Obama Violates Osama Oath

Obama Violates Osama Oath

November 27th, 2009

by  Rep. Steve King, Human Events

On December 18, 2007, then presidential candidate Barack Obama leveled the first of dozens of heavy criticisms against President George W. Bush.  In a speech in Des Moines, Obama blasted President Bush for taking his “eye off the ball in Afghanistan.” He continued: “It’s time to…increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan.  That’s what…I’ll do as president.”

This was Barack Obama’s first “eye off the ball” speech.  It was the beginning of a barrage of campaign speeches accusing the Bush administration of “taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden” (Denver, 1/30/08).

On July 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C., then Senator Obama vowed to deploy “the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11.”  In fact, Barack Obama specifically used the name of Osama bin Laden at least 40 times in speeches during his Presidential campaign while definitively pledging to focus all necessary resources against bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in the countries where they live and operate.

Read More:

American people smarter than Holder or Obama

American people smarter than Holder or Obama

November 27th, 2009

Rick Moran, American Thinker


Obamas Attorney General Eric Holder Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder


A strong majority of Americans believe that Obama is wrong to try KSM in a civilian court. That’s the result of  a new Gallup poll:


By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.


These findings come from a Nov. 20-22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed’s case would move from a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, where the admitted terrorist was originally charged, to a federal court in New York City.


“Despite their sharp differences over how to bring Mohammed to justice, Republicans and Democrats largely agree that, if found guilty, he should pay the ultimate price.”


Public opinion is a bit less contrary to Holder’s decision regarding the venue for the trial. Although the majority of Americans (51%) say Mohammed should face trial somewhere other than New York City, 42% — slightly higher than the percentage favoring a civilian trial — support holding the trial in the city where the vast majority of Americans lost their lives on Sept. 11.


You have to admit there is a nice sense of justice to the idea of holding a trial in New York. But the problems far outweigh any “feel good” emotions such a trial would elicit. You can’t give in to the idea of “justice coming full circle” just to satisfy our feelings of pay back – not when security and the  integrity of the court system itself is at  stake.


The mockery KSM and the other plotters will try to make of this trial is far more of a problem than offending the sensibilities of liberals in Europe if we were to use a military tribunal to try the terrorists.


Read More:











Ahmadinejad to Chavez: ‘We’re going to be together until the end’

Ahmadinejad to Chavez: ‘We’re going to be together until the end’

Nov. 26, 2009
Jpost.com staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST

“We feel at home here and among our brothers … we’re going to be together until the end,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez during a visit to Latin America on Wednesday.

Both leaders roundly denounced US “imperialism,” and Chavez also called Israel “a murderous arm of the Yankee empire.”

Chavez said he had just returned from an unannounced visit to Cuba, where he met with his mentor Fidel Castro as well as President Raul Castro. “They asked me to give you a hug for them,” he told Ahmadinejad.

Also during Ahmadinejad’s visit, the two leaders agreed on the inception of a direct flight route between Teheran and Caracas, according to a report by AFP.

Obama Is THE Impediment to the Mideast Peace Process

Obama Is an Impediment to the Mideast Peace Process

By Lauri B. Regan

From the outset of his presidency, Obama foolishly made Israeli settlements the focal point of his administration’s admonishments of Israeli policy. Beginning with his refusal to confront Iran on its nuclear weapons program, Obama barked orders at the Israeli government, requiring the full cessation of construction in the settlements without regard to the realities of the situation.

