good friend and confident, Bill Ayers. For details see Breakthrough on authorship by Jack Cashill who has spent countless hours researching to compare the book by Ayers with the book by Obama. The similarities are astounding and any thinking person will see that Ayers was the writer.

Why would Obama lie about that he wrote the book? Who wrote the second book is the new question? It was obvious from when he was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review that writing was not his strength as he didn't write anything of note so the chances of him writing not one but two books were slim to none. Law students vie for that position so they can get started early on their writings but not Obama. WHY? Who got him the position? Who got him into Law School? Why did Franklin Davis choose Chicago for him to land? Who got him to become a Community Organizer?

So many why's and so few answers about this man that was elected President thanks, in part, to a media that chose not to investigate his past and where he actually stood on issues preferring to give him a pass as so many of them became cheerleaders instead of reporters. He was their "Chosen One" which should have been the first clue they lost all objectivity.

Many members of the press obviously are not members of the Society of Professional Journalist (SPJ) because they certainly do not abide by the SPJ Code of Ethics. When the press becomes a cheerleader for a candidate instead of an unbiased reporter, it is time for them to find another line of work.

Recently, a White House Press Conference had the Administration plant a question with The Huffington Post Blog to ask - same Huffington Post Blog that said Pres George Bush was too cozy with the press which was laughable as they went after him with darts. How do the American people know now which questions from the WH Press Corps are legitimate and not planted by this WH press office at the request of Axelrod or Emmanual? Some of the most ridiculous softball questions have been asked of this President that it makes people with a brain want to throw up. What happened to the tough questions from our media?

If it wasn't for Major Garrett of Fox News and Jack Tapper of ABC News, very few hard questions would ever be asked. That doesn't even count the evening worshippers of this President at MSNBC. No way if you are a thinking person, would you watch MSNBC. Those shows give spin not news. Then we have Brian Williams almost bowing to the "leader" not to mention the infomercial of ABC on Obama healthcare.

This Nation was founded with Freedom of the Press in the Constitution but that doesn't mean Freedom to worship a President and hide facts from the American public. A Free Press is an independent Press not a Press that the White House Press Secretary can spin at will. Members of the Press need to get a reality check and realize their first job is not to listen to spin and report that spin from the White House Press Office, but to search out the truth and report.

Where is the media about this President's double standards when it comes to interfering in another country's business?

First he tells Israel they cannot build settlements which is none of his business. It is their land. The United States has always been a strong ally and supporter of Israel until this President took office. Fortunately, members of Congress still support Israel wholeheartedly.

Second, he doesn't want to get involved in Iran as Freedom Fighters demonstrate against the election fraud in Iran. Iranians are killed in peaceful demonstrations because they are against the current regime - shot in cold blood in some cases but our President plays golf on Father's Day (do as I say not as I do on Fathers Day) and eventually gets around to saying the Government shouldn't be doing that to their citizens. That said, he says Iranians are still welcome at our Embassies around the World to celebrate the 4th of July with eating hot dogs. What kind of diplomacy is that?

Now fast forward to this past weekend when the Hondurian Congress and then the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the current President who was going against their Constitution in declaring a referendum vote on Constitutional term limits so he could stay in power. He had no authority to call for referendum as that is not how they change their Constitution. The President who was ousted wanted Honduras to align closer to the Chavez and other Communist dictators and was moving the Country toward socialism and communism.

What does our "leader" do? We find out he has worked for several weeks to try and keep a Honduran President in power who was going against the Honduran Constitution. He is eventually removed by their Congress and Supreme Court who issues an order to the military to remove the current President. Obama strongly condemns Hondruas for their military coup when it was NO coup as the Congress and Supreme Court took the necessary steps before the Supreme Court gave the order to remove the President. Where was the fearless "leader" when this went down? He was playing golf like he did on Fathers Day after telling Fathers across America to stay home on Fathers Day.

The supposed "leader" of the free world, the American President, has sidedonce again sided with the Communist or Muslim dictators like Chavez, Noriega, and Castro. In the meantime he disses our allies Great Britain, France, Israel, Honduras, etc.

What does that tell the American people about this President? This "leader" is no friend to freedom loving people around the world. He doesn't even mouth the words freedom. His arrogance knows no bounds as he bows to the Saudi King. What American President would ever bow to a Saudi King? He cares more about the Muslim leaders then the leaders of our friends in NATO as evidenced by his looks at them when he meets with them. It has been dubbed the "Evil Eye" - judge for yourself.



In the days ahead we will take a closer look at his lack of foreign policy experience and how he is siding with Chavez, Castro, and Noriega against the legitimate government of Honduras who removed their President LEGALLY.