Bayonets & Horses?? Oh yeah, they are part of our military DNA

Well we heard and have seen how much POTUS cares about the military and our Veterans.  That is why he directed that Veterans must pay more for the benefits and healthcare they deserve.  He is not fooling anyone as he hates and holds distain for all military.

We deserve better than the failed fool who we have suffered under for the last 4 years.

Bayonets & Horses??  Oh yeah, they are part of our military DNA, not that Obama would know that.

If you need a reminder, please see the enclosed picture I took in Sept. 2010 when I attended the funeral of a fallen Marine at Arlington National Cemetery who was a shipmate of mine.

 

Obama line about horses, bayonets fails - www.dailycaller.com

 

In a debate exchange Monday night that set Twitter on fire, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney crossed swords over the kinds of equipment and materials the U.S. military uses for modern warfare.

In a response to Romney’s barb that Obama has allowed the U.S. Navy’s inventory of battleships to approach a historic low mark, Obama snarked that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”

But horses and bayonets both remain vital parts of the U.S arsenal.

The Daily Caller won a prestigious Edward R. Murrow award this year for a war report about the American soldiers who — riding on horseback — were the first U.S. forces to fight in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks.

And bayonets remain a fixture in Army infantry training and deployment. On August 6 a blogger at the Gizmodo technology website reported that the military was trading in bayonets for a “tomahawk”-like hand-to-hand combat weapon, but it later emerged that the source of that erroneous report was Duffelblog — a military spoof website modeled on The Onion.

“I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works,” Obama claimed Monday night.

“You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Deny, Deny, Deny - The strategy of a Failed Administration

The WSJ lays it out bare - The last 4 years have been a fiasco and the Village Idiot from Chicago needs to go.  Read the whole thing....

Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Unreality of the Past Four Years

The Benghazi fiasco is a brutally illuminating portrait of the Obama White House in crisis mode.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely. The most essential rule: "Deny! Deny! Deny!"—no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger.

"What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?"

"What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.

For much of the past four years, the Obama administration's propensity for asserting views of reality wildly at odds with those evident to most rational citizens has looked increasingly like a page from that film script.

All administrations conceal, falsify and tell lies—this is understood—but there's no missing the distinctive quality of the prevaricating issuing from the White House in these four years.

It's a quality on vivid display now in the administration's mesmerizing narrative of the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Here's a memorable picture, its detail brutally illuminating, of Obama and company in crisis mode over their conflicting stories about who knew what when. The resulting costs to truth-telling and sanity, or even the appearance thereof, are clear. Nor can we forget the strong element of farce—think U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on those five Sunday talk shows, reciting with unflagging fervor that official talking point regarding mob violence and a YouTube video. Farce, but no one is laughing.

Team Obama clung to its original story—the attack had come spontaneously at the hands of a mob enraged by that now famous video insulting to the Prophet—long after it was clear that it had been an organized terrorist assault by an al Qaeda affiliate. By Tuesday's debate, we saw a Barack Obama in high dudgeon over suggestions that his office might have deliberately misrepresented the facts. It was, he fumed, an intolerable insult that such charges could have been made about him, the president who had had to receive the bodies of the slain Americans—and who then had to set about getting to the bottom of this murderous terror assault.

Profound and urgent concerns indeed—which, the president neglected to say, had not prevented him from jetting off to his fundraiser in Las Vegas the day after the murders. His administration was not given to politicizing serious matters, the president sternly informed the nation in that second debate:

 "That's not what we do."

 

Good to know. Americans might otherwise have gotten the wrong impression in the past four years, not least from Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the most openly politicized Justice Department in the nation's history. Among his more recent noteworthy pronouncements, this one relevant to the coming election, Mr. Holder declared that photo ID requirements intended to prevent voting fraud were nothing less than a "poll tax." He was referring to an infamous institution from the days of Jim Crow, whose aim was to suppress black voting. Mr. Holder—so famously fastidious about group sensibilities that he has never been able to bring himself to utter any description identifying a terrorist as Muslim—has apparently had no inhibitions about smearing whole segments of the population as racists.