In his thuggish Chicago style, Obama felt confident that he could successfully bully Netanyahu into halting construction in disputed territories and then go down in history as the president who brokered peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In doing so, Obama not only underestimated the resolve of the Israeli people, but he empowered the Palestinians by handing them an excuse to discontinue all negotiations for peace for the foreseeable future.
What has since resulted from Obama’s ill-informed, grandiose pronouncements is Abbas threatening to quit due to Obama’s failure to achieve a settlement freeze, Palestinians contemplating a unilateral declaration of an independent state with U.N. backing, and the likely hardening of positions on both sides of the conflict.
It looked like the administration had awoken to reality when, for a brief period of time, it began to ease up on previous statements. However, this week, Obama made it perfectly clear where he stands on this completely misguided position. In an interview with Fox News, Obama condemned the construction of nine hundred new apartment units in Jerusalem, stating:
I think additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.
I have come to expect the rest of the world, including European leaders, U.N. diplomats, and Mideast despots to play the blame-game and ridicule Israel as the sole impediment to peace in the Mideast. I am getting sick and tired of listening to my country’s president do the same thing. American presidents are supposed to arrive in office with full knowledge of world affairs before they undertake a task as weighty as the Mideast conflict and make declarations that have grave ramifications from which they cannot retreat. As Yisrael Harel wrote in the Jerusalem Post:
Had the president of the United States done his homework and not relied on an ideology without foundations or bowed to the pressures of his closest aides … he would have discovered that his vision is a nonstarter.
And Noah Pollak writing at Commentary further noted:
Having staked the peace process on an undeliverable promise to the Palestinians of a settlement freeze, the administration is now forced to spin furiously for Abbas in order to shield him from even more humiliation than he’s already suffered.
It is no surprise that this administration blames Israeli settlements for the lack of peace in the Mideast. Obama’s advisors, czars, and life influences have all made it clear that their view of the world includes censuring Israel and holding it responsible for the violence and conflict in the Mideast. But to claim that nine hundred apartment units could embolden Palestinians in a “very dangerous” way is one of the most ignorant comments Obama has made to date (and that includes when he said he was on a path to visit 58 of the 60 states).
The Palestinians have been committing “dangerous” acts in the name of resistance (their code word for terrorism) for decades. Israel has been under attack and forced to take defensive measures in order to ensure its survival since its inception. And since the birth of the Jewish State, when absolutely no settlements existed or were even contemplated, the Arab world has been at war with Israel.
Obama must realize that there were no settlements when Israel was attacked in the wars of 1948, 1957, and 1967. Yet he proclaims that if only Israel would halt development of buildings on land that it secured in accordance with international law in its own self-defense in the 1967 war, peace would exist. Notwithstanding the lessons learned when Israel unilaterally handed over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, receiving absolutely nothing in return other than years of missile barrage, Obama claims that if Israel would simply cede land that it won in defense of its existence, peace would prevail. The “land for peace” mantra is moronic, but the claim by Robert Gibbs that “[at] a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed” is even more so.
The only people buying these ludicrous and unrealistic proclamations are either anti-Semitic, uneducated, or both. The clear and historic reality is that if the Palestinians want peace, they have had a number of opportunities to attain it, and they rejected every single one. If the Palestinians want peace, they could put down their arms tomorrow, recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel, and a homeland of their own would be forthcoming.
The United States, for the first time since the start of Israel’s existence, has a president who has absolutely no understanding of the history of the land of Canaan, no understanding of the legitimate claims of Israel to Jerusalem as its capital, and no desire to confront reality. What he desires is to force his will and his world vision on populations, reality be damned. The implications of Obama’s fantasies will result in more violence in the area, prolonged economic strife for the Palestinian people, and resentment and enmity toward America and Israel across the region.
Jews the world over should have been on red alert when candidate Obama flip-flopped on the division of Jerusalem as part of a two-state solution. Any candidate who promises a Jewish audience that Jerusalem will remain unified one day, and the next day changes his mind in response to Muslim backlash, should have received 0% of the Jewish vote. But Barack Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote, and his policies have proven disastrous.
We’re ten months into his presidency, and Obama is now castigating Israel for building apartments in Jerusalem, believing that this land should be part of a future Palestinian state. As Jonathan Tobin noted,
The president’s decision to speak as if this part of Jerusalem was a ‘settlement’ where Jews had no right to live and build is…a provocative escalation of the administration’s hostile attitude toward Israel.
Obama’s predecessor was one of the best friends that Israel has ever known. Perhaps Obama believed that it was time for tough love since unconditional love did not lead to peace. What he missed from that equation, which led to an inapt conclusion, was the fact that there is no true partner for peace on the other side. The empowerment of that faux player by Obama is now not only leading to potential catastrophic consequences, but it is taking the focus off finding a proper solution. Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Netanyahu stated:
I hope the Palestinians answer our calls for negotiations. The Palestinians have groomed themselves with unrealistic expectations.
Netanyahu was too diplomatic to state that on the way to achieving those unrealistic expectations, the Palestinians had a little help from their friends in the White House.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obama_is_an_impediment_to_the.html at November 27, 2009 – 12:29:58 PM EST

Obamazilla Is America’s True Nemesis, Not Fellow Patriots

Obamazilla Is America’s True Nemesis, Not Fellow Patriots

By Lloyd Marcus

Eleven months ago, he landed on the shores of  the presidency, destroying everything in his path. A gigantic, fire-breathing monster wreaking havoc, consuming private sector industries, crushing institutions which have made America great, and destroying lives. With fear and trembling we dare to utter his name…Obamazilla! Though appearing indestructible and unstoppable, millions of brave patriots arose to challenge the beast, vowing not to sit idly by as America as we know it is terminated.

