Thursday, March 31, 2011

It is Confirmed that 2200 US Marines on Ground in Libya

President Obama said he is admanant he will not put US troops on the ground in Libya. Well, the president lied. US Marines are involved in support operations for the town of Ajdubiyah, Libya. Also, the Marines are involved in search and rescue operations in Libya. There are reports of a rescue for their own marines who crashed an F-15 Strike Eagle due to "malfunction" while on a mission in Libya. Sooner or later, we will eventually see a larger US military presence on the ground in Libya. If that happens, Obama can kiss his second term as president good-bye.

(WCTI12 News)
ONSLOW COUNTY -- We've seen Camp Lejuene Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya.

About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will take part in support operations based aboard USS Kearsarge at sea. Those support operations have thus far included air strikes and one rescue operation. The overall mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

"In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces," said Captain Timothy Patrick, a Marine with the 26th MEU.

UPDATE: Conditions set forth by the U.N. Security Council towards resolving the unrest in Libya included the removal of Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qadhafi’s forces from Ajdubiyah. These latest strikes by the MEU aimed at preserving the sanctity of the city and the safety of the civilians within it. In an effort to safeguard the Libyan populace and infrastructure in and around the city of Ajdabiyah from further attacks by regime forces, 26th MEU, as part of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, launched a second round of strikes by AV-8B Harrier jump jets.

“Our primary concern was ensuring the people inside Ajdubiyah were safe from Qadhafi’s artillery and tanks,” said Col. Mark J. Desens, commanding officer of 26th MEU. “Everything we are seeing following these strikes indicates that his forces are now less capable of threatening the town than before.”

A Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit's AV-8B Harrier jump jet returns to USS Kearsarge for fuel and ammunition resupply while conducting air strikes in support of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, March 20, 2011. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. UNSCR 1973 authorizes all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi regime forces. JTF Odyssey Dawn is commanded by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III
Patrick said that Marines from the 26th MEU are coming on the end of their deployment. They will be replaced with Marines from the 22nd MEU.
A press release from the 26th MEU reads, in part:

"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."

Obama Taken Us into Another Open Ended War in Libya

If the American people couldn't stomach the 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) during Bush's term, I can expect everybody having a severe ulcer knowing Obama has taken us into 3 war at the same time. Not only the presidents rhetoric made no sense, Obama's promises during the campaign trail was a bunch of lies. Obama promised to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, close down Club Gitmo, and re-establish America's moral authority in the world. Instead, we still have troop in Iraq, the good war in Afghanistan in chaos, Obama going on an apology tour, and Obama decided to spill precious blood and treasure in Libya. If you are scared now, just wait when Obama gets another term in office.

(Yahoo) On Monday, President Barack Obama addressed Americans in an effort to clarify ongoing mission in Libya. He stressed that America and its allies intervened aerially to prevent slaughter of innocent civilians.

Quite a turn around for a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner and whose campaign's theme was opposition to America's two wars-in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

It is now 2011 and the president has not delivered. U.S. involvement in Iraq has been reduced but there are still 50,000 troops stationed in the country and the level of violence is still high. Iraqi civilians are being targeted every day and the government is not in complete control.

In Afghanistan, the situation is actually getting worse. Recent revelations about a U.S. army "kill team" which carried out inhumane attacks against civilians for "sport" has hurt the operation greatly and added to anti-American sentiments not only in Afghanistan but also in neighboring Pakistan.

Instead of focusing on ending these two conflicts and pooling resources to rebuild America's standing in the international community, President Obama has now given the country another war to bear.

NATO Takes Over and Tell Rebels To Screw Themselves

In a turn of events, the rebels finally got the message that NATO will not supply them with weapons to fight Gaddafi. The new mission's objective is to enforce an arms-embargo, no-fly zone, and protecting civilians. But this objective does come with a caveat. NATO isn't there to decide the fate of the Libyan people, but rather, to enforce the will of the international community. With Britian and France having vested interest in Libyan oil, NATO's goal is to kill Gaddafi and establish a regime change.

(WSJ) BRUSSELS—Officials at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which early Thursday assumed control of allied operations to enforce the United Nations mandate in Libya, said they aren't considering arming Libyan rebels.

Simmering debate in Washington and Europe about whether to arm rebel groups and intensified amid the opposition's recent retreat from territory they had gained under the umbrella of coalition airstrikes.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Stockholm that he has taken note of the "ongoing discussion in a number of countries" about arming the rebels but "as far as NATO is concerned...we will focus on the enforcement of the arms embargo," which he said applies "across the board to all sides in this conflict."

NATO took full control of operations in Libya at 6 a.m. Brussels time Thursday. Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, the commander of NATO and non-NATO forces in the operation said that by midday, NATO had run more than 90 flights and sorties. He said he had more than 100 fighters and support aircraft, and more than 12 ships and submarines, under his command.

Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of the NATO Military Council and the alliance's most senior military official, said the NATO operation, dubbed Unified Protectorate, entails enforcing an arms-embargo and no-fly zone and protecting civilians, as set out by the U.N. resolution.

"NATO is not in Libya to decide the future of the Libyan people," he told a news briefing in Brussels. "We are helping enforce the will of the international community."

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Gasoline up 100 percent under Obama

Prepare to see a huge revolt by the American people with these absurd gas prices...

(Washington Times) Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction.

Consumer price index (CPI) figures from February show an unadjusted 12 month gasoline inflation rate of 19.2%, but in the last month alone prices jumped 6.8%, probably because of oil price increases due to instabilities in the Middle East. If the trend continues, gas prices would double again within a year. 100% gasoline price inflation is nothing to brag about, but imagine Mr. Obama going into the 2012 election having to explain why gas costs $7.00 a gallon. I'm sure the White House would spin it as one of their "Green" initiatives.

Obama's Libya address ratings down from previous speeches

I guess we are just sick of listening Obama speak. Blah, blah, blah....

(Entertainment Weekly) President Obama’s speech viewership keeps on slipping.

Monday night’s policy address on Libya delivered 25.6 million viewers, continuing the president’s trend of declining ratings for his issue-oriented telecasts.