Mr. Obama's outrage notwithstanding, the administration's prolonged efforts to muddle the picture of the Benghazi attack raised proper suspicions. The Obama team's instant response—that Republicans were attempting to politicize a tragedy—was entirely characteristic. If ever a story screamed its politicized nature, it was the administration's Scheherazade-like tale, now five weeks old and rolling on, about that Sept. 11 assault. A tale that left little doubt of its motivation: fear of the impact, so close to the election, of a successful terrorist attack—the clear indication that al Qaeda was not, as claimed, on the run.

It didn't hurt, of course, that a crude video like the one insulting to Islam is exactly the kind of fodder to which the Obama ministry is partial: Here was an opportunity for right-minded condemnation of bigotry, and if that bigotry was directed at Muslims, all the more opportune. It would be hard to say which member of the Obama administration most invoked the power and influence of that bit of film, officially to be known, now and forever, as the disgusting and reprehensible video.

More and more clearly, the Obama administration has put its faith in the view that the governed, who must be told what is best for their lives, whether they want it or not (see ObamaCare), can also be told that they have not seen what they've seen, have not heard what their ears clearly told them. When the "if you've got a business, you didn't build that" speech proved to be a political land mine, team Obama instantly charged malicious, out-of-context distortion. The president was only talking about—infrastructure! About government-built roads vital for businesses, transportation, etc.

It isn't likely that Americans who had heard the Obama address failed to understand, rightly, its sneering tone directed at those who believed they had a right to think they were responsible for their own success. Not likely that they didn't notice the icy thrust of those words, "I'm always struck by people who feel, 'Well, it must be because I'm just so smart.'" The president had revealed, with unforgettable clarity, his contempt for faith in individual enterprise—a value Americans of every station hold dear. So clear was this contempt, the Republicans knew enough to make it the Day One theme of their convention—the only good day. Democratic Party representatives meanwhile went forward en masse to charge the Republicans with dishonesty.

In the books yet to be written about this presidency, the Obama administration's exceptional readings of reality will deserve an honored place, and a large one. One that should also acknowledge the fact that, in the end, the American people inevitably recognize the difference between lies and truth, illusion and the real thing.

The most telling example of this capacity—the October surprise that shouldn't have been surprising—came with the first presidential debate. The nation saw a superbly cogent Mitt Romney, speaking to them in terms instantly recognizable, words without artifice that addressed their real lives. Viewers saw the life in him, the play of mind, felt the sense of powerful will—that of a leader. It didn't matter all that much that the president looked most unpresidential, a man lost. What mattered was the other man before them, who had brought home to Americans what they had been missing the past four years.

Not surprisingly, when the debate's effects were clear, Obama squads were again deployed to cry fraud. Mr. Romney, we were told, had done nothing but lie. This would now be the official story. It would have no effect. People had seen what they had seen and that would not be changed, not by an improved, fighting Obama as he was last Tuesday, or by a heroically transformed one on Monday night.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board

18 Days to go - Time for America to elect ADULT LEADERSHIP

18 Days to go on one what has been one of the longest Presidential Campaigns known to our country.

Based on the way things are now with the 24 hours a day news cycles and such, the campaign has been ongoing since back in 2010 when the Congressional Mid Term elections concluded.  The way things are going, as soon as the results are in for the election on November 6th, we will start to hear news idjits commenting on the 2016 Presidential race.

I have already voted and it was one of the important tasks I need to complete while stateside.  I was glad to be able to cast my vote back home as I am seriously concerned on whether a vote cast here in AFGHN would find its way back to the homefront in a timely fashion.  I remember that there were many issues with votes cast by servicemen and women overseas back in the 2008 election.

In the meantime, we will have to endure another 18 days of the BS spewed at us by the media and look to what the people say when they cast there ballots.

