President Obama told Air Force Academy cadets Wednesday America was stronger and more respected around the world than ever before despite impending cuts to the nation’s armed forces.

The president delivered the commencement address to over 1,000 graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo.

“Around the world there is a new feeling about America,” he told cadets. “There is a new confidence in our leadership.

“Today I think we can say with pride that America is stronger and safer and more respected in the world,” Obama added.

He noted the class of 2012 would be the first to “graduate into a world where no Americans are fighting in Iraq and where Usama bin Laden is no longer a threat to our country.”

Honestly, there are not enough adjectives to describe what a low life, scum sucking, son of a bitch this piece of work is….narcissist doesn’t even begin to cover him.  To basically praise himself, while cutting the legs out from under the military takes a major set of brass ones!

Oh, there’s a new feeling about America alright….a laughing stock thanks to the LACK of leadership.  I can’t even express the disgust I feel for this worthless POS!

Obama’s Blockbuster Secrets
The Foundry

Deep in the cover of night in the town of Abbottabad, Pakistan, a team of Navy SEALs descended from helicopters, breached the compound of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and brought him to justice. The story is the stuff that blockbuster movies are made of, but many of the details are largely a closely guarded secret. That was until the Obama White House granted extraordinary access and information to Hollywood filmmakers for their film about the raid, originally slated to be released just before the November presidential elections. As disturbing as that may be, it is not the first time this White House has disclosed confidential information under questionable circumstances.

The news of the information leak comes from Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that seeks transparency in government. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the organization obtained records from the U.S. Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency regarding meetings and communications between government agencies and director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal. Judicial Watch reports that “According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a ‘planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,’ which was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.”

Politico reports on a July 2011 meeting between Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers and the film makers in which he told them that leaders of the Special Operations Command couldn’t speak to them for appearances’ sake, but that they would make available a Navy SEAL who was involved in planning the raid from its earliest stages. According to Politico, that meeting occurred just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA warned against the dangers of leaked information about the raid. On top of that, Judicial Watch reports on an email exchange in which top officials expressed their desire to “shape the story” and have the filmmakers use “White House talking points,” including calling the raid a “gutsy decision” and that “WH involvement was critical.”

Not to be missed is the political angle. A June 9, 2011, email reveals that the White House was aware the movie was set for a fourth-quarter release date — coinciding with the president’s re-election bid — and that the meeting between the filmmakers and the DOD / CIA was arranged by The Glover Park Group, a Democratic-leaning advocacy firm headed up by a former adviser to Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. And then there’s the fact that Sony Pictures Entertainment, which owns the production house distributing the film, hosted a fundraiser for President Obama on its lot last month, part of a West Coast fundraising tour that raise the campaign more than $4 million.

Though we do not know for certain the full extent of the information revealed, we do know that this is not the first time that the Obama Administration’s handling of classified information has been called into question. Earlier this month, former CIA officials blamed the Obama Administration for leaking details on Britain’s involvement in a covert mission that resulted in the foiling of an underwear bomb plot. The Guardian reported that the leak followed a series of disclosures beginning with a report on an expansion of CIA drone attacks in Yemen, followed by the president’s surprise trip to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the bin Laden mission. Mike Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said of the leak, “MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president… This is really tragic. Any information disclosed is too much information. This does seem to be a tawdry political thing.”

Of course, the protection of classified information is the sole province of the Executive branch, i.e. the President. It’s not unusual for the government to give reporters information about war or to embed journalists with tactical units in certain missions — that has happened in both in Democrat and Republican administrations. However, there is a fundamental difference between that kind of access, which arguably furthers the public’s understanding of the war effort, and disclosures of this nature. The White House knew when the film about the bin Laden raid was slated to be released, and the White House alone decided to release the information. Those facts should raise a red flag for Congress that the White House has come awfully close to the line. It’s up to them to find out how this Administration is handling or mishandling ultra-sensitive national security secrets.