The speech was down 12% from Obama’s address on Iraq last August (29.2 million), which fell 9% from his speech on the Gulf Coast oil spill in June (32.1 million), which in turn dropped 21% from his Afghanistan speech back in December of 2009 (40.8 million). Last night’s address could have been dinged by starting slightly before primetime, at 7:30 p.m. (which also kept Obama from making ABC choose between the commander-in-chief and airing Dancing With the Stars at its usual time).

The president’s telecast was carried across eight networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, TEL, CNN, CNBC, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Obama in 2002, Toppling Brutal Dictator a Dumb War

Obama is a blatant hypocrite. The war in Libya is a "dumb war," Mr. President. Like it or not, Obama had a foot in mouth moment. It is ironic how Obama calls the Iraq War dumb; while his Libya war necessary. I guess Obama calling it a kinetic military action makes it a big difference to the Iraq war! Idiot!!!

( – President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

The “dumb war” Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power.

“Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein,” said Obama in his speech. “He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

"... After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again," said Obama. "I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Obama argued that deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. Obama also cited Iraq’s weakened economy and the fact that it was still possible to contain Saddam’s aggression, repudiating the Bush administration’s rationale that Saddam posed too great a threat to American interests and his own people to be left in power.

However, as president of the United States, Obama has discounted those same arguments he once made against using military force against brutal dictators.

Libyan Rebels are not Prepared to Beat Gaddafi

The rebels are poorly equipped, lack of leadership, and no military experience. The combination will eventually lead to failure. It doesn't make a difference if the rebels are able to capture a tank or a plane because there is no one capable to work these machines. It doesn't make a difference if the rebels make a successful charge because they always retreat. This type of strategy will not overthrow Gaddafi. Instead, Gaddafi will have a ball making everybody look like idiots. The only way to solve this is with coalition ground troops to assist the al-Qaeda rebels. If Obama gave the okay, it will be the end of his presidency. The war in Libya is 14 days old and it seems it will be a long drawn out war.

(The Guardian) The revolution lacks an organised military structure in spite of several attempts to stamp its authority on the volunteer army. Discipline is bad. Few of the fighters have proper military experience and they would need training in the use of weapons such as artillery. But the revolutionaries have made a strong point of saying they do not want foreign troops on Libyan soil.

The revolution's de facto finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, claims that there are 1,000 trained fighters among the rebels but there is little evidence of it on the battlefield where the anti-Gaddafi forces appear capable of advancing only when the way is cleared by foreign air strikes.

The problem is not solely the rebels' lack of more powerful weapons. In the past two days their disorganisation has shown as they have been badly outmanoeuvred by better-trained forces that have outflanked them with sweeps through the desert. The revolutionaries lack any cohesive defensive plan. Instead they fire wildly at the enemy and argue among themselves about what to do next and who should be giving orders before turning and fleeing.

Indeed, the rebels have seized a significant number of large weapons abandoned by retreating Gadaffi forces including a handful or more tanks this week after air strikes around Ajdabiya sent the government's army fleeing. But the tanks have yet to be put to use on the battlefield in part because of a lack of expertise in fighting with them.

The lack of control over Libya's rebel army also raises questions about how it might behave as an occupying force were it to take over a town such as Sirte which has not risen up in support of the revolution and where the Libyan leader is believed to retain some support.

Killings of alleged mercenaries in Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital, as well as the large numbers of young men who have assumed an authority over ordinary citizens apparently only granted by their guns, will raise questions about how an ill disciplined and unaccountable force will behave on taking control of a potentially less welcoming city.

It would be embarrassing, to say the least, if even some of the rebels armed by Britain or the US were to carry out the kind of atrocities the west says it is intervening in Libya to prevent.

There must be an additional concern that any weapons sent to the revolutionaries could end up arming Gaddafi.

The rebel performance in recent weeks has amounted to rapid advances followed by almost as speedy retreats. It is one thing for the revolutionaries to jump in to their cars and pick-up trucks and race back tens of miles through the desert.

Obama Desperate, Planning to Arm Rebels with Weapons

To save face, Obama is planning to arm the rebels with weapons. The coalition is losing the war and Gaddafi's army made the rebels retreat. Pundits are in agreement that the only way the rebel can win is supporting them with weapons. This is a big dilemma with Obama. It is already known that most of the rebels are al-Qaeda affiliates. Americans would be very disturbed knowing our president is supporting weapons and arms to al-Qaeda rebels against US led NATO coalition. What will Obama do? In order to get rid of Gaddafi and save face, would Obama allow the rebels kill our boys and girls as collateral damage? Hm mm, the jury is still out on that one.

(Reuters) - As Libyan rebels fled in headlong retreat from the superior arms and tactics of Muammar Gaddafi's troops on Wednesday, U.S. officials said President Barack Obama had signed a secret order authorizing covert support for the rebels.

While the United States, France and Britain have raised the possibility of arming the rebels, they have all stressed that no decision had yet been taken.

As Gadaffi's army pushed back the rebels, their lack of heavy weapons and feeble fighting capabilities exposed the vulnerability of their forces in the absence of Western air strikes to tip the scales in their favor.

Despite some dissent within the Western military coalition attacking Gadaffi's forces, news that Obama had given the covert authorization surfaced as he and other U.S. and allied officials began speaking openly about the possibility of sending arms to the rebels.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding," within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Obama Lied, We Got 2,200 US Marines on Ground in Libya

......developing..... You can not have air support without ground support. It is reported we have 2,200 Marines off the shores of Libya. The Marines, who are well equip for battle, purpose is search and rescue. Therefore, when Obama says no ground troops in Libya, the president wasn't totally honest.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

President Barack Obama gets locked out of White House

President Barack Obama gets locked out of White House. An Omen. A sign. Foreshadowing 2012. LOL

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Military indoctrinated on gays kissing behavior

Materials offer scenarios on gays for the military. This is G*D D**M SICK!

(Washington Times) — Four branches of the military have begun sending training material to 2.2 million active and reserve troops as a prelude to opening the ranks to gays, with instructions on, for example, what to do if an officer sees two male Marines kissing in a shopping mall.

Key themes are that sexual orientation will no longer be a bar to service, that all service members must respect each other, and that the partners of gay troops will not receive the benefits of heterosexual spouses.

“We are going to make [gay ban] repeal training expeditiously,” said Maj. Joel Harper, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon. “It’s great training.”

