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