He LIED

By Lisa Myers and Hannah RappleyeNBC News
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.


President received 4 Pinocchio's from the Washington Post .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffercf4d4&utm_medium=twitter

Obamascare!

Republicans: "Fix Bayonets!" by Pat Buchanan

After his narrow defeat by Gerald Ford at the Kansas City convention in 1976, Ronald Reagan was seen as a has-been.

Came the Carter-Torrijos treaties of 1977, however, which gave away the Panama Canal, and the old cowboy strapped on his guns:

   “We bought It. We paid for it. It’s ours. And we’re gonna keep it.”
 

America loved it. Bill Buckley said we must recognize reality and transfer the canal. GOP Senate leader Howard Baker was the toast of the city as he led 16 Republicans to vote with Jimmy Carter. The treaties were approved.

Reagan’s consolation prize? The presidency of the United States.

Voters in New Hampshire in 1980, remembering his lonely stand, rewarded Reagan with a decisive victory over George H. W. Bush, who had defeated Reagan in Iowa. When Howard Baker came in, he was greeted as “Panama Howie,” and did not survive the primary.
The Republican war over whether to bow to the seemingly inevitable and fund Obamacare is a Panama Canal issue. How one votes here may decisively affect one’s career.

Ted Cruz may have, as Richard Nixon used to say, “broken his pick” in the Republican caucus. Yet, on Obamacare, his analysis is right, his instincts are right, his disposition to fight is right.
These are more important matters than the news that he is out of the running for the Mr. Congeniality award on Capitol Hill.
If Obamacare is funded, the subsidies starting in January will constitute a morphine drip from which America’s health-care system will not recover. If not stopped now, Obamacare is forever.
Senate Republicans should be asking themselves why Cruz and Rand Paul, two newcomers to the Senate of decidedly different temperaments, are being talked of as credible candidates in the presidential primaries of 2016.
Answer: Both are clear in their convictions, unapologetic about them and willing to break some china to achieve them. And that part of America upon which the GOP depends most is increasingly frustrated and angry with those who run the national party.
Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.
Americans don’t want a dignified surrender on Obamacare. They want someone to drive a stake through Obamacare.
And the question that is going to be answered in coming weeks is: Is the GOP willing to shove its whole stack into the middle of the table, for a showdown over Obamacare? Or will the House GOP in the end cast the decisive vote to make Obamacare permanent?
For, as columnist Terry Jeffrey writes, “[M]ake no mistake. If Obamacare is funded and implemented, it will be because Republican members of Congress decided to do it.”
As Terry notes, Congress has absolute power over the public purse. Article I of the Constitution says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
The law authorizing President Obama to spend more money for Obamacare expires Sept. 30. If the House refuses to vote for any bill that contains new Obamacare funding, Obamacare is dead.
Thus the Republican House controls the fate of Obamacare.
But if we don’t fund Obamacare, comes the Republican wail, Harry Reid will let the government shut down, the American people will blame us, and all of our pundits say we can’t win this fight.
For sure you cannot win if you do not fight.
But if a Democratic Senate refuses to pass the House-passed continuing resolution funding the government, because Obamacare is not in the bill, who is shutting down the government?
If Obama vetoes any continuing resolution funding the government that does not contain Obamacare, who is shutting down the government then?
Who is putting the U.S. economy at risk to protect a bollixed program the American people do not want and Congress would never approve if they voted on it today?
What House Republicans have lacked is not courage, but a political and communications strategy.
Having provided a continuing resolution to fund the government, except Obamacare, the House should next begin passing CRs – one for each department. A CR to fund defense and veterans affairs. A CR to fund state, the CIA and Homeland Security. A CR for justice, transportation, energy, etc. One every day.
Would Harry Reid refuse to fund the U.S. Army and Navy unless John Boehner’s House stuffs Obamacare into the defense budget?
Do Republicans really feel incapable of winning this argument?
Are Republicans so tongue-tied they cannot convince America of the truth: They have already voted to fund the government.
If Republicans capitulate and lose this battle, and this unwanted mess passes into law, there is something deeply wrong with the party.
Two weeks ago, a brave Congress, listening to America, stood up and told Obama: Your red lines be damned; we’re not voting for war on Syria.
Now House Republicans need to tell the country: Come hell or high water, we’re not voting to fund Obamacare. We will pass a CR on everything else in the budget, but Obamacare is not coming out of this House alive.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/republicans-fix-bayonets/#ETPwzkX9QsHUoBzk.99

IRS "Church Lady"

 

Sara Hall Ingram was head of Non Profit Department of IRS while the IRS   was targeting  religious groups and Tea Party groups  and now has been put in charge of the Obamacare  enforcement by the IRS.

 

Marco Rubio: "Culture of "intimidation"

"Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?) "

San Diego Union-Tribune, by U-T Editorial Board in an editorial on Present Obama  ranks him the worst president in United States history. A few quotes from the editorial:


He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

 *********

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

**************
If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.


Read  the rest here:  http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/22/presidential-busts/

This man is incredible (UPDATED)

This is what he said this weekend:


There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 


The antidote:


We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning.


Ronald Reagan

UPDATE:

Brit Hume's analysis:

BRIT HUME: It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president's view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that, 'If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' explains nearly everything. He wasn't talking about God, he was talking about government.




Here is a man that believes not just that the government provided framework of roads, bridges, defense and law enforcement helps the private sector. He believes these things are are the nerve center, the driving force. More important than any individual, talent, enterprise or initiative. As he put it: 'There are a lot of smart people out.' As for diligence: 'There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.' Success? 'You didn't get there on your own.'



This is a view that successful businessmen, women are merely the ones who did better at taking advantage of the benefits that government has bestowed. Therefore, he thinks they should be glad to pay an even greater share of federal taxes than they do. He calls that, 'giving back,' as if the government conferred all that they have and they shouldn't mind returning a bit more of it where it came from.



This explains why so much stimulus money was spent to protect government and why his legislation on healthcare

Congressman Paul Ryan:

The President recently suggested that a central government — not individuals — deserves the credit for building successful businesses. This sentiment makes for terrible economics, but also reveals a confused morality. In a free community, everyone co-operates by voluntarily offering unique gifts: some invent, some invest, others labor, or sell while customers reward the best producers and providers by buying their products and services. . . . A free economy and strong communities are the best means to reward effort with justice, to promote upward mobility, and to build solidarity among citizens. The President’s vision of a government-centered society — reflected in both his troubling rhetoric and his failed policies — belittles fair rewards for labor and enterprise

So You Want To Talk About High School!

In his book "Dreams from my Father", Barack Obama spoke about his alcohol and drug use in high school and noted that he "drank heavily, (and) tried drugs enthusiastically."

I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. I discovered that it didn't make any difference if you smoked reefer in the white class mates sparkling new van, or in the dorm room with some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. 

George Will: "a demagogue such as the Huey Long from Chicago’s Hyde Park, "

George Will has written a column in the Washington Post on who Romney should pick as his running mate.  However, I found more interesting the swipes he takes at President Obama.  He likens him to Huey Long the deprecation era governor and later Senator from  Louisiana who was a demagogue and the basis for Willie Stark in Robert Penn Warren's novel "All the Kings Men." (see quote above in title)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-needs-a-heavy-hitter-as-his-vice-president/2012/04/06/gIQAB0sVzS_story.html

A few other quotes from the column:

Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy — his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth — should no longer startle....

Obama’s defense of reactionary liberalism — whatever is must ever be, only increased — is not weighed down by the ballast of scruples..... 

 sufficient to refute Obama’s meretricious claims and derelictions of duty

CURL: Divide and conquer — Obama knows exactly what he’s saying

Joseph Curl of the Washington Times on President Obama's attacks on the Supreme Court:

"in a nutshell, is Mr. Obama’s plan to divide and conquer. Rise up, America, against your nation’s Congress, your nation’s highest court — and even America’s Constitution.