The briefings first target commanders, who will have to enforce the new law and deal with disputes, and then the entire force. The slides, vignettes and talking points by the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps are similar.

The Marine Corps, which a Pentagon survey found holds deep opposition to lifting the ban, plans to publicly release its training material April 1. A Marine source provided copies to The Washington Times.

The vignette about seeing two male Marines kissing is part of a list of scenarios to help instructors prepare commanders for incidents likely to arise.

“Situation,” it begins. “You are the Executive Officer of your unit. While shopping at the local mall over the weekend, you observe two junior male Marines in appropriate civilian attire assigned to your unit kissing and hugging in the food court.

“Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this within standards of personal and professional conduct?”

The answer to Marines: “If the observed behavior crosses acceptable boundaries as defined in the standards of conduct for your unit and the Marine Corps, then an appropriate correction should be made. Your assessment should be made without regard to sexual orientation.”

It Was George W. Bush that Put Gaddafi in His Place

Gaddafi was scared of George W. Bush. The Libya president was fearful that his fate would parallel Saddam Hussein. It was Bush who was able to put Gaddafi on a short leash. Now, Obama is giving the opportunity to make Gaddafi a martyr, or if Gaddafi survives, one vengeful terrorist. I miss George W. Bush!

Everybody in DC was on Vacation when Obama Went to War with Libya

Our government is an embarrassment. On the surface, it was a coincidence that the war in Libya started days after Congress decided to go on a 10-day vacation. From quoting Democrat Congress Dennis J. Kucinich, “Who’s minding the store while we’re at war?”, our government was asleep at the helm. Obama finally give an official announcement to our Congress several days after taking upon himself to go to war with Libya. Americans should be vastly concerned that we have an incompetent government. We have not ridden the cancer that is spreading throughout this country. We need more Republicans and all the Democrats voted out in the next elections. Because our economy sucks and the world around us is unraveling, we need a new set of leaders in Washington to fix the mess we are in.

(Washington Times) The world is at war, but Washington is eerily empty, devoid of all the power players who normally foster a soul-searching debate when the country goes on the attack.

President Obama made the decision to bomb Libya from Brazil, the top congressional leadership is all out of town as Congress takes a 10-day vacation, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden spent the weekend in Wilmington, Del. Even Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was traveling in Russia on Monday.

Now, all four top leaders are gone: House Speaker John A. Boehner was in Ohio for his daughter’s wedding this weekend, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was traveling in Rome on official business after a weekend stop in Afghanistan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in Nevada, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is traveling and doing some fundraising this week.

The lack of organized debate in the U.S. contrasts starkly with Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron faced his colleagues in Parliament directly Monday, and answered their questions.

“Who’s minding the store while we’re at war?” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who tried to spark a debate on military action last week before Congress went on vacation, and who has since called for Congress to reconvene.

“Think about this for a moment. In the last week they had time to garner 10 votes at the U.N., they had time to talk to the Arab League [and consult with] NATO, France and Britain. It seems the administration talked to everyone but the United States Congress, which has the constitutional authority to commit this country to war,” Mr. Kucinich said.

Obama Will Not Give Up His Nobel Peace Prize

If that is the case, George W. Bush should get a Nobel Peace Prize too.

(Politico) President Obama defended his Nobel Peace Prize on Tuesday, saying that Americans “don’t see any contradiction” in him ordering an attack on Libya to make sure “people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.”

“When I received that award, I specifically said there was an irony because I was already dealing with two wars,” Obama said in an interview with CNN from El Salvador. “So I am accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also someone who aspires to peace.”

And he said again that the U.S. military has already saved lives there. “I think the American people don’t see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power,” he said.

Some foreign leaders have called on Obama to return the Nobel Peace Prize he accepted in 2009 since ordering the Libya attack.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

MSM and WH Silence on Obama Abu Ghraib Moment

In war, it's not painted as a pretty picture. It is ugly and sad. It is the survive of the fittest. It is us versus them. There will be collateral damage. In the Obama Abu Ghraib moment, the media is keeping silent while we interpret the meaning of the pictures. With the Abu Ghraib incident under Bush, the media condemned that actions committed by the military to terrorist and criminals. Here, these pictures of the military posing with dead civilians are brushed under the rug by the media. Meanwhile, the White House is hoping the Japan nuclear fallout and going to war with Libya will quell any mention to Obama's Abu Ghraib moment. It seems the Obama presidency is starting to unravel. It is perfect timing for the 2012 presidential elections.

(HotAir) When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.

Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed:

[U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.

What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed.

As Dictator Stands Firm, Britain Lowers its Expectations of Victory

The best possible scenario is a stalemate between Gaddafi and the coalition forces. This is a stupid war. It would been easier to freeze assets and impose severe sanctions. Now, we have pissed Gaddafi and it is very likely he will call on his cells to inflict terrorism around the world. Let Gaddafi destroy his anti-supporters. Hillary Clinton and the State Department has informed that the rebels are linked to al-Qaeda. In fact, there are several al-Qaeda factions trying to oust Gaddafi for many years. At this point, it is the lesser of two evils. I would pick Gaddafi, who is controllable, than al-Qaeda any day of the week.

(The Independent) The Western allies yesterday struggled to find a coherent strategy in Libya as Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces renewed attacks on rebel strongholds despite a no-fly zone and a fourth day of allied strikes against government military targets. In Washington, top officials insisted the US intended to hand over command of the operation to its allies within days, but wrangling within Nato continued yesterday along with confusion over what the mission was increasingly clear that despite the scale of the damage inflicted on Colonel Gaddafi's forces, the rebels were highly unlikely to achieve a military victory.

Obama 2007, President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack

Being a true liberal, Obama will quote sentences from the Constitution, but legislate his own views when a certain situation arises. This is the purest form of hypocrisy. Obama is unable to walk the walk and talk the talk. Obama has to be impeached.

( - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.

First Cracks Emerge in Military Coalition on Libya

The problem with the coalition is nations want to put in their two-cents, but refuse to take the responsibility to lead. The coalition can not define and implement a no-fly zone in Libya. This coalition will dissolve into two main leaders of the war; USA and UK. When this occurs, the other nations can wash their hands and ignore the problem entirely. If the coalition are unable to unseat Gaddafi, it is expected a severe vengeful backlash from him.