An Iranian official called this week for an ‘Islamic Awakening’ movement to help Palestinian Authority Arabs “demolish the Zionist regime”, the IRNA news agency reported.

The comments were made at a conference in Tehran in honor of Nakba Day – the day of catastrophe – which is what the Arabs call the English date of May 15, when the State of Israel was re-established with a declaration of independence in 1948.

In a brief address at the end of the conference, the official, Hossein Shiekholeslam said, “In success of a revolution three major factors need to play effective roles, and they are the people, the leadership, and the school of thought, or ideology.”

Well, I don’t know about you, but I think this world has seen enough ‘islamic awakening’ to last centuries!  What we REALLY need is a REAL awakening in the churches and synagogues!  A turning back to God.  The REAL God!

Trying to gain a wee bit of understanding, I looked up Iran’s constitution, and under ‘foreign policy‘, found this:

Article 154

The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the mustad’afun against the mustakbirun in every corner of the globe.

You’ll notice a couple of words not usually found in an English dictionary, so it was time to investigate further.

Mustad’afun – The oppressed (Muslim) masses (Khomeini and Qaradawi).  Khomenini took up the populist rhetoric of the left and was therefore appealing to the entire spectrum from the left to the Islamists. He accused the imperialists of dividing the society into the oppressors and the oppressed and declared that it was a duty for the ulama to save these people. However, after the end of the Revolution, he purged the leftists from the government.

I pondered this for a bit.  Then, came to the conclusion, the only people who oppress muslims are………..muslims.  So, I’m not real sure who exactly that lunatic, Khomeini, was actually referring to.   Ok, what about the other word?  It took a while, but I was thinking it was the opposite, and I was correct. 

Mustakbirun – Oppressors.  (Sometimes, I amaze m’self…especially when I’m only on my first cup of coffee!)

If you look at the history of islam, with open eyes, you’d see a great deal of oppressing going on, with non muslims being the most oppressed.  Of course, the society as a whole is oppressive, so anyone living under islamic rule would, by default, be oppressed.  Wearing a burlap sack, from head to toe, is quite oppressive, IMHO.

I also came across the words being defined as ‘arrogant – aggressor’ (mustakbirun) and ‘weak – oppressed’ (mustad’afun). Jeez! Sure hope I got those straight. It becomes quite confusing, especially when you consider “Surely Allah does not love aggressors.”  I reckon he’s none too fond of the Iranian and PA regimes then, eh?

Take a good hard look at the slave trade.  While there is no end to the shame of the Americas (North & South) in this area, at least they didn’t murder babies born to the slaves in the sex trade.

A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.

While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!

While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.

While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.

So, who is the oppressed, and who is the oppressor?  If you ever watch any of the children’s programs aired on ‘palestinian’ television, the oppressors/aggressors are NOT the Israelis.   You don’t see them teaching their kids to murder in the name of God, ‘praying’ to be a martyr, blowing themselves up, do you?  In Israel, Muslims have the right to vote.  Do Jews have that right in any muslim country….if there are any left in muslim countries, that is.  Jews and Christians tend to be ‘disappeared’ in countries ruled by islam.  In other words, they either get kicked out, or they are murdered outright.  How many Armenians are left in Turkey?

So, when these yahoos celebrate….honor….whatever, ‘the day of catastrophe‘, calling for the destruction of a nation, and peoples, I have to wonder, just who is this allah, and his minions, that would continually slaughter the innocent? Always, the name Molech comes to mind, notorious for demanding the sacrifice of children.  In reality, Molech was nothing more than a piece of stone, and it was the so called priests that demanded the death of children.  Bunch of freakin’ evil pervs, in my mind….kind of like the mothers who gladly sacrifice their children for a made up ‘prophet’.

Oh, the guy was real alright, but he was no prophet, except of evil and doom.  If you do any reading, you’ll know that the first half of that ‘holy book’ was all peace and love.  The second half, was written by a madman.  He didn’t get his way, people fought back, and they were slaughtered, all because they wouldn’t bow to his will.