As a patriot, I am totally focused on defeating Obamazilla, America’s true nemesis. I will not allow myself to be sidetracked into participating in Tea-Party-movement family feuds. We are blessed to have brilliant, strong-willed strategists on our side who think they know which direction is best for the movement. That is fine. However, it is unfruitful and misdirected to boycott, trash, and waste time and resources suing those on our side who have varying opinions.

No one person or organization can claim ownership or take full credit for this amazing, historical Tea Party movement. It belongs solely to We, the People. It still blows my mind how without media support, but through online social networks and word of mouth, 1.7 million patriots showed up in Washington, D.C. on 9/12 to oppose tyrannical government.
Some have even attempted to force me to take sides. They threatened, “Lloyd, if you sing at their tea party, I will no longer be your fan.” Unless a tea party group is wacko, while I may not totally agree with their approach, I consider them an ally. Again, my total focus is on the big picture: stopping the huge monster which is destroying our freedom, liberty, and culture.
Back in April, an upset California patriot e-mailed me after a successful tea party. His local organizers were gung-ho about fighting the battle on the national level. My e-mailer had a fire in his belly to fight locally. I advised my patriot brother to follow his passion. Our incredible movement was sparked by the passion of one man: Rick Santelli. What began with passion can be sustained only by passion, by everyone doing what he or she feels passionate about doing.
Besides, we need patriotic freedom-fighters in all areas and on all levels.
Unfortunately, feuding over strategies has become a major distraction in the tea party movement. No, I am not asking anyone to compromise beliefs or ideas. Quite the opposite. Whatever way you and your group choose to fight Obamazilla is fine with me. But do not feud with tea party patriots who disagree or do not share your passion. Remember, your target is Obamazilla.
Like everyone else, I have opinions regarding the focus of the movement, but I will not allow my opinions to cause me to break fellowship with my fellow freedom-fighters.
For example, some think the Tea Party movement should remain “pure” by  not supporting any political candidates. I disagree. We can tea party until the cows come home, but if we do not work to put true conservatives in office, we are simply making noise without achieving anything.
Another source of contention in the movement is talk of a third political party. I believe a third party would ensure the election of Democrats. Remember how Ross Perot got Clinton elected?
Having said that, you third-party patriots, if you feel strongly about starting a third party, go for it. You will not get any flack from me. My efforts are targeted solely on stopping Obamazilla. I only ask that you graciously accept me not wearing your t-shirt.
For crying out loud, patriots, Obama has awarded a terrorist the same legal rights as an American citizen. Reid is muscling health care through the Senate. Cap-and-trade is next on the agenda. In America, we have a “pay czar.” The list of horrors grow daily, and we patriots are fighting amongst ourselves. Please stop it. Stay focused on the real monster, the real enemy, the real threat to America: Obamazilla!
The Tea Party movement has birthed countless grassroots organizations. It is truly a wonderful thing. I find it extremely exciting that patriots all over America are fighting to defeat this monster administration and restore our great nation in their own way. I met many of these committed patriots while traveling on the national Tea Party Express II tour. Conservatives from twenty-something to eighty are running for office for the first time. Old ladies are bombarding their congressmen and senators with phone calls and letters. Everyone is doing his part.
As corny and clichéd as this sounds, it still holds true: “United we stand, divide we fall.” Let’s stand together, brothers and sisters. Let’s stand!
Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obamazilla_is_americas_true_ne.html at November 27, 2009 – 12:01:33 PM EST

The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah

The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah

By Jack Cashill

In the spring of 1964, Sarah Heath, then just three months old, flew into backwater Skagway, Alaska (population 650) aboard a 1930s-era Grunman Goose to start a new life with her parents, brother, and sister.