( While the US-French-British core stayed solid, cracks started to show Monday in the military coalition hastily assembled to take action on Libya as the Arab League and some EU countries wavered.

Criticism of the operation came swiftly after French jets took to the skies on Saturday to launch the first air strikes on Libyan targets in support of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa caused concerns on Sunday when he said the air strikes went beyond the scope of the resolution to implement a no-fly zone and said he was concerned about civilians being hurt in bombing.

Germany, which abstained in the Security Council vote when the resolution was passed on Thursday, said Mussa's criticism showed that Berlin had been right to fear military intervention.

Italy said its offer to contribute eight Tornado jets to the military operation was accompanied by concerns that the allied campaign "shouldn't be a war" on Libya.

We are Losing the War in Libya, Coalition Forces Confused

This is the most convoluted war ever designed. Obama tells Congress we went to war against Libya 2 days ago. The Arab League broke away from the coalition. Russia and China are against the war. Fractions in the coalition is becoming evident. The mission of the war is unclear. The rebels that the coalition is supporting are al-Qaeda affiliates. There is no game plan except to bomb the crap of the country. Also, no one is willing to lead this fight.

(Mail Online) Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.

But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.
Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

With Turkey digging its heels in and the Arab League suspicious, it has been pointed out that Mr Obama has fewer coalition partners in Libya than George Bush did at the start of the Iraq war.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Liberals Want Obama Impeached

(The Hill) Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says that President Obama should be impeached for committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed “war crimes” on the same level as President Bush.

“Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader’s comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Liberals Freaking Out Because Obama Didn't Ask Congress to Go to War

(FoxNews) A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Read the rest of the story at

The Obama Doctrine is a Short War & No American Ground Troops Will Be Used

The Obama Doctrine is a fine line not to piss of the anti-war movement. In Obama's mind from disassociating himself from George Bush, Obama states that the war will be limited in scope (a short war) and no American ground forces will be initiated. It is a pretty pathetic excuse to use since America is mostly commanding this war in Libya. Since Obama can't predict Gaddafi's next move, the president can't assure the American people that it will be a short war and prove American ground force won't be used.

(Yahoo) BRASILIA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces led the biggest military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, but President Barack Obama insisted that U.S. involvement would be limited as part of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.

The United States, France, Britain, Canada and Italy began attacks on targets designed to cripple Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses as the West tries to force the Libyan leader from power. At least some Arab nations are expected to join the coalition.

The United States' huge military power dominated the initial phase of the strike and Army General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, was leading the entire coalition. Pentagon officials said, however, their plan is take a smaller role over time in the operation, which was named Odyssey Dawn.

"Today I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun," Obama told reporters in Brasilia, his first stop on a five-day tour of Latin America.

"As I said yesterday, we will not, I repeat, we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground," Obama said, grim-faced as he delivered the news of U.S. military action in a third Muslim country within 10 years.

BRASILIA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces led the biggest military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, but President Barack Obama insisted that U.S. involvement would be limited as part of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.

The United States, France, Britain, Canada and Italy began attacks on targets designed to cripple Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses as the West tries to force the Libyan leader from power. At least some Arab nations are expected to join the coalition.

French planes fired the first shots, destroying tanks and armored vehicles in eastern Libya eight years to the day after U.S.-led forces headed across the Iraqi border in 2003. Hours later, U.S. and British ships and submarines launched more than 110 cruise missiles against air defenses in the oil-producing North African country.

The United States' huge military power dominated the initial phase of the strike and Army General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, was leading the entire coalition. Pentagon officials said, however, their plan is take a smaller role over time in the operation, which was named Odyssey Dawn.

"Today I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun," Obama told reporters in Brasilia, his first stop on a five-day tour of Latin America.

He said U.S. troops were acting in support of allies, who will lead the enforcement of a no-fly zone to stop Gaddafi's attacks on rebels.

"As I said yesterday, we will not, I repeat, we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground," Obama said, grim-faced as he delivered the news of U.S. military action in a third Muslim country within 10 years.

With the United States involved in long-running campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mark Quarterman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the war-weary American public was nervous about more military action.

"The way the U.S. has handled this -- the deliberations both in the Security Council and in Washington leading up to this -- has been calibrated to the concern that, yes, the U.S. is in two pretty serious wars now," Quarterman said. "The administration has made it very clear it has serious doubts about taking the lead in another military action in the Middle East."

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Obama Following the Bush Doctrine

Please tell me the difference between Bush and the Iraq/Afghanistan War and Obama and the Afghanistan/Libya war? Why is the liberals not condemning Obama? It just shows that Liberals will politicize the war and disregard the men and women who died while serving the military. Obama's quote is very similar to what Bush said in 2003. Yes Liberals, believe it or not, Obama is leading the war against Libya!

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Thursday, March 17, 2011

United Nations Give the Okay to Attack Libya, Awaiting for US to Lead

The war is going to begin very soon. Since Nato forces is mostly supported by the US military, the United Nations is waiting for the United States to lead the attack. The United Nations gave their blessing to stop Gaddafi by military force. Doesn't this sound familiar when Bush went to the UN to stop Saddam Hussein? What is the difference? Why did Bush get criticize and not with Obama? Hypocrites!

(Reuters) - The United Nations authorised military action to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Thursday, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing "no mercy, no pity."

"We will come, zenga, zenga. House by house, room by room," he said in a radio address to the eastern city.

Al Jazeera television showed thousands of Benghazi residents in a central square celebrating the U.N. vote, waving anti-Gaddafi tricolour flags and chanting defiance of the man who has ruled for four decades. Fireworks burst over the city.

Gaddafi had warned that only those who lay down their arms would be spared vengeance to be exacted on 'rats and dogs'.

"It's over. The issue has been decided," Gaddafi said. "We are coming tonight...We will find you in your closets.

"We will have no mercy and no pity."

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone to halt government troops now around 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi. It also authorised "all necessary measures" -- code for military action -- to protect civilians against Gaddafi's forces.

French diplomatic sources said military action could come within hours, and could include France, Britain and possibly the United States and one or more Arab states; but a U.S. military official said no immediate U.S. action was expected following the vote.

Ten of the Council's 15 member states voted in favour of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany among the five that abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.