When Hossein Shiekholeslam spoke of ideology, he, of course, was speaking of the ideology of islam. As Daniel Pipes said in 2003: There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist, for all Islamists share the same long-term goals; they differ only over means. The means in Israel, and many other areas of the Middle East is blowing people up, creating terror. On this side of the world, however, the means of the ‘takeover’ is quiet, creeping, and just as devastating, using our own courts and laws to implement their ideology, aided and abetted by the ‘go along to get along’ mindset.

My question is: If Iran, through the PA, attacks Israel, whose side will the current administration be on? They’ve already assisted in the takeover of several countries of the extreme islamists. Granted, the head honchos of those countries were not nice people, but those who are taking their place aren’t so nice either, and might be even worse in the grand scheme of things. There are members of the muslim brotherhood working in our government right now. We’re importing more and more muslims from war torn countries who refuse to assimilate, and want laws changed to accommodate their wants and needs, according to THEIR ‘religion’. Let a Christian try that!

The first speaker at the conference, according to IRNA, was the PA Ambassador in Tehran, Salah Zawawi, who said that the one and only way to soothe the Arabs’ pains and agony is the annihilation of the Zionist regime.

Annihilating anyone, or anything, is NOT going to sooth ‘the Arabs’ pain’. That pain has been caused by themselves. Have you ever seen the Arab areas of Israel? Think inner city slum…trash, filth, and blaming others for the living conditions they, themselves created.

So, when you think seriously about it, this administration will likely come out against Israel. The American people, on the other hand, are largely in support of Israel, and will stand with her through thick and thin.  The Iranian regime might want to remember that!  Also, they might want to remember Who gave the land to the Hebrews, and just who are the invaders.

Reflecting on his two terms in office, President George W. Bush said in 2010, “You realize you’re not it. You’re a part of something bigger than yourself.”

This is a sentiment President Barack Obama did not inherit from his predecessor. Over the past month we have witnessed several displays of arrogant power emanating from our White House, emphasizing fealty to a person over the integrity of an American institution. Some are more serious than others.

First, this week it was discovered that White House staff had edited the biographies of many past presidents on whitehouse.gov to include a bullet point or two inserting President Obama into each historical narrative.

For example, while President Calvin Coolidge had been the first president to make a public radio address, President Obama is on LinkedIn; and while Social Security was introduced by President Roosevelt, under President Obama it still exists. But in a far more egregious example, they incorrectly added to President Ronald Reagan’s biography:

“In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.”

This is not only a complete fabrication of what President Reagan said (even The Washington Post‘s ‘fact checker’ gave this familiar line two Pinocchios) but it is also a glaring example of the President putting himself ahead of the sacred institution he is sworn to protect for the nation as well as his predecessors and successors.

Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ed Meese who served as President Reagan’s Attorney General said: “They should not use the biographies of past presidents as campaign vehicles. What they have done is to spoil the integrity of the historical narrative. At the very least, the Reagan biography should be restored to the accurate version provided White House Historical Association. I’m sure those associated with other past presidents would feel the same.”

This is not the first time the Obama White House has engaged in this behavior. In March 2009, they were caught editing President Bush’s biography to soften his listed accomplishments. They quickly reversed course. In the Bush Administration, biographies were directly supplied by the White House Historical Association without addendums or qualifiers.

Former White House Internet Director David Almacy explained to The Heritage Foundation that under Bush, this editing practice would have been unthinkable, saying: “It was our intent to preserve the history of the White House as an institution as well as those who served as president from a non-partisan historical perspective.” Almacy added: “It was ingrained in Bush Administration staffers from day one that our time in service to our nation was a privilege and that we must separate political promotion from the institution as a whole.”

Affirming that culture, President Bush told a group of departing staffers in 2009: “Laura and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts for serving with us. I’ve had two great chiefs of staff, Andy and Josh. Their task was to assemble, and I would say this objectively, the finest group of people to serve our country, all of whom are here not to serve me, not to serve Republicans, but to serve the United States of America.”