At that same time, in America’s other new outlier state, Hawaii, two-year-old Barry Obama was just getting used to a fatherless existence in the otherwise-comfortable world his white grandparents and occasionally his mother would make for him.
At the time, not even Nostradamus could have foretold that the paths of Barry and Sarah would intersect in the “historic” 2008 election, Barry as the first major party presidential nominee of African descent and Sarah as the first woman with a real shot at the vice-presidency.
Each would change names before reaching the national stage. Barry Obama would become Barry Soetero, and then Barack Obama. Sarah Heath would become Sarah Palin after eloping with the formidable Todd Palin. Obama would chronicle his journey in the 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father and the 2006 sequel, The Audacity of Hope. Palin would chronicle hers in the 2009 memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life.
How the literary/media establishment would respond to the respective memoirs of these two political figures would reveal far less about the authenticity, honesty, and literary quality of the tales the authors told than it would about the collective mindset of that establishment.
From a classical perspective, Palin’s is the more compelling narrative. The obstacles that she must overcome to fulfill her destiny are many, varied, and real. Raised in the frozen outback by a schoolteacher father and a school secretary mom, Palin accomplishes nothing without a good deal of work, often under difficult physical circumstances.
Palin takes a semester or two off to pay for college. She works at a diner over the summer. She enters the Miss Alaska contest to help pay tuition and is awarded second runner-up and “Miss Congeniality.” She interns during other summers to become a sports reporter. 
After college, Palin joins fiancé Todd on his Bristol Bay salmon boat. During slow salmon runs, she works “messy, obscure seafood jobs” until she can find a job as sports reporter, and even then she keeps returning to Bristol Bay when the salmon are in season.
Throughout this period, despite the hard work and harsh environment, Palin never loses her sense of wonder about the spectacular natural theater in which she is so very much at home. When asked about the state’s best attributes during a Miss Alaska pageant, Palin responds, “its beauty and everything that the great Alaska outdoors has to offer.” Prophetically, she also plugs the state’s “potential in drilling for oil,” which, even then, “Outsiders don’t understand.”
Back in Hawaii, either through his grandparents’ connections or by dint of affirmative action, Obama spends grades five through twelve at Hawaii’s poshest prep school. Like Palin, he plays basketball, but while she is leading her school to the state championship, he is a second stringer on a team whose wins and losses go unremarked. The only scores Obama shares are the imagined racial ones that need to be settled, a working out of his “pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [his] mother’s race.”
In his recent book Barack and Michelle, Chistopher Andersen quotes a black friend who rejected Obama’s claimed reason for being benched in a particular game.
No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black. It’s because you missed two shots in a row.
Obama admits to “marginal report cards” in prep school, but his underperformance does not diminish his dreams. He hits the mainland in the late 1970s with the “diversity” movement in full flower. Diversity’s rationale is that people of varied cultures enrich the educational experience. Obama’s upbringing, however, has been thoroughly white and elitist. The diversity bean-counters couldn’t care less. His skin color improves their “metrics.” Obama will ride this pony far.
After two druggy, uninspired years at Occidental College, Obama transfers to the Ivy League — Columbia, to be precise. In Dreams, Obama dedicates one half of a sentence to a summer job on a construction site. Otherwise, he is silent on how his tuition might have been paid for. As to his grades and SAT scores, it would be easier to pry North Korea’s nuclear secrets out of Kim Jong-Il.
After several years as a low-paid community organizer in Chicago, Obama decides to return to law school. Despite a lack of resources and a mediocre performance at Columbia — he does not graduate with honors — Obama limits his choices to “Harvard, Yale, Stanford.” He had absorbed the diversity zeitgeist deeply enough to see success as an entitlement.
In the spring of 1989, during Obama’s first year at Harvard Law, Palin’s “life truly began” with the birth of her oldest son, Track. That summer, with Todd working a blue-collar job on the North Slope oil fields, Palin, her father, and their Eskimo partner work Todd’s commercial fishing boat in Bristol Bay. Palin’s mother, meanwhile, baby-sits the ten-week-old Track.
In 1992, while an anxious Obama dithers in an office that the University of Chicago has given him to write Dreams, half of his $150,000 advance already cashed, Palin is pulling her babies, Track and Bristol, along on a sled as she goes door-to-door seeking votes in her run for Wasilla city council. 
Not yet thirty, Palin settles upon the philosophy that will guide her political career: reducing taxes “and redefining government’s proper role.” Like few Republicans this side of Ronald Reagan, Palin will adhere to these principles throughout her political ascent.