We Are On a Verge to Declare War on Libya

I wonder where are the anti-war protester now? Obama is going to declare war with Libya as the UN resolutions soon to be passed. It will be a multi-national Nato force to end the carnage in Libya. This sounds like Bush going after Saddam Hussein. Since it is the same situation, why is Obama getting a pass?

(BBC) The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision. After hanging back for days the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. The fact that the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, will be here in person is a sign of French confidence that the Russians and Chinese won't block the resolution.
The latest draft I have seen goes well beyond calling for a no-fly zone. It says that the Arab League, individual nations and organizations like Nato are authorized to "take all necessary protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat...including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force."

I am told the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft. They could be in the air within hours. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. Hillary Clinton has said it will mean bombing Libyan air defences. Nato will step up if asked but could take a while.

Although there have been other recent UN operations this would be the most serious intervention in a crisis for a long time, a marked contrast to the division over Iraq. That does not ease the worries of some in the administration that this will still be labeled an American war and they will be dragged
deeper and deeper into the affairs of another Arab nation.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Where is President Obama

Where is the president?...... ON VACATION! This is the only president only reacts to the news. If the new is ugly, Obama hides under his bed. I hope this is a lesson for those who support for Obama. The presidency needs talk the talk and walk the walk and not "BS" his way through it.

(New York Post) Where is the president? The world is beset. Moammar Khadafy is moving relentlessly to crush the Libyan revolt that once promised the overthrow of one of the world's most despicable regimes.

So where is the president?

Japan may be on the verge of a disaster that dwarfs any we have yet seen. A self-governing nation like the United States needs its leader to take full measure of his position at times of crises when the path forward is no longer clear.

This is not a time for leadership; this is the time for leadership.

So where is Barack Obama?

The moment demands that he rise to the challenge of showing America and the world that he is taking the reins. How leaders act in times of unanticipated crisis, in which they do not have a formulated game plan and must instead navigate in treacherous waters, defines them.

Obama is defining himself in a way that will destroy him.

It is not merely that he isn't rising to the challenge. He is avoiding the challenge. He is Bartleby the President. He would prefer not to.

He has access to a microphone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If he tells the broadcast networks in the middle of the day that he has a major address to deliver on an unprecedented world situation, they will cancel their programming for him.

And yet, since Friday and a press conference in which he managed to leave the American position on Libya more muddled than it was before, we have not heard his voice. Except in a radio address -- he talked about education legislation.

Chaos Around the World and Obama Still Has Time to Vacation

I was wondering where Obama has been hiding. I haven't heard a word from him talk regarding to the Japanese crisis, Libya massacre, Haiti reconstruction, high unemployment, Wisconsin protest, low approval rating, massive deficits, unpayable national debt, ceiling debt, inflation, and high oil prices. Instead, Obama finds time to run away to Rio for a well-deserved vacation. Isn't that nice?

(Forbes) President Barack Obama will take his first official trip to Brazil this weekend where he will speak in the popular Cinelandia Square in downtown Rio de Janeiro.

Obama’s speech will be free and open to the public and take place around 15:00 local time (14:00 EST). Access to the square will begin at 11:30, and is sure to draw a crowd.

The Obama family will also take in the sights in Rio. A trip to Corcovado mountain, where the Christ the Redeemer statue stands (France gave us Lady Liberty, gave Brazil Jesus) is supposedly on the itinerary. What trip to Rio would be complete without it?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Glenn Beck Say Americans Should Follow the Example of the Japanese People

The honor of the Japanese people can be seen through their noble example. Unlike Americans, the Japanese people don't act like barbarians when a malicious opportunity presents itself. There is one thing Americans don't understand; it's the Asian culture. In Japan, the ultimate honor is to give respect and to get respect. The Japanese people puts country first before themselves. It is called Nationalism. It is something many Americans lack.

Japan's nationalism is taught at a very early age in every city, town, and province. In fact, there is no unions in Japan. The workers respect their employers and the employers respect their workers. It is why the Japanese worker never complain working a 14 hour day. The employers are very demanding, but understanding the employees' need. It is a sense of honor that they are able to produce great products. It is a sense of pride that they are able to contribute and help their fellow man. It is a sense of humility to work hard to understand the meaning of an accomplishment. However, most Americans are out for "number one," complain about long hours, not understanding to live humble, and never satisfied with life.

I am not bashing on Americans, but we lost our exceptional zeal around the world. In reality, we live in an entitled state, and we are stubborn to realize it. The mentality shared by all is "getting more by doing less." Unfortunately, the government is responsible in creating an entitled privileged society. Therefore, it is not unusual for other countries to see us as self-center, selfish, and self-serving. To see what the looters did during Hurricane Katrina or the riots during the NBA final in Los Angeles, it is embarrassing to see Americans acting like idiots as they take things that don't belong to them. We will never learn as a society. It is too late for us. We are part of a complex matrix; impossible to escape. I hope our children have a better chance to break the matrix. In order to make a difference, our children must learn disciple, restraint, honor, love for our country, and to learn respect.

(Glen Beck Show) When crises and national disasters have happened across the world and in the United States, there are usually reports of violence and looting as people scramble to survive or even just take advantage of the situation for personal gain. Remember the images from Katrina when people were stealing TV’s and other electronics? For some reason, Japan has proven to be an exception.

“Let’s talk about something positive,” Glenn said. “The amazing story of the Japanese people. As the darkness grows, so does the light. And the Japanese people, there’s still no looting.”

“ There’s always going to some element of, you know, human nature that takes over for some people and that stuff happens. Not, seemingly not so far in Japan, though,” Stu said.

As the radio guys point out, the stories across the Internet focus on the unusual phenomena of no looting, as if chaos and looting should be the norm in this situation.

“You know one of the reasons why they say? Because it hasn’t been Balkanized yet. It’s still a nation. It hasn’t been turned in against itself yet. It’s still a nation,” Glenn said. “Businesses respect the workers, the workers respect the businesses. They haven’t been turned against each other. And so they are all working with each other.”

As forces in our own country are working to find ways to divide us (look at union leaders in Wisconsin), Glenn said that the people in Japan are all uniting together. “I’m starting to sound like the guy who was just like, can’t we just try peace and love? And it is really the only answer. It is the only answer,” Glenn said.