This bipartisan approach evades the current White House. On April 20, President Obama’s campaign team released a Nixonian enemies list of Republican donors on their “Truth Team” website. This wasn’t about transparency, but intimidation. After each donor name, the Obama team highlighted why they felt the person was “less than reputable.” Essentially the person had either succeeded in a business field that was counter to the President’s worldview (i.e. oil production) or they made business decisions like outsourcing.

Prominent donors are often thrust into the spotlight in political campaigns, but this example was extraordinary and unprecedented. The writing was on the wall: If you give to an opposing cause, we will unleash a grassroots effort to destroy your personal reputation. This message delivered on behalf of the most powerful man in the nation has real implications. If the IRS were to audit one of these individuals, how could they not wonder if their political contribution was the root cause?

Following up on the story, the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel found that a week after this list was released, a political opposition researcher was found to be digging through divorce records of one of the men named. The target, Frank VanderSloot, told Strassel: “When I first learned that President Obama’s campaign had singled me out on his ‘enemies list,’ I knew it was like taping a target on my back…[but] the public beatings and false accusations that followed are no deterrent. These tactics will not work in America.”

Between the biographical trickery and their enemies list, President Obama’s team has engaged in tactics that put their boss above his predecessors and dangerously above his opponents. This is indeed a culture that emanates from the top.

Just last week President Obama told ABC News’ Robin Roberts in an interview: “When I think about — those soldiers or airmen or marines or — sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…” My behalf.

Then there was also the consistent use of the pronoun “I” to describe the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. And the time, President Obama told 60 Minutes that he was our fourth greatest president ever, saying: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.”

Finally, President Obama insinuated yesterday that if you don’t support his policies, it’s not due to philosophical differences, but because of his name. Answering a question on The View about tight polls, he said: “When your name is Barack Obama, it’s always going to be tight. Barack Hussein Obama.”

Any person selected to the highest office in the land is bound to indulge a small degree of narcissism. But when it permeates the entire attitude and culture of the executive branch, it begins to become a problem. No president is larger than the presidency.

Many of President Obama’s fervent devotees are young enough not to have much memory of the political world before the arrival of The One. Coincidentally, Obama himself feels the same way—and the White House’s official website reflects that.

The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on www.whitehouse.gov, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford).

A few screen shots for ya…just in case someone just happens to let him know we already realize he’s more arrogant than all previous 43, put together:

Calvin Coolidge

Harry Truman

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

George W. Bush

Someone MIGHT want to clue in that narcissistic POS, no one gives a happy crap about him when all they want to do is read about previous presidents….some that actually ACCOMPLISHED something positive for the nation, unlike HIS massive failures!

Has ANY president ever had the audacity to insert themselves into the bios of any other president?  Not that I’m aware!

H/T: Rob via FB

(Via Drudge)

In a gutsy move, Newsweek has released the cover of their next issue, on the cover of which they depict President Obama with a rainbow halo and the title of ‘The First Gay President’.

The news-magazine, which hits stands today, is using the shock factor of labeling the straight, married, father-of-two President to draw attention to itself.

Tina Brown, who edits the magazine and its sister website The Daily Beast, is known for her love of controversial covers to help boost public interest and sales.

Learn something new every day, don’t we. Not only has Newsweek announced to the world that Obama is gay, but I didn’t know that it was a ‘sister website’ to one of the major libtard sites. Hey…why would I know? I never read either one of them!  I have more respect for myself, don’cha know!

Hmmm…  wonder if it’s his white half, or black half, that is gay?  And seriously?  A rainbow halo??  The rainbow is the symbol of God’s covenant with man.

Genesis 9:11-15
11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;
15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

It’s time to take the rainbow back! Considering that God calls homosexuality “an abomination“, you’d think they would have picked something else as their symbol, wouldn’t you?  Just sayin’.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama actually ‘evolved’ into a grown up? A real human grown up? And how about evolving into someone less narcissistic? Wishful thinking, huh. sigh….