I pray and hope that we get a new President out of the process as I cannot see the present occupant of the office being there for another 4 years.  the last 4 years under his stewardship have been marked with utter failure to handle the responsibilities which he has been given charge of and his utter inability to perform the job in a manner that provides the US with Leadership.

I have said it before and I will say it again - Obama is not the most qualified person for the job and he has shown that electing someone based on " Hope and Change " is NOT how we need to elect Leaders in our country.

His election to the highest office in the land has been a major setback for our country and an demonstrated failure by those who placed him there.

It is time for our country to get back to having ADULT Leadership in our highest office, something that has been absent for the past 4 years.

Obama refers to death of US Ambassador & three other Americans as a " bumps in the road"

How clueless and moronic can this man get??? He is the PRESIDENT of our country and he has referred to the death of our Ambassador to Libya and three others ( including two former US NAVY SEALS) as a " bumps in the road.." - REALLY ???

This inept and careless POL needs to be voted out of office. Please - I implore you to vote him out as a nation cannot endure another 4 years of this level of ineptitude.

From Twitchy.com:

Callous: Obama refers to murdered Americans in Libya as “bumps in the road” September 24, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

Yep. That’s how unreality-based President Obama referred to the bloody mess in Libya and the American casualties of this administration’s deadly dereliction of duty on 60 Minutes earlier tonight.

Here's another quote from the Village Idiot of Chicago:

" But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because-- you know, in a lot of these places-- the one organizing principle-- has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment."

My teenage daughter has a greater grasp of world affairs than this clueless half-wit.

Here's the link to a more indepth article on the Weekly Standard website:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-calls-recent-middle-east-violence-bumps-road_652971.html

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . .

Pretty Much sums it up - " It's all Bush's Fault" - Obama is a complete failure domestically and on Foreign Policy

National Review -The Corner

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . . By Victor Davis Hanson - National Review September 14, 2012

One of the ways of understanding the strange nonchalant response of the administration to prior warnings of trouble in the Arab Spring countries, and its contextualization of the violence on the anniversary of 9/11, is its belief that it is somehow separated from the object of the violence. Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been “reset” on his watch — given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence “is a response,” a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers — and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se.

Apparently no one in charge seems to grasp that this latest video pretext is simply yet another tool, in a long line of many, for premodern Islamists to manipulate and galvanize their fury against the United States, whose success and power obsess them no end — no matter what we do or who happens to be in the White House, soaring Cairo speech and “leading from behind” or not.

Cf., for example, Jay Carney’s latest and perhaps most embarrassing explication yet:

"We also need to understand that this is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

Note to Mr. Carney: Radical Islamists really do not care whether “we” have judged some crackpot video “reprehensible and disgusting.” They have more important aims than distinguishing the Obama administration or its policies from the moronic Terry Jones.

If Jay Carney has any say at all in U.S. policy, then we are in real trouble.

Letter to the Editor - Romney a successful pro; Obama, a failed amateur

You have to find the right words and this gentleman from NJ puts it plain & simple

We need ADULT LEADERSHIP NOW - Not more dumb-arse Mr. Hopey Changey and his failed stupidity.

Romney a successful pro; Obama, a failed amateur

Recent polls have the presidential race in a near dead heat on votes, yet Mitt Romney continues to trail on “likability.”
It’s distressing that “cool and likeable” have become pivotal traits in a historical presidential election, traits not often associated with very successful people. Sadly, it has become obvious that irrelevant metrics and expansive government entitlements can trump clear thinking.
Maybe these voters will wake up when the economy’s tank goes dry and we fall into the Greece pit. The Obama campaign has done a desperate but effective job of personally demeaning a man who represents the American success story.
Do even the most dull and uninformed really believe that Romney could have achieved this level of success by debasing women, imposing his religious beliefs or killing jobs?
The only important fact is that our country is in the exact same place it was, and worse in some cases, as when Barack Obama took it over four years ago, without offering any new or credible plans to change it. In any other segment of life, who would give someone another shot after this kind of unashamedly failed performance?
Previous Obama supporters need to take the personal hit for being duped by a media-made amateur and save our children’s future.
You may not like your current bosses, but I’ll bet you appreciate what they are doing to maintain your way of life. Many voters don’t like Gov. Christie, but they like what he does.
Vote for the pro, not the amateur.
Terrence Garrity
Seaside Park, NJ

OHIO spells FAILURE for OBAMA

Important Campaign issues

The choice is pretty easy to see.......