His desperation is now palpable, and it’s only April. This is going to get ugly, people."

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/4/curl-divide-and-conquer-obama-knows-exactly-what-h/

Obama doesn’t have workable solutions for unemployment, the economy , the ballooning deficit or gas prices. He doesn't want to talk about the growing forces of oppression in the Middle East or the Iranians getting nuclear weapons. He is in over his head and he will try and distract us with his bluster and cockiness. He will spend his time giving speeches in swing states as if that is a solution to our problems, because he does now know how to govern. It is much easier giving speeches than sitting in the Oval Office facing the tough problems that confront America. He doesn't have solutions for those problems. He therefore will try and divide America. Rich vs. poor, black vs. white. He will demagogue the Supreme Court, Congress (even though the Democrats control the Senate) oil companies, big business, Wall Street, and  the Catholic Church.

UPDATE;
Peggy Noonan

"Oh, for Some Kennedyesque Grace: Obama makes his campaign strategy clear. It's divide and conquer. "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577326000396303394.html

Associated Press (AP) "in tank" for Obama !

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/associated-press-chief-offers-lavish-praise-obama_635342.html

According to the Weekly Standard:

Dean Singleton, chairman of the Associated Press board, introduced President Obama this afternoon at a speech to news editors in Washington. But Singleton didn’t just tell the audience the president was the next speaker—the supposed newsman offered lavish praise for the Democratic president.

In the Presidential  campaign  of 2012,  the Main Steam Media (MDA),  which includes the  A.P., is going to turn their full fury and power upon the Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, and the Republican party to protect and reelect Barack Obama. Remember that when you are reading an A.P. story in your local newspaper or a new reader is reading A.P. copy on TV or radio. Obama is their guy !

At one time the Associated Press was fairly factual, but not anymore !

'Operation Hot Mic'

A little humor on a serious subject.

Time for Conservatives to Rally to Mitt Romney

The Leaders of the Conservative cause are starting to rally to Mitt Romney. Last week it was South Carolina  Senator Jim DeMint and Jeb Bush.This week it is Florida senator Marco Rubio and now congressmen Paul Ryan.  It's time for all Conservatives to join them to start the campaign against President  Barack Obama. The "hot mic" incident, where it was revealed that  Obama will, if reelected,  go even farther to the Left in appeasing  the despots of this dangerous world , should send a chill down the spine of every Conservative.   That combined with the huge debt that is swallowing us should sober us all up and demonstrate that  our differences are minor in comparison to the danger that hovers over the United States.

Preventing the reelection of President Obama will not be easy.  For all his weakness abroad he is a skilled  Chicago street fighter in domestic politics and will continue his class warfare in an attempt to stay in office.His allies in the public employee unions will spend  millions to keep their patron saint in the White House.

It's been said before, but this is the most important election in a long long time.  If  Obama is reelected there will be no going back. We will withdraw from leadership in a dangerous world and economically  there will be no return from the road to serfdom. We will enter a world were freedom will be gone and we will wish every day we could replay the election of 2012.

Mitt is not perfect and some of us have longed for others with better Conservative credentials.. They, for various reasons, have  elected to stand on the sidelines. Mitt Romney HAS been willing to lead and we should rally to him in this time of testing.

 Cross the line and stand with Mitt Romney!

Marco Rubio: I endorsed Mitt Romney because of Obama’s ‘hot mic’ moment

I am sure regular readers of this blog may feel like I have become obsessed by President Obama's whispered comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about being "flexible" after his "last election." It looks like I am not the only one.  Florida senator Marco Rubio says “It’s been weighing on my mind all week" and that is the reason for his endorsement of Mitt Romney. According to the Dailey Caller:

Mitt Romney can thank President Obama’s “flexibility” for Marco Rubio’s endorsement.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, Sen. Rubio revealed that President Obama’s recent “open mic” gaffe with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sparked his endorsement of Mitt Romney for president Wednesday night.