Glenn said, “One of the most amazing stories I’ve heard is a guy in Japan was going, he had no water. He goes into a store and there’s only ten bottles of water and he grabs all ten. He gets a couple of steps away and stops and he puts the water back. He takes two bottles because he realizes if he takes all ten, nobody else will have any.”

Glenn said that people in America need to wake up and start preparing for this kind of disaster by storing food, as past disasters have shown the peaceful actions of the Japanese are the exception to the rule.

EPA Says We Have to Spend $700 Trillion to Lower Earths Temperature by 1 degree

Even the EPA couldn't manipulate the data suggesting that global warming is expensive to fix. It will take $700 trillion to reduce the earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius. This is absolutely absurd.

(WorldNet Daily) New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world's gross production, to drop the earth's temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA's own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration's plan "absurd."

Citing a study by the EPA's Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, "EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] 'absurd,' affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing 'at least a decade or longer' of permit delays, 'slowing' construction nationwide for years, 'introducing burdens that are administratively 'infeasible,' 'overwhelming,' that will 'adversely affect national economic development,' while impacting sources 'not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'"

You've suspected it, now here's the proof: A top meteorologist documents how "global warming" is just a cynical, Marx-inspired wealth-grab.

And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators are decrying?

The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25,495: "Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 degrees Celsius by 2100."

So in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78 billion per year in spending – a total of over $7 trillion dollars – would have lowered the earth's temperature by about one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

In other words, the U.S. would be paying for a global warming elixir that reduces temperatures at the net rate of $700 trillion per degree. Numbers-crunchers estimate that would amount to roughly 700 warehouses filled with $100 bills, or a stack of the bills nearly 70 miles high.

Rasmussen Survey 42 percent Strongly Disapprove Obama

I'm not surprise. As the media brags how the economy is on the right track to recovery, it is short lived by new reports of revise numbers on GDP, housing, national debt, budget deficits, and consumer confidence. Every indicator is showing negative and it will be impossible for the media to try to spin this. Obama is an epic failure.

(Rasmussen) The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 20% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That is the president’s lowest rating since September.

As the World Fall to Ruins, Obama Just Laughs

As we watch the Middle East crumbling and the havoc taken place in Japan, Obama is enjoying a leisurely time golfing and picking his NCAA tournament bracket. It is blatantly clear Obama is not ready to lead. In fact, he rather be a world citizen than a world leader. While Obama refers himself as a non-interventionist, America is not immune to the effects of the instability around the world. The stock market is tanking again and inflation's ugly face is resurfacing again. Now, the treasury is planning to print more money, which won't go well with the American people. As many people describes Obama resembling to Jimmy Carter, it is incorrect because Obama is in a class on its own.

(White House Dossier) The Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United States, but none of this seems to be deterring President Obama from a heavy schedule of childish distractions.

The newly installed tandem of White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior Adviser David Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.

This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to find out who he likes.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Gas Prices Have Gone Up 67 Percent Since Obama Became President

DRILL BABY DRILL! Obama needs to stop blaming oil-rich nations and oil companies. Opening the oil reserves would only save us ten cents at the pump. It is time to really lift the ban on off shore drilling and let us drill because America will not buy electric cars from the GM (Government Motors)

(Weekly Standard) Ah, January of 2009. Hope was in the air, but more importantly, gas was under two dollars a gallon. Since then gas prices, have gone up 67 percent and it's an ominously upward trend. Interestingly enough, the Heritage Foundation also took a look at the first 26 months of Bush's presidency -- gas only rose 7 percent during that time frame.

Now obviously turmoil in the Middle East has something to do with our current astronomical gas prices, but keep in mind that by this point in the Bush presidency 9/11 had happened and we were on the verge of invading Iraq. So while the president can't be entirely responsible for global commodity prices, it's still worth asking what Obama's doing to make things worse.

After all, this is the President who told us "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

This is the President that appointed a Secretary of the Interior that famously said he didn't mind if gas hit $10 a gallon.

Obama First Blames Libya for the High Oil Prices But Now It is the Oil Companies

It is obvious that Obama want the tax revenues from gas to pay for Obamacare.......

(Investors Business Daily) In his Friday press conference to discuss gas prices, President Obama was rather defensive, straining to counter the notion that his administration has been unfriendly to oil drilling, something most people would like to see a lot more of these days.

Where do people get that notion? Perhaps his Interior Department appealing a judge’s ruling that it act onseveral pending deepwater permits had something to with it.

Obama claimed repeatedly that he is not against drilling, then made the following comments:

There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the (oil) industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres — both offshore and on land — where they aren’t producing a thing. So I’ve directed the Interior Department to determine just how many of these leases are going undeveloped and report back to me within two weeks so that we can encourage companies to develop the leases they hold and produce American energy. People deserve to know that the energy they depend on is being developed in a timely manner.

In other words, Obama is arguing that the oil companies themselves may be to blame for the fact that there isn’t more drilling. For some reason they’re ignoring making a profit. It’s a bizarro-world inversion of the usual complaint against oil companies — that they are reckless and all-too eager to despoil pristine lands in search of black gold.

Facts Don't Support Claims on Gulf of Mexico Oil Production

Everything from the White House is a lie.................

(Energy Tomorrow) Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told Congress that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico "remained at an all-time high, and we expect that it will continue as we bring new production online." He claimed: "In 2009 there were 116 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, in 2010 in February, 120, in February 2011, 126."

But Salazar's numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:

-Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
-On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.
-Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

So the fact that there is an "all-time high" number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.

In the same hearing, the Secretary also claimed that "the production has remained at an all-time high" within the Gulf of Mexico and there is no way to actually make this true. The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports that production in the Gulf of Mexico is in decline, forecasting a decline of 250,000 barrels a day from Gulf production, due partly to the moratorium and restricted permitting. While the annual production figure for 2010 was greater than 2009, EIA's month-by-month production figures show a peak in May of 2010, and a relatively steady decline since. And EIA Petroleum Engineer Gary Long told trade publication E&E News that the rig count in the Gulf was cut in half after the Deepwater Horizon accident and that it wouldn't rebound to previous levels until the end of 2011 under the assumption that the permitting process is restored to historical rates. Further, since there is a lag time from the time an exploration permit is approved to the time of actual production, and since no only a handful of permits for new wells have been granted since April of 2010, it is likely that Gulf of Mexico production will continue to be hit hard in 2012 and beyond.