He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain...

From a dictionary of Idioms:

Not smart enough to come in out of the rain

Fig. to be very stupid. Bob is so stupid he doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. You can't expect very much from somebody who doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.

 

This picture was taken at a campaign stop yesterday in Glen Allen.

He is obviously too stupid and doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.

The Prosecution rests its case.....The man is an idiot.

 

How's that Hopey-Changey" thing working out for you ??" - current unemployment rate for young folk is at 16.5%

As a fairly Famous pundit likes to say,

" How's that Hopey-Changey" thing working out for you ??"

Obama and his failed economic plans have hurt his two main constituencies, Younger Voters and Minorities.  Unemployment among both groups is sky high, higher than it has ever been and much higher than when the GOP was in control.

So the overriding question is:

WHY would anyone in either group vote for more of the same ???

Because they are uninformed, voting based on the color of the candidates skin, or they are gullible enough to give President OBOZO another 4 years to muck things up.

The bottom line is that the President has failed and the idea of anyone under 25 giving him another 4 years proves that P.T. Barnum was correct when he said;

"  There's a sucker born every minute. "

----------------------------------------------------------------

Recession erases 2.7 million youth jobs, widens employment gap
By Tiffany Hsu - LA Times
July 13, 2012

Had the recession never happened, there would now be an additional 2.7 million jobs for young workers, according to a report this week.

Instead, there’s a Chicago-sized hole in the employment market for people between 16 and 24 years old, according to nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group Young Invincibles.
And there’s a good chance that gap will never close, to potentially devastating effect, according to the"No End in Sight?" report.

“The scary thing is that the recession may never end for young people,” said Rory O’Sullivan, policy director for the group, in a statement.

The current unemployment rate for young folk is at 16.5% -- double the national 8.2% rate. More than two in 10 Latino youth are jobless, while three in 10 black youth are unemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But that’s only considering people still in the job hunt. Fewer than half of young Americans hold any kind of job at all. And the flood of youth who hid in higher education instead of taking their chances looking for a job during the recession doesn’t make up the disparity.
If the youth labor market expands at the rate it did during 2004 – the best year of the last decade – it could reach its pre-recession health by 2016. If it grows at the 1990s rate – during the longest economic expansion in the country’s history – it could recoup its losses by 2021.

The Young Invincibles report, however, takes a more pessimistic stance, echoing earlier predictions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that young people may never regain their 2007 employment levels.

The high rates of youth unemployment and underemployment will likely lead to lower earnings for life and more young people who are neither in school nor working, according to the report.

Job recovery not occurring for Americans in prime working years

Some people asked me why I would accept working on a contract in a War Zone....The article below provides a good overview as professionals with my years of experience are not being employed at the same rate as before. Too many have been shut out in favor of less expensive workers with less experience.

Two key quotes sum it up - " real wages have been stagnant since 2008" and " The economy is just really messed up right now”

This should make your choice in the upcoming election down to the simple question,

" Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?? "  If not, vote the bums out.  Especially the Village Idiot from Chicago in the White House.

Job recovery is scant for Americans in prime working years

By Peter Whoriskey, WASHINGTON POST -Published: May 30

The proportion of Americans in their prime working years who have jobs is smaller than it has been at any time in the 23 years before the recession, according to federal statistics, reflecting the profound and lasting effects that the downturn has had on the nation’s economic prospects.

By this measure, the jobs situation has improved little in recent years. The percentage of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 who have jobs now stands at 75.7 percent, just a percentage point over what it was at the downturn’s worst, according to federal statistics.