Isn’t it interesting that OUR military is fighting on HIS behalf?  Why would they do that?  He doesn’t even like them, and has made that perfectly clear on numerous occasions.  He’s doing his best, with the aid of the Senate to strip them of their ability to even defend themselves, much less him.  Pfft!  What a horse’s rump!

I wonder if the gay community is aware that he is doing nothing more than using them for political purposes? The guy doesn’t give a flying flip about anyone, or anything beyond his own wants and desires. And apparently, he wants to be king, a dictator, a real tyrant. I mean, after all, he has learned from the best…..Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc. Oh yeah…and lets not forget Saul Alinksy, his grandparents, and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.

Rick Santorum endorsed presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in an email to supporters sent late Monday night.

The one-time Republican presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator said “the primary campaign certainly made it clear that Gov. Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree.”

“We both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime,” said Santorum.

While his backing could shore up Romney’s position with the GOP’s conservative base, some could view it as a lukewarm endorsement of the party’s eventual nominee.

When it comes right down to it, this isn’t about Obama or Romney. This election is about the very survival of the United States.  Was Romney my choice?  That would be a big fat NO!  Will I vote for him in November?  Damn skippy I will!  Why?  Because we will not survive another four years of socialist/marxist rule!

You folks who have decided you won’t vote for Romney because he doesn’t represent everything you wanted in the candidate….stay home!  Voting 3rd party, or write in will only get us another four years of complete destruction.  If you want the socialists to completely take over, then just use your vote for Obama.  Don’t give me that crap about ‘standing on principles’.  Standing on principle is great and I’m all for it, but when it comes to this country, you need to get your head screwed on straight, and stand WITH those of us who KNOW we have to boot Obama from the White House.  We didn’t get this far down the sewer in one day, and we sure won’t be getting out of it in one election cycle.  If giving Obama his pink slip isn’t your goal, then you have lost sight of our real problems, and it ain’t Mitt!  Our problem is the GOPer elites, who need to be replaced, and the lame stream media, that needs to relearn the meaning of investigative journalism.  IF we stand together, eventually, we just might be able to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Obama has not been a leader.  He, and his minions, have basically crowned him king, and kings don’t give a flying flip about the peons that pay his bills.

Before the 2008 election, when Barack Hussein Obama was running, there were so many reasons NOT to vote for him, but the masses didn’t listen.  As my overly liberal sister put it, “It’s time.”  Time for what?  To vote for a half black, half white man?  If that’s the reason people voted for him, they seriously got the shaft, didn’t they.

Listed in 2008:

1. He supports infanticide, literally!

2. His spiritual mentor for 20 years has been Jeremiah Wright whom Obama personally chose out of many Chicago pastors. It strains credibility that he didn’t know about Wright’s views. He listened to tapes of Rev. Wright when he was at Harvard Law! So why did he choose him and stick with him for so long? The only possible explanation is that he approved of Wright’s tirades.

3. He is a close friend of William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists.

4. He is a target for assassination, not because he is black but because he is a Muslim apostate, according to devout Muslims around the world. Therefore, he cannot be a good Chief Diplomat to the Middle East.

5. He was mentored by a communist.

6. His economic plan will harm the US economy and create more fiscal irresponsibility with the Congressional Budget. Why do we want to return to the days of Jimmy Carter?

7. He is in favor of unilateral disarmament, leaving America defenseless against its enemies.

8. He is unaccomplished. He hasn’t really done anything of worth relative to the office of the US presidency. He’s only been in the Senate for about two years (assumed in office Jan of 2005 and announced his candidacy for the presidency in Feb 2007). One can’t be simultaneously a full-time senator and a full-time presidential candidate. Soon he will have campaigned for almost as long as he has been in the Senate.

9. He is willing to personally meet with hostile dictators like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. They don’t deserve such a privilege of meeting the President of the USA. Reagan negotiated from a position of strength, when he thought he could gain something. What does Obama hope to gain?