We appreciate that, when it comes to selling the administration's energy policy, Secretary Salazar is in a tough position. Fortunately we are here to help, help provide the abundant and affordable energy that our economy needs, and help create the jobs our workers want. As API President Jack Gerard said recently:

"Our industry remains committed to working with government to meet our current and future challenges, but we need Congress and the administration on board. Let's stop talking and let's get back to work."

Obama Would Not Mind Being President of China

If Obama want to be president of China, the America people wouldn't mind. Obama would help America's greatness by shifting loyalties.

(Weekly Standard) Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”

Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East,” The New York Times, March 11, 2011.

Mr. Obama is right.

If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously.

Unfortunately for him and us, Barack Obama is president of the United States. That job brings with it certain special responsibilities. It’s a tough job—maybe tougher than being president of China. But Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. Maybe he should start behaving as one.

After 15 Years Monica Lewinsky is Still in Love with Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton pointing his finger saying, "I didn't have sex with that woman." Yeah, right! HA-HA

(Mail Online) The scandal almost destroyed his career and left his presidency permanently tainted.
But 15 years on, Bill Clinton’s former intern Monica Lewinsky has not got married or had children because she is reportedly still in love with him and 'always will be'.

Miss Lewinsky, 37, has run a successful business, hosted a reality television show and moved overseas - but has never found love, according to friends.

‘Monica still hasn’t got over Bill and would take him back in a second,’ a friend said.

‘She told me: “There will never be another man in my life that could make me as happy as he did",' the friend told the National Enquirer magazine.

Miss Lewinsky was aged 22 in 1995 when she began working in the White House and had an affair with President Clinton, which he famously denied at first.

Mr Clinton was impeached by Republicans in 1998, who tried to throw him out of office.

But his wife Hilary said in 2007 that their marriage was 'worth the investment'.

Miss Lewinsky said her relationship with the president involved her performing sexual acts on him - but not sexual intercourse.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Obama Says Tea Party Is Racist

Obama is a hypocrite. Obama and Democrats always use class warfare to pit envy and denigrate a class or race over another. I thought Obama was suppose to be a "uniter", but instead, he is a divider.

(FoxNews) ...But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement-a racially biased one-that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

Gas Prices Up 33 cents in Two Weeks

Come on guys! It is possible to be in denial supporting Obama, but the high gas prices could be fixed by the president very easily. We are reaching a breaking point. We are close to the $4.00 threshold. Are you fed up yet?

(CNN) -- U.S. gasoline prices increased nearly 33 cents in two weeks, the second-biggest two-week jump in the history of the gasoline market, according to a new survey of filling stations.

The latest Lundberg Survey of cities in the continental United States was conducted Friday. It showed the national average for a price of self-serve unleaded gasoline at $3.51, an increase of 32.7 cents from the last survey two weeks earlier, survey publisher Trilby Lundberg said.

The jump was the biggest since a 38-cent hike between August and September 2005. At the time, the price increase was driven by damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

"This time around, the spike comes not from nature, but from people," Lundberg said. "The armed struggle in Libya has shocked international oil markets and here it is at the pump."

Conservative Blog RedState Gives 2 thumbs up for Sarah Palin

A very well-known conservative blog, RedState, gives two-thumbs up for Sarah Palin. They summarized the accomplishments of Sarah Palin and the sites to back their claim. It is striking that the GOP establishment is only looking for a Republican candidate who can win the 2012 election. Instead, they should be looking for someone who will work the will of the people and change Washington. While every GOP contender established themselves as viable candidates, only Sarah Palin has proven to walk the walk and talk the talk. Besides, Sarah Palin is a threat to the mainstream media, the GOP establishment, and Liberal loons. I ask this to you, "Why are they scared of her?"

(RedState) OK, JSob, I finally got around to writing down my thoughts on the matter:

One of the most oft-repeated criticisms of Sarah Palin is that she doesn’t have any “accomplishments”. The usual line of attack, borrowed from the Lamestream Media, is that she couldn’t hack it as governor for more than two years, resigning in tears when confronted with the evidence of her unethical dealings (somehow she simultaneously gets blamed for the ethics laws themselves), and fleeing the state of Alaska in order to rake in the cash from her rabid cult following in the lower 48. Or something. Nary a mention of the Vice Presidential campaign, the long knives of the media and the Chicago mob machine, the dismissal of all ethics complaints, the crushing financial burden of defending herself from these charges, or her desire to serve her country at the national level. The fraudulent allegations of these cynical bystanders deserve a rebuttal.

Governor Palin has “accomplished” many things not only as governor, but also as a city councilwoman, mayor, and oil and gas commissioner. During her time in Wasilla, she cut property taxes, opposed unnecessary government regulations, prioritized infrastructure development, and attracted jobs and businesses to the city. Under her leadership, the town was grew and prospered. Her terms as city councilwoman and mayor are chronicled here and here. As a governor, Palin cut spending. She had two major legislative accomplishments: AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act), which restarted a stalled project to build a pipeline to deliver Alaska’s oil and natural gas to the lower 48, and ACES (Alaskans’ Clear and Equitable Share), which restructured a disastrous system of taxing oil comapnies to one that worked better for both the people of Alaska and the oil companies. Some of Palin’s opponents (such as members of the CBC that were abusing the tax system) have criticized this plan as “redistributing wealth” since it taxes oil companies and gives individual Alaskans a check from oil revenues. However, the Alaskan Constitution specifies that the resources of Alaska belong to the people (not the state, which would be socialist), oil companies were already taxed (but corruption flourished under Murkowski), and in reality a shareholder model would be the more appropriate analogy. Instead of the state wasting the money, citizens are given back their tax dollars (more on this later). More information about her actions in office can be found here and here.

All this is great. But none of it gets to the heart of Palin’s true accomplishments. Her true legacy lies in her steel spine, her faith and values, her unwavering dedication to standing up and speaking out for the little guy against those who would seek to take advantage of him (or her), and her unrelenting commitment to always doing the right thing, no matter the personal or political cost.