“It’s been weighing on my mind all week,” he said.

 “I’ve never thought about this as a political calculation,” Rubio said of his endorsement. “I’m just sitting back here and watching a president that just got back from overseas — where he told the Russian president to work with him and give him space so he can be more flexible if he gets re-elected.”

“The stakes are so high. We’re not running against John F. Kennedy here,” he said.

“We have to win this election in November. We have to!” he averred. “If we don’t win this election in November — and we get four more years of Barack Obama — I don’t know what that means … But I know it ain’t good.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/rubio-obamas-open-mic-gaffe-prompted-timing-of-romney-endorsement/#ixzz1qXtxsEIe

As some one else tweeted me today,  Senator, "wecome back to the fight, This time I know our side will win." or

" I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

 

Mitt Romney: "a sad replay of Jimmy Carter's bungling"

Mitt Romney:

Sometimes it's the unguarded moments that are the most revealing of all. President Obama just had such a moment at the summit in South Korea. "This is my last election," Obama told Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, in an exchange that was inadvertently picked up by microphones. "After my election I have more flexibility."
But flexibility to do what? The president mentioned missile defense to Medvedev as one area where the Kremlin should expect more flexibility. This is alarming.
It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.
And it is not hard to understand why. The record shows that President Obama has already been pliant on missile defense and other areas of nuclear security. Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, he abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland. He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia's demand that a United Nations resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program exclude crippling sanctions.
Moscow has rewarded these gifts with nothing but obstructionism at the United Nations on a whole raft of issues. It has continued to arm the regime of Syria's vicious dictator and blocked multilateral efforts to stop the ongoing carnage there. Across the board, it has been a thorn in our side on questions vital to America's national security. For three years, the sum total of President Obama's policy toward Russia has been: "We give, Russia gets."
Russian intransigence has elicited no push-back from the White House. Indeed, as the conversation in South Korea shows, President Obama appears determined to ingratiate himself with the Kremlin. This, unfortunately, seems to be the real meaning of his "reset" policy. An outstanding example is the personal phone call that Barack Obama made to Vladimir Putin from Air Force One congratulating the Russian leader on his election as Russia's next president.
The call followed a declaration from the State Department that "the United States congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the Presidential elections." Given that the Russian elections were widely seen to have been compromised by fraud and intimidation, these words made a mockery of America's commitment to democracy and human rights. They undercut all those in Russia who are risking so much to struggle for the universal rights that we ourselves enjoy. They are a shameful betrayal of our country's first principles.
President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy.
Would post-election "flexibility" lead him to reach out once again to the Iranian regime "without preconditions"? Would it lead him to resume pressuring Israel into making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians? Would it permit him to take an even softer line, if that is imaginable, toward the authoritarian regimes of the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez? Would he further shrink our Navy and Air Force below the already-too-low force numbers currently planned? Would he pour more money into United Nations bodies that have recognized a Palestinian state and seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy denouncing Israel?
In a self-governing country like ours, the people have a right to know what kinds of decisions are being taken in their name. The American people deserve candor. They also deserve a foreign policy founded upon our enduring principles and a recognition of our exceptional place in the world.
That is not what they are getting now. Unfortunately, what they are getting is a sad replay of Jimmy Carter's bungling at a moment when the United States needs the backbone and courage of a Ronald Reagan. In his dealings with the Kremlin, as in his dealings with the rest of the world, President Obama has demonstrated breathtaking weakness -- and given the word "flexibility" a new and ominous meaning.

Karl Rove: What Other Surprises Will Obama have after Relection?

Karl Rove

Mr. Obama has shown Russian leaders, and now the entire world, weakness.