Before the recession the proportion hovered at 80 percent.

While the unemployment rate may be the most closely watched gauge of the economy in the presidential campaign, this measure of prime-age workers captures more of the ongoing turbulence in the job market. It reflects “missing workers” who have stopped looking for work and aren’t included in the unemployment rate.

During their prime years, Americans are supposed to be building careers and wealth to prepare for their retirement. Instead, as the indicator reveals, huge numbers are on the sidelines.

“What it shows is that we are still near the bottom of a very big hole that opened in the recession,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

The falloff has been sharpest for men, for whom the proportion had been on a slow decline before the recession. The percentage of prime-age men who are working is smaller now than it has been in any time before the recession, going all the way back to 1948, according to federal statistics. The proportion of prime-age women is at a low not seen since 1988.

The nation’s unemployment rate has shown signs of improvement, ticking down from 10 percent to 8.1 percent. But if it tallied people who have given up looking for jobs, it would certainly be higher.

The ratio of employment to population, which economists refer to as “epop,” “is a much better measure for what people are experiencing in the job market,” Shierholz said. “The unemployment rate is screwy right now because the labor market is so weak that people have stopped trying.”

For example, last month, the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent. Ordinarily, a drop in unemployment would be interpreted as a sign of improving economic health. But it dropped largely because so many people stopped looking for jobs.

Shierholz estimates that about 4 million workers have simply stopped looking, and so do not show up in the tally used for the unemployment rate.

As the presidential race heads into the summer, the health of the economy — and how voters view it — becomes critical, and for many people, the job market is their most significant contact with the economy.

According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, the issue of paramount interest to voters is the economy and jobs, with more than half describing it as the “single most important issue.”

By comparison, the next most important issue, health care, trailed far behind at 7 percent, and moral and family values followed at 5 percent.

The polls also show that, while the official statistics show improvement, voters offer gloomy economic diagnoses

About 83 percent of those in the poll, conducted in mid-May, rated the state of the economy as “poor” or “not so good,” a much higher portion of negative views than at any other time in the 10 years preceding the recession.

The job market “feels like a game of musical chairs — if you didn’t have a job when the market crashed, well, that chair is gone,” said Karen Akers, 50, of Vienna, who lost two jobs to budget cuts during the recession.

She just reentered the workforce in March, although at a lower salary in client relations at a sprinkler company.

“I don’t know that people trust any of these economic numbers these days, anyway, because they were all good before the crash,” she said. “Whatever economists are telling us, I don’t know that we can believe it any more than what we see in the job market — and what you find there is not good.”

Indeed, in interviews outside the unemployment office in Alexandria on Friday morning, people looking for work said that finding a job today, three years after the recession’s official end, seems just as hard as it did during the recession.

“In 2008, it was much easier — I got a job right away,” said 41-year-old Rob from Arlington, who last worked in sales for a defense contractor. Like other workers interviewed at the unemployment office, he declined to give his last name to protect his privacy.

“It’s definitely more negative, which really caught me off guard,” he said. “Employers have gotten used to doing pretty much what they want to do in this market.”

“I’m actually considering a position in retail,” said a 53-year-old Northern Virginia woman who had held a senior position in international sales and recently earned a master’s degree in management. She has been looking for a job for three years. “I can’t tell you how many women I know, one of whom was a bank vice president, who have already taken these kinds of jobs — they’re working at Joann’s Fabrics, Sur la Table and Crate & Barrel.”

The impact of these difficulties reaches far beyond those looking for work.

For those working, real wages have been stagnant since 2008, Shierholz said.

Moreover, the number of people quitting jobs — a figure that tends to rise when jobs seem plentiful and fall when they seem scarce — remains lower than it was at any time in the years leading up to the recession, according to government statistics.

Some of the workers have sensed a slight strengthening in their outlook, however: a few more calls, a few more openings, a few more interviews than they’d previously seen. Indeed, the “epop” figure for prime-age workers has risen since October.