10. Three other people: Tony Rezko, Eric Holder, Jim Johnson. Why does Obama associate with such shady characters?

Has anything changed since then?  No, actually, it’s gotten worse.  He now has a record he can’t run on because it has been such a massive failure.

Let’s look at each one through today’s eyes.

1.  He still supports the murdering of babies and he expects the taxpayers to pay for it.

2.  He may have thrown Jeremiah Wright under the bus when it came out that Wright was an American hating bigot, but that ‘teaching’ is still ingrained in Obama’s life.  We just see it more clearly that Obama is also an American hating bigot.

3.  Still buds with Ayers and Dorn, even though the denials keep right on coming.

4.  He attended a Muslim school in Indonesia.  Whether he was ever really a Muslim or not, he obviously has way too many close ties with the very people who want to destroy us.  Putting members of the Muslim Brotherhood in posts of authority is irrational to any true blue American, yet, there they are, right out in the open for all to see!  And please, let’s not forget about the great “apology tour“!

5.  Obviously, the goals of communism are still alive and well with The One!  “FORWARD!“  I mean, after all, when you want to take from those who produce, and give it to those who sit on their collective asses in mommy’s basement, what else could you call it?

6.  Dear Lord in heaven!  Someone needs to teach that man basic math!  All his big talk, giving OUR money to failed companies, wanting us to believe it’s for the greater good to fund a bankrupt business that pushes ‘green’ crap that was doomed to failure from the git go!

7.   Yep, his dreams of a weak America against her enemies hasn’t changed.

8.  The only thing Barack Hussein Obama has accomplished since being sworn into office is perfecting his campaign technique.  He’s quite accomplished at reading a teleprompter.  He has the ‘blame Bush’ down pat, and he’s taken a bad economy, under the failed House leadership of Nancy Pelosi, and made it a WHOLE lot worse.  I don’t know, but I honestly don’t think that’s much to crow about, do you? Bush was no prize, but he hasn’t been in office for nearly four years.  Time to take credit where credit is due.  Oh, and bin Laden is dead, although Obama isn’t the one who risked his life to get the sleeze weasel, he is taking credit for it, naturally.

9.  It seems to me that having a chat with folks who want to murder innocent people, and that would include U.S. citizens, isn’t a real bright idea.  Nor is letting terrorists walk away scott free.  But yet, that is what this administration is doing, and thinks it’s a good idea.  I disagree.  I’m all for firing squads, don’cha know.

10.  Well, Obama is still associating with shady character, Eric Holder.  While Obama could be considered the WORST president this country has ever seen, I’m fairly sure that Holder is THE worst, and quite possibly the most corrupt, attorney general ever to head the Department of Justice.

As a whole, this entire administration has been an abysmal failure.  Unless, of course, you consider the destruction of a nation a success, then, by golly, he’s been one heck of a prez.

Weak Economy Disappoints Again
The Foundry

Every day, America waits for a brighter future to arrive — the promise of change that President Barack Obama made in 2009 when he set a benchmark for his success on the economy, remarking, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” More than three years later, very little has changed. As today’s jobs report shows, the U.S. economy only added 115,000 jobs in April — well below expectations and far, far below what is necessary to drive the economy back to full employment.

Lackluster employment results dominate today’s report. It’s been three years under the Obama policies, and 12.5 million Americans remain out of work. No demographic group except black workers saw an improvement in their unemployment rate, and 13 percent of black workers remain unemployed. What’s more, the labor force participation fell to the lowest level since 1981 at 63.6 percent. Americans are fleeing this economy when at this stage workers should be returning to the labor force.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. While little has changed with the economy, little has changed in President Obama’s failed policies. Rampant federal spending continues unchecked; the debt continues to grow; a monstrous tax hike is set to hit Americans on January 1, 2013, infecting the economy with renewed and debilitating uncertainty, and the country’s energy policy remains in shambles.

The latest example of the president’s recycling of his Administration’s failed ideas came in a speech this week to the Building and Construction Trades Department Conference. Obama used the opportunity to pander to his Big Labor allies and called for more federal spending on infrastructure as a panacea for job creation, claiming that his proposals would put “hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, transit systems.”