Not surprisingly, Palin’s tenacity makes enemies among those who have cashed in their Republican heritage for the perks and power of office. Palin’s perseverance in the face of this resistance makes for compelling political drama. That she is a woman challenging the good old boys of backroom Alaska heightens that drama.
Yet despite pushing the boundaries of female accomplishment throughout her career — as sports reporter, as commercial fisherman, as councilwoman, as mayor, as oil and gas commissioner, as governor, as vice-presidential candidate — Palin never loses her sense of the feminine. Having five children surely helps. So does living in an environment where manly virtues still matter.
An exchange with the larger-than-life Todd helps clarify Alaskan reality.  Todd is a four-time winner of the Iron Dog competition, a 2,200 mile snowmobiling marathon. One night, Sarah expresses interest in competing. Says Todd:
Can you get the back end of a six-hundred-pound machine unstuck by yourself with open water up to your thighs, then change out an engine at forty below in the pitch black on a frozen river and replace thrashed shocks and jury rig a suspension using tree limbs along the trail?
When Sarah answers “Nope,” Todd replies, “Then go back to sleep, Sarah.” Todd lives his Eskimo heritage. He does not just dream about it, let alone exploit it.
While Palin is slugging through Alaska’s political morass like a determined Iditarod musher, Obama is cruising through Illinois politics on skids greased by his Chicago cronies. In his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, both his chief primary opponent and his expected general election opponent are undone by damaging personal information leaked to the media. Obama wins both elections easily.  
The combination of his black genes and white upbringing makes the famously “articulate and bright and clean” Obama an irresistible choice to keynote the race-conscious 2004 Democratic convention. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man,” alleges the inimitable Joe Biden. 
The story told in Dreams will become a huge bestseller in the wake of the 2004 convention.  The lofty, lyrical style of the book will seal the Ivy-educated Obama’s reputation as a genius, and its much-celebrated narrative would serve as a foundational myth for Obama’s ascent to the White House.
Said NEA chairman Rocco Landesman just last month, reiterating the accepted wisdom of the chattering classes, “This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln.”
The establishment will not be so kind to Palin. In the week of Going Rogue’s release, the New York Times house conservative David Brooks will call her “a joke.” Dick Cavett, the Norma Desmond of TV talk, will dismiss her as a “know-nothing.” Ex-con Dem fundraiser Martha Stewart will brand Palin “a dangerous person.” And literally thousands of lesser liberal lights will deride her as “stupid,” an “idiot,” or a “moron” (8.5 million Google hits and counting for “Palin” “moron”).
In that same week, Chris Matthews was worrying out loud that Obama was “too darned intellectual,” and author Michael Eric Dyson was celebrating Obama’s “sexy brilliance.” But while the Associated Press was sending a platoon of reporters to fact-check Palin’s book, neither the AP nor any other media outlet dared check either Dreams or Audacity of Hope.
They likely feared what they would find — namely that Obama’s genius depends solely on his willingness to lie about it. “I’ve written two books,” Obama told a crowd of teachers in Virginia last year. “I actually wrote them myself.” He did no such thing. He had massive help with both books.
Although the prose of Dreams is often lyrical, it is not Obama’s. As I have argued in these pages, and as Christopher Andersen has confirmed, Obama’s gifted friend Bill Ayers gussied up the rough outlines of Obama’s life and imposed upon them the mythic dimensions of Homer’s Odyssey. To accomplish this, the authors invented any number of incidents, many of which are easily disproved. For a serious seeker of facts, Dreams is Sutter Creek in 1848.
In Going Rogue, by contrast, Palin does not shy from crediting Lynn Vincent for “her indispensable help in getting the words on paper.” And yet the story is told honestly and sincerely in Palin’s voice. There is no artifice, no postmodern mumbo-jumbo, and not a sentence in the book that Palin could not have written herself. My personal favorite, “I love meat.” I suspect that, unaided, journalism major and former reporter Palin is a better writer than Obama.
Left to their own devices, Palin is clearly the better speaker. In Going Rogue‘s climactic moment, the unknown Palin serves up the most dazzling convention speech in modern political history, and she does so in spite of a malfunctioning teleprompter. “I knew the speech well enough that I didn’t need it,” writes Palin.
Had Obama’s teleprompter malfunctioned at the 2004 convention, he would not be president. He has always depended on the eloquence of others. So thoroughly hooked on the teleprompter is Obama that the irrepressible Biden jokes about it. “What am I going to tell the president?” Biden asked the crowd at the Air Force Academy after a teleprompter blew over. “Tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?”
In the final analysis, Going Rogue is a better book than Dreams. No Republican has ever held Palin up as a genius, literary or otherwise, but her narrative is as shrewd, sensitive, and straightforward as its author.
Dreams, on the other hand, is merely a well-crafted fraud.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_competing_narratives_of_ba.html at November 27, 2009 – 11:57:37 AM EST