Mark, 50, a heating and AC technician from Alexandria, was out of work in 2009 but found a job right away. He was laid off again about six months ago and, standing outside the Alexandria unemployment office, said it seems harder this time around.

“The economy is just really messed up right now,” he said

Just the facts, Ma'am

A clear distinction is evident....

POTUS just doesn't get it.....IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID !!

Which is why we are where we are....record numbers on food stamps, highest number of unemployed & under employed, record foreclosures, loss of faith in our government... 

" Are you better off than you were 4 years ago ?" - That is the correct question. For the majority of Americans, the answer is no. The President has focused on other issues and we are headed in the wrong direction. We need to make a " course correction" in November and place Obama in the "unemployed" category.

We need to elect an adult as President

The media is trying to tee up the 2012 Election as " The Popular Kids" ( Obama and his ilk) vs. "The Squares" ( Romney & the GOP)


REALLY ?  Although this is the CRAP you would expect from the media.  The same fools who provide us with updates on stupid reality shows as "news" and who push the dumbing down of America on our citizens while laughing behind their backs at us.


Obama is NOT the person who should be in the Oval Office as the election is NOT High School.  WE need the best person for the job, not the most popular.  We need someone who isn't about being popular but about being the best in creating jobs and fixing the economy.

The enclosed writer gets it....For far too long we have had a complete lack of adult leadership in government.  We need to stop the BS and get back to the nation being a place where jobs & a strong economy are the priorities, not the BS of those who are elected allowing the stupidity we have witnessed in the last 3 1/2 years.


The enclosed picture shows two members of Obama's staff - The man on the left is Obama's newly-designated chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  The picture speaks volumes about the type of people who are in charge of our government.


Here's the link to the LA Times story


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-favreau.html



Wednesday April 18, 2012



Partying on the public dime is endless
Under Obama, some federal workers have no shame at all - Don Surber


The Obama administration sent 11 elite Secret Service agents to Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of a presidential visit for an international conference.


The agents stayed at the swank Hotel Caribe, where it is alleged they partied with hookers until the dawn's early light.


Once again, we have a Democratic president and once again the editorial pages are filled with sex talk.


These are not 11 bad apples. These are the best of the best in Washington.


The party-time attitude of the Secret Service reflects a president who blows millions on vacations to exotic locations hither and yon. He spent $250,000 of taxpayer money so he could fly to New York City to catch a Broadway show.


Even after the Secret Service party became an international scandal - an embarrassment that made the United States look like an imperial state slumming in Colombia - Hillary Rodham Clinton kicked up her heels and partied all night at a night club in Cartagena.


The disgust was felt worldwide.


"It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger 'livin' la vida loca' on the world stage," wrote Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph in London.


"This was less an example of 'smart power' than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of 'Jersey Shore.'


"Hillary Clinton's Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State.


"Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses."


The conference was about illicit drugs, which are destroying democracies across the Western Hemisphere.


No accord was reached.


Actual agreement was the last thing the president wanted. He joked with Colombian officials that he was there to scout out his next vacation with Michelle.


Yuk, yuk, yuck.


The joke is on the taxpayer. This was not a real conference but another spring break for our immature president - another taxpayer-funded embarrassment.


This is just another scandal from an administration that gives billions in government money for crackpot "alternative energy" schemes run by billionaire donors to President Obama's political campaign.


President Obama famously warned CEOs that they could not go to Las Vegas on the public dime.Now we learn why he said that. Government officials want Las Vegas for themselves.


The General Services Administration blew more than $800,000 on a "conference" in Las Vegas.


There are no adults in the White House. None.


The partying will not end until voters elect an adult as president.


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber.

President Trainwreck

Andrew Malcolm of Investors Business Daily nails it.

Mr. "Hopey- Changey" is really President Trainwreck. His administration is the proverbial "Three Stooges" of politics when you add in Geitner, Napolitano, Biden, etc.