But here’s something to remember: President Obama’s near-trillion-dollar stimulus — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — was intended to inject demand into the economy and spur the creation of new jobs. That’s the very same theory the president is still advocating today. Apparently, it’s all he knows. It didn’t work then, it’s not going to work now.

Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen explains that dumping taxpayer money into projects like these “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ unionized construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” But it still costs money — money the government gets by borrowing and thereby reducing private sector spending — so of course there’s no net job growth or economic boost for their “investment.”

The president’s call for more spending to boost a stagnant economy also exacerbates an already-serious problem: the national debt. As Heritage’s 2012 Edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures shows, federal spending per household is skyrocketing and is projected to rise to $34,602 per household by 2022. And because all that spending exceeds revenue by more than $1 trillion, America’s debt is continuing to grow, hitting 101 percent of GDP by 2021. Ultimately, this threatens to boost the country’s already-high tax burden, further discouraging investment and job creation.

That tax burden is set to get even worse in 2013 with the advent of Taxmageddon – a combined 34 percent increase in taxes resulting from the expiration of existing tax policies and the imposition of new ones. Ironically enough, President Obama once said that raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. And though America is not in a recession today, it still suffers high unemployment, and raising taxes will still have the same negative effect that the president claimed he wanted to avoid — higher tax burdens on workers and job creators hamper economic growth. Yet the president is sitting back in the face of the 2013 tax nightmare, apparently content to slam the economy for the sake of big government, while also calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators ostensibly as a way to make society more “fair.” But really he’s just trying to distract the nation from his failed policies.

Throw in an energy policy that seeks to punish oil and natural gas companies, prevent the exploration of domestic resources, waste money on fruitless “green jobs” programs, and impose new regulations that make energy more expensive, and you have a recipe for the economic stagnation that America is seeing today.

The American people are not and should not be satisfied with 8 percent unemployment, an economy that’s inching along, and a spending-induced fiscal crisis that remains unresolved. The U.S. economy has great potential that’s just waiting to be unleashed. With the right policies — like those proposed in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan — the United States can solve the national debt crisis, reduce government spending, and get the economy back on track.

One year ago today, Seal Team Six landed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and succeeded in bringing Osama bin Laden to ultimate justice. Though some may wish to bask in the glow of that success, now is not the time to celebrate or lay down arms. Bin Laden may be dead, but serious threats against the United States live on, both here in the homeland and around the globe.

President Obama, though, is using the occasion to boost his re-election efforts with a self-congratulatory campaign ad. Heritage’s James Carafano writes, “If Lincoln had spent the entire Gettysburg Address talking about himself, it wouldn’t have been quite that crass.” And last night, the president made a campaign stop in Afghanistan where he delivered a speech remarking that the “dark cloud of war” is breaking way to “the light of a new day on the horizon” as U.S. troops continue to be withdrawn from the country. “This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end,” he declared.

But hours before the president spoke, Americans received a stark reminder that threats do not end at the time and place of our choosing. Late Monday, the FBI arrested five self-proclaimed anarchists who had planted what they believed to be explosives at the base a bridge over Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio as part of the international May Day protest. Thankfully, law enforcement foiled their plot, and the men were using inoperable explosives obtained from an undercover FBI agent.

Unlike previous attempted terrorist attacks, the Ohio plot was not inspired by Islamism or hatched in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. However, Islamist-inspired terrorist threats are by no means a thing of the past. Since 9/11, at least 50 Islamist-inspired plots against the homeland have been thwarted through the concerted efforts of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. Without a doubt, more attempts are being hatched, and a target remains painted on American soil. Shrinking the U.S. military or retreating from the world stage will do nothing to diminish those threats.

However, as we saw last night, that is the path that President Obama would like to pursue. With bin Laden’s death serving as a notch of victory on his belt and with troops coming home from Afghanistan in accordance with an artificial timeline, the president is primed to make his pitch to the American people that this is a job well done. But there are more innings to be played in this Long War against terrorism, and other threats remain in every corner of the world.