He’s willing to bend to the demands of America’s international rivals as long as his appeasement becomes public only after he’s safely back in the White House for a second term. But he is apparently unwilling to share with the American people his “flexibility” with the Russians, perhaps concerned about the criticism such concessions to Moscow might draw from America’s European allies.
*********

The effects of Mr. Obama’s remarks in Seoul go beyond foreign affairs. If the president believes it is important to his reelection to conceal from Americans his response to Russians demands to halt development of a missile defense for Europe, voters have every right to ask: What other surprises does he plan to spring on us if he’s reelected?


This won’t all happen by itself. To make the most of Mr. Obama’s statement, Republicans will need to raise it again and again in speeches, ads, videos and debates......



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/27/why-obamas-open-mic-slip-could-seriously-hurt-his-reelection-hopes/#ixzz1qLOPeZHA





 

 

Hugh Hewitt:"The Appeasement President's Defining Moment"

From Hugh Hewitt's blog:

You have to look pretty hard to find any stories on President Obama's exchange with Russian President Medvedev. The president first tried a little humor and then went into full --"nothing to see here, I am a transparent guy-- mode with reporters, but the stunning exchange is just beginning to seep into the public's consciousness, and with it all the implications of President Obama assuring our Russian adversary that after the election is over, he can be more "flexible." Despite the protective ring thrown up around him by an admiring MSM, this spectacular display of duplicity towards the American electorate will not fade.... ************* Only the slobbering Obamians within the MSM don't seem to understand an enormous moment when it happens, so busy are they with their Etch-a-Sketch comments by a staffer and their zombie narrative about the GOP convention being brokered or some other nonsense. How to explain to them? Analogies might work if any of them have basic history down. Imagine Ike telling Molotov in '55 that he was facing his last election next year and that he needed some space, and the Soviet foreign secretary assuring him he'd transmit the information to Uncle Joe. Or JFK saying the same thing to Gromyko, he agreed to pass it on to Khrushchev. Or Nixon saying to Zhou forty years ago during his trip to China "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." And Zhou replying, "I will transmit this to Chairman Mao." Russia is our adversary, and on nearly every issue they are working to destroy our position in our world and subjugate former allies. They are arming Iran, have invaded Georgia, and are blackmailing Europe. What doesn't the president understand about Russia? Apparently everything. And what does President Obama plan to do vis-a-vis Russia if he is re-elected? You go ahead and guess because the MSM won't be speculating about what the president's clap on the arm was meant to convey. Between now and the election in November, Obama's allies will do their best to minimize then airbrush this astonishing exchange from the public's concerns, and the job of people concerned about America's standing in the world and the defense of our allies to keep bringing the public back to the fact that the president has committed to deceiving them --to the president of Russia no less. http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/33d90814-597d-467f-bb40-7de8300c2284

Krauthammer: Obama Admitted To Medvedev That Second Term Will Be Hard Left

 Charles KRAUTHAMMER:

 I think that the key word here in that exchange was Obama saying to the Russians, 'this is my last election.' It's not just that 'I have another election and I'll be occupied with other issues, let's talk about this. It's a complicated want in December.'
'This is my last election.' That's his way of saying with a nod and a wink, 'Look, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship, your elections are rigged. Well, ours aren't rigged, but once I get passed my last election, I'm unleashed. I can do anything I want.

And what he's saying is, 'you know that reset I began three years ago where I completely undermined our allies in Eastern Europe. I cancelled the missile defense system and I began a process in which our supremacy in missile defenses is now negotiable, which the Republicans have never allowed to be negotiable.'
'Well, after election day, I can't speak about it now of course because it's my last election and Americans won't actually like that -- after election day, I'll be open.'
This is a huge gaffe. it Etch-A-Sketch is a problem for Romney, this is the President himself saying, 'I'll be unleashed. I can govern hard left. I can do all this reset stuff in the future unmolested.' That's his way of telling people, 'you may have no idea what my agenda in the second term is going to be, but let me tell you, the Russians, it's going to be pretty hard left.'