Yeah, Romney is not the guy who thrills people but right now we need Competent & Steady Leadership, not this Chicago Village Idiot who has been in over his head for the entire time he has been in office. He was elected by those who had no clue as to what he would do and his term in office has been nothing but more misery for Americans.

" This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official."

Yup. No doubt about it - Obama has got to go. November can't come soon enough.

Who is this guy pretending to be president?
By ANDREW MALCOLM - Investors Business Daily

Has anyone seen Barack Obama recently?

You know, the optimistic hopeful fellow with the charming smile who promised so many positive things four and five years ago, how he was going to change the harsh, partisan tone of our nation's capital and bring the country together as its first African American president.

Even allowing for political hyperbole, his empty resume and the invisible witnesses from the past, Obama was such a Real Good Talker that even some who didn't vote for him still had hope that he could change some things for the better in what seemed a sadly-splintered society.

WTH did that Obama go? Have you listened recently to this Chicago Doppelganger who's replaced him? This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official.

He tries to intimidate the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, when its thinking might stray from his. He distorts history, and if no one calls him, then it's true. If he's caught, this Obama says you obviously mis-heard. Because, as everyone knows, he could never mis-speak.

The economy, like everything else adverse, is someone else's fault. But if only we borrowed and spent a trillion dollars, unemployment would stay beneath 8%, Obama promised. It soared far above. It's still above. No apology. No acknowledgment. Now, he hails any dip as proof of progress when, in fact, it comes because so many just give up seeking work.

He chastises House Republicans for their draconian budget when his Senate Democrats haven't written a single one in three years; so, the fiscal drift abides. And wait till he exaggerates the frightening things the GOP wants to do, instead of presenting his own ideas.

Obama claims credit for the bottom half of a pipeline he had nothing to do with, when he killed the top half. He brags that domestic oil drilling is up when the part he's responsible for is down.

He says no one should ever go to Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime. Then his wife, daughters and entourage do just that.

This year's Obama talks of the importance of windmills, algae and green energy, but he takes a 17-SUV motorcade to a photo op with an electric car. He lambasts oil companies for getting the same legal tax incentives (he calls them "subsidies") that other companies receive, hoping to aim anger at them so voters won't notice that gas prices have doubled since his inauguration.

Take this Tuesday. The 2012 Obama flew to Florida for an official presidential speech on the economy, then three fundraisers. That way his campaign only pays a fraction of Air Force One's $182,000 per flight hour cost. All presidents do that, though none have done near as many.

But read the four speeches. You can't tell which is official and which is political. They're all political. He can't be a real president for one lousy speech? Why the phony presidential fig leaf? To chintz the United States of America out of a few thousand bucks when he plans to raise a billion?

The Buffet Rule? Americans have always admired the successful. The only thing wrong with rich people is we're not one of them -- yet. But now he's pitting most of us against rich folks, which is him, come to think of it. The only way he's bringing us together now is to resent their paying a smaller legal rate because theirs is a different kind of income.

And speaking of taxes, whch are due Monday, how can the president of the United States allow 36 of his own White House aides to fall $833,000 behind in their tax payments?

How is that what the first Obama offered, making him an example of American success? (Hint: His GOP opponent is far richer than Obama and earned it the old-fashioned way through work, not fronting books.)

OK, Obama wants political skirmishes all over on any petty thing so people won't notice the absence of any conceivably positive record to run on. Risky when Americans start paying attention. But if that's his only card. It's all the Republicans' fault, of course. That's the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.

But whatever happened to the president part? The leader. The principled man who through his personal story, skills and charm was going to inspire, convince, cajole Americans as diverse as himself to work together for a common national success? That official part has merged with the political, like the four Florida speeches. Now, he's just trying to fool everybody about everything.

In a way, this could be good news for Republicans. The duplicate Ernst Blofeld makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Rogers.

But without real presidential leadership, Obama's hand-picked harpie atop the Democratic National Committee feels empowered to assign a hired gun to dismiss his opponent's wife, the cancer-surviving mother of five sons, as someone who's never worked a day in her life. Are they that scared already?