That’s why this month The Heritage Foundation is hosting its fourth annual “Protect America Month” in which leading conservatives and defense experts will deliver speeches and author a series of papers showcasing the need for America to commit to defending itself. In the first in a series of Protect America Month “America At Risk” memos, Matthew Spalding, PhD, Vice President of American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes that the federal government and its elected officials have an existential obligation to ensure that America is defended:

It is the constitutional duty of the federal government to secure the country’s international borders and preserve and protect its territorial integrity, to strengthen and preserve its constitutional government, and to promote the long-term prosperity and well-being of its people. This means that the United States must be able, willing, and prepared at all times to defend itself, its people, and its institutions from conventional and unconventional threats to its vital interests, both at home and abroad.

Unfortunately, under this Administration, the military is facing significant cuts that severely undermine America’s ability to defend itself and stand ready to combat the threats that lie around the corner.

Those threats could very well emerge from Afghanistan if the Taliban are allowed to return to power, creating a breeding ground for al-Qaeda. In his speech last night, President Obama announced the signing of a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan, making clear that the United States will retain a force presence in the country long after 2014. That is a sliver of good news, but Heritage’s Lisa Curtis explains, “that does not erase the mistakes the Obama Administration has made in setting arbitrary timelines for withdrawal of combat forces and failing to explain the stakes for the U.S. in Afghanistan to the American people for so long.”

The threat in Afghanistan remains, and the mission to protect America must continue. The president spoke last night of pursuing talks with the Taliban, yet hours later Taliban forces attacked a private compound with a car bomb, followed by gun fire, killing seven people and injuring 17 others. Clearly, the prospects for a political settlement with the Taliban remain remote.

The United States must recognize that it cannot wish away threats or retreat into retreat into its fortress. There are no castle walls high enough to prevent another 9/11, and turning away from enemies abroad will not make them go away. The U.S. military must be prepared to combat future threats, America’s law enforcement and intelligence communities must have the tools to prevent terrorist attacks at home, and our elected officials must recognize their constitutional obligation to protect America from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

From Gateway Pundit:

Democrat endorsed #Occupy protesters destroyed property and busted out windows in a march last night in San Francisco.

So, consider that statement, and check this tidbit linked from Yahoo -

“Many in the Occupy movement are blaming outsiders and “Black Bloc” anarchists who have a habit of hijacking peaceful protests for the own purposes. Unfortunately, most regular citizens won’t know or care to make the distinction — particularly if they wake to find their automobiles destroyed.”

Rather amusing in a way.  Not amusing in a haha way, but amusing that even though the evidence is overwhelming of the criminal activity within the so called occupiers groups, they continue to deny any connection, and have been compared to the Tea Party.  What’s the score on the rapes, thefts, vandalism, and even murder within the Tea Party groups now?  Oh…that’s right……………ZERO!  The occupests can’t say the same, can they.

Sending banks envelopes of white power, even though found to be non-toxic, really isn’t the mark of a ‘peaceful’ organization, is it.  Included with their little gift:

“This is a reminder that you are not in control,” said a message that arrived with the envelopes. “Just in case you needed some incentive to stop working we have a little surprise for you. Think fast you have seconds.”

Nice people, eh?  What we have here is serious domestic terrorists, yet the leftists (read socialists/communists) are hailing this bunch as grass roots, and admire their actions.  Really?  Speaks volumes for our so called leaders, doesn’t it.  Yep…grass roots alright….funded by big leftard/socialist/nazi George Soros, among many other left wing American haters.  I know I can’t be the only one who sees the irony of ‘protesting greed‘ by the greediest bunch of pond scum there is…those who want to take from those who actually EARN, spread it among themselves, and maybe share with others of their ilk….the do nothing, give me all your money, thieves.

These are Obama people!  “Forward“!  Right.  Oh, I mean, left. They share the same values, or lack of.