Obama to Russians:"THIS IS MY LAST ELECTION. AFTER MY ELECTION I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY''

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/president-obama-asks-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/

Did you notice President Obama used the term "my last election" to refer to the fact that after the election he would not have to worry about the American voter  and could be more flexible in dealing with the Russians on missile defense.  Why doesn't he go to the American people now and explain why he wants more flexibility?  Does he not trust them and thinks he knows better .  It seems like he trusts the Russians more than the American public.

At a time rogue states such at Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them we need to be developing a missile defense systems  and not compromising them away to the Russians. He was telling the Russians to just be patient.  After he is no longer accountable to the American people he can divert the funds from missile defense to those domestic programs he cares about for his Democrat party constituencies such as public employee unions.

This is Obama in another moment when he didn't think he was being recorded:

"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them"

Unlike Mitt Romney this "Etch a Sketch" moment came from President Obama personally! Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ripped President Obama as “a real ‘Etch a Sketch’ leader for suggesting he could switch his policy on missile defense after the election.

In the midst of an often tense discussion between the US and Russia over plans for a US-led NATO European missile defense system, Obama was heard asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for more time on the subject and promising he will have “more flexibility” following the election in November. The comments came across a live mic the two leaders did not appear to realize was on.

“Pres Obama tells Medvedev he’ll be more “flexible” on missile defense – that’s a real “Etch A Sketch” leader!— John McCain

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona on the Senate floor today:

Well obviously this presents a problem that is going to have to be discussed with the U.S. Congress if the president is in effect saying that he would like to make a deal to limit the U.S. defenses now but he would be accountable to the American public if they became aware of it before his reelection bid

Bill Kristol:

If one needed a reminder of why President Obama must be defeated in November, he provided it today in Seoul, where the end of his private conversation with Russian president Dmitri Medvedev was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room:




President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."



President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"



President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."



President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."



"More flexibility." That means more accommodation to Vladimir Putin's Russia. It also means, I dare say, greater hostility to Israel, and, in general, a second term foreign policy more in line with Obama's original instincts (e.g., the Cairo speech), once he's free of the domestic political constraints that have brought him, to some degree, toward the center.



Yikes.

Retreat, Retreat, Retreat

Under President Obama's leadership the United States is in full retreat all over the world. Retreat in Iraq,retreat in Afghanistan,retreat in Syria,retreat in Pakistan,retreat in North Korea and retreat in Egypt. Our enemies watch and wait to fill the void !

Democracies never learn that weakness leads to war at the worst possible time.

Sending Oil to China and Losing 100,000 Jobs

President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone pipeline to send oil from Canada to Texas was met with disappointment by our friends north of the border.

According to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

(Canadian) "Prime Minister Harper expressed his profound disappointment with the news. He indicated to President Obama that he hoped that this project would continue given the significant contribution it would make to jobs and economic growth both in Canada and the United States of America.” Pointedly, the statement also says that Harper “reiterated to the president that Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports.”

“Diversify”? What does that mean?

It means Canada will explore selling more of its oil to Asia. As Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told the CBC: “Our focus is, as you know, on diversifying our markets. We currently have one customer for our energy exports. That customer has said that it doesn’t want to expand at the moment. So it certainly intensifies the broad strategic objective of the government to diversify to Asia.”

In other words Communist China !

***********

Jake Tapper continues"

A we covered earlier today, the project would directly create an estimated 13,000 jobs with the Teamsters Union assessing more than 100,000 others support jobs would be created along the pipeline’s path.

In the middle of a deep period of recession and unemployment when we are dependant on energy from some of the woulds worst tyrants our President, in order to keep his environmental wackos happy, destroys jobs and energy Independence. Thanks a lot, Mr President !

Mitt Romney's statement on the decision by President Obama:

“President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline is as shocking as it is revealing. It shows a President who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy. If Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin. By declaring that the Keystone pipeline is not in the ‘national interest,’ the President demonstrates a lack of seriousness about bringing down unemployment, restoring economic growth, and achieving energy independence. He seems to have confused the national interest with his own interest in pleasing the environmentalists in his political base.”