Seriously? We're going to pit now one kind of working woman against another? The guy who talks about having so many women in his life isn't going to fire the women responsible for that? He thinks American women will buy this stuff?

OK, Obama was raised by grandparents because he didn't always have a stay-at-home mom or dad. But this is a nation, not a dysfunctional family or a windy city party where factions are left to their own wards and Solyndras.

Obama is the guy who said his own wife was off limits politically, the guy whose mother-in-law has resided since Day One in the White House at taxpayer expense as a live-in nanny so the first lady can campaign for money and healthy foods? But a woman who stays at home with her kids at no public expense can be trashed because of her party?

Lifeguards

I feel that Mr. Romney's approach is more in line with what is best for the United States - Let Obama go work to assist Europeafter he gets thrown out of office as he seems to prefer their economic model....We have seen how well that worked out for them...The Euro is a joke. It was doomed from the beginning and now holds the European Union countries helpless to help themselves.

50 Years ago today - JFK demonstrates Presidential Leadership unlike our present day President who hasn't got a clue

Presidential Leadership - Then & Now

50 years ago today we had a real leader in the White House. The American public were getting whacked by steel executives driving the price for steel up and it effected all Americans.

Today, Oil goes up due to speculation and greed, and all we get from the President is " Not my job.." and excuses.

News yesterday - "The Energy Information Administration says gasoline will cost an average of $3.95 per gallon from April through September, an increase of 6.3 percent from the same period last year. The peak monthly average should be $4.01 in May.

The government says there's a small chance the price for a gallon could climb as high as $4.50 in June."


Take a listen to how a REAL leader dealt with the issues that hurt Americans economically 50 years ago today. THIS is the type of leader we need here & now but is no where in sight for our country.

And that is a crisis. ( Play the audio, really - you will enjoy listening to what REAL LEADERSHIP sounds like - Trust me.)




Statement of the President of the United States
John F. Kennedy
The Steel Crisis
April 11, 1962


" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."

The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.

Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer. "

Government Spending is the key issue of our time

This picture and the enclosed details are not what our country needs. It's time to take control of the runaway spending that have marked the last three years. We cannot allow our children's future to be spent by the feckless pols.


The latest chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, showing that under President Obama's budget plan, debt would be $73,000 per American in 2022:

By contrast, debt per person was still an astonishing $33,000 in 2008, at the end of George W. Bush's term, and $20,000 in 2000, at the beginning of Bush's presidency.

In just four years, President Obama’s policies will have added $6.4 trillion in new gross debt, for a total debt of $16.4 trillion by the end of this year.

· Per-household debt will have risen from $85,500 at the end of 2008 to $135,100 by the end of 2012.

· Average spending under the Obama Administration will be 33 percent higher than the four years preceding his term.

· Spending in 2012 will be $800 billion higher than 2008.

· Per-household spending in 2012 will be $7,000 greater than 2008—a 23 percent increase.

· Per-household spending in 2022 under the president’s budget will be $44,000, nearly $20,000 higher than in 2008.

· Per-household debt in 2022 under the president’s budget will be $195,000, more than double what it was in 2008

Mulligan

Two word answer - " Not Happening "

" This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” - The President's own words are damning

Krauthammer is spot-on especially on this issue.

The unmitigated gall of this fool in the White House to brag to RUSSIA about what he will be able to do after he gets re-elected....it is a telling moment and speaks to his complete lack of character and honor as he says one thing to our "rivals" and another to those he serves, the citizens of the United States.

He needs to be sent on a permanent vacation and is unworthy to hold the office of President. Vote this incompetent poser out of office.


The ‘flexibility’ doctrine
By Charles Krauthammer,
March 29 - The Washington Post

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. .... This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26

You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.

Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections.

Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.

Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.

As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama’s intentions of flexibly caving on missile defense, they might think twice about giving him a second term.

After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.

We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?

To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?

It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized his intent to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.

Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy.

Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?

Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.

In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.

On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?

Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?

They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.

Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.