Finally, someone has chronicled these intangible attributes, as well as some of her more concrete achievements, in one succinct article. Whitney Pitcher of C4P articulates better than I ever could 47 reasons why Governor Palin is preeminently qualified to be President, in honor of Palin’s 47th birthday. I highly recommend that you read through the list, and I challenge you to name one other candidate whose accomplishments measure up to Palin’s. It is increasingly clear that she is the only person for the job.

Sarah Palins Accomplishments Puts Other GOP Candidates to Shame

It is the start of the 2012 Presidential campaign season. The major players from the GOP are beginning to emerge into the spotlight. For those who know me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that I am a very big Palin supporter. Like myself, there are many supporter throughout the country who support Sarah Palin. However, there are many that are ignorant and misguided to accept her as a major contender in 2012. In fact, there are many who share a sexist mentality that a woman is not ready to lead a nation. I found a blog with facts about the accomplishments of Sarah Palin. It is a real eye opener for those who keeps ranting she is not presidential material.

(Conservative4Palin) One of the many memes the GOP establishment, the Left and the media try to stick to Governor Palin is that she is unqualified to be President if she chooses to run. With today being her 47th birthday, it’s odd that so many people think she is younger than thirty-five years old! So, in honor of her birthday, I’d like to share 47 reasons Governor Palin is qualified to be President above and beyond constitutional requirements. In no particular order:

1) She won’t perjure herself by taking the Presidential oath of office like many of her potential opponents.

2) She has 9 years of executive experience, more than 3 times as much as the current President. As Governor, she held the 2nd most powerful gubernatorial office in the country.

3)She knows how to budget. In her years as Governor, she reduced the state budget 9.5% over her predecessor and put $5 billion in state savings.

4) She reduced federal earmark requests 80% as Governor over her predecessor, recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility at both state and national levels.

5) She’s a proven reformer. She strove to break the bonds between Alaskan politicians and oil companies and passed sweeping ethics reform.

6) She believes in true governmental transparency. As Governor, she put the state checkbook online to allow constituents to know how and where the state was spending revenue. During the negotiations of one of the cornerstones of her administration, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA), all proposals were made available for public consumption.

7) In signing the AGIA legislation and the progress that continues to this day, she brought a transcontinental pipeline project from Alaska to the Lower 48 further than 30 years of previous administrations. AGIA is the largest private sector infrastructure project in North American history.

8 ) She believes in oversight not over regulation for energy development. She opened an Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee energy development in Alaska.

9) She believes in an all-of-the-above approach to energy development, including opening up ANWR, on shore drilling, off shore drilling, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables.

10) She understands the effects of quantitative easing will have on the economy in general and on commodity prices specifically.

11) She would have the intestinal fortitude to actually take on reformation of entitlement programs to help derail the bullet train to bankruptcy.

12) For the role of the presidency, the Constitution devotes the majority of its text to the role of commander-in-chief. Governor Palin would take this role seriously as displayed by her commitment to America’s military and her desire for a strong national defense.

13) As part of her commitment to strong national defense, she criticized the Obama administration for making cuts to missile defense, and she stands strongly against the START treaty between Russia and America.

14) She has been firmly against Obamacare from the beginning of legislative talks and strongly supports repeal.

15) She truly sees America as an exceptional nation because of its people. She praises what makes America unique; she doesn’t apologize.

16) She puts principles above party and political expediency.

17) She has stood strongly for securing America’s borders, as shown by her support of Arizona’s immigration law.

18) She is strongly pro-life–a welcomed far cry from the most pro-abortion president in history now occupying the White House.

19) She supports human rights, particularly speaking out against the human rights abuses in China, Iran, and amongst peoples who embrace Sharia law.

20) With regard to foreign policy, she has a far better grasp situation in Egypt with regard to the potential of the Muslim brotherhood’s involvement in a new government and Mubarak’s plans better than members of President Obama’s intelligence team, Leon Panetta and James Clapper.

21) She actually had private sector experience that would enable her to understand what it takes to make payroll and budget within one’s means, unlike the majority of members of the Obama administration.

22) She’s a strong advocate for the 10th amendment, showing she understands not only the balance of powers between the branches of the federal government, but also between the federal and state governments.

23) She shows grace under fire. In spite of having accusations of blood libel launched against her, she stood strongly and gracefully for the victims of the shooting in Tucson and for the freedom of open political discourse.

24) Beyond her political achievements and strong conservative stances, she has character. In spite of two and a half years of a constant barrage of ethics complaints, smears, lies, and media misrepresentation, she has remained strong.

25) She has the ability to communicate with people across the spectrums of age, education, and background. She’s just as comfortable speaking to with businesspeople in Hong Kong as she is speaking to GOP supporters in California or pro-life advocates in Indiana.

26) She stands strongly with America’s allies, like Israel.

27) The American people stand with her on the issues more than they do the current president.

28) She has already taken on the Establishment in Alaska and won.

29) She lives America’s motto — in God we trust.

30) She ticks off all the right people.

31) She believes that shrinking government expands individual freedom.

32) She understands the threats of countries like Iran.

33) She understands the difference between separation of church and state and separation of God and state.

34) As Governor, she forward funded education, giving schools greater flexibility and predictability in their planning.

35) She was prescient of the
Obama administration’s plans and policies as far back as September of 2008
, and she can effectively reverse these policies.

36) She is a firm advocate of freedom of speech, even standing up for those who have denigrated her.

37) She knows how to respond to the largest environmental disaster in our nation’s history, unlike our current president.

38) She believes America needs to restored, not fundamentally transformed.

39) She has the optimism of Reagan with the tenacity of Thatcher.

40) With Governor Palin as President, the era of big government would really be over.

41) She doesn’t believe in identity politics or put people in a box. She sees individual Americans, not voting blocs.

42) She’s an American first, conservative second, and Republican third.

43) She speaks from the heart, not a teleprompter.

44) She is a leader, not a politician.

45) She believes in developing a strong work ethic.

46) She learns from others who have been at the other end of the political and religious spectrum–Reagan was a former Democrat, Thomas Sowell is a former Marxist, and C.S. Lewis was a former atheist.

47) She’s not afraid to go rogue.

For more on Governor Palin’s presidential qualifcations, please see here.