" 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.

A picture paints a thousand words....

" Are you better off than you were 4 years ago ?"

Data from Gallup polling tells the tale of what the 2012 election scene looks like.

My daughter was asking questions about the election and I put this question to her:

" If you lost a job or your home over the last three years, or someone in your family or among your good friends lost a home or a job, would you vote for more of the same ?" It is as simple as that. For the past three years we have listened to the Simpleton from Chicago blame everybody else and not taken responsibility for his lack of ability to make a difference. Inflation is up and the cost of living is hurting a lot of people.

It comes down to the question Ronald Reagan put to the Voters:

" Are you better off than you were 4 years ago ?"

This polling gives you the answer.

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss
by Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer
Washington Examiner

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico

Politics vs. Jobs - Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline from Canada

It just doesn't make sense....Jobs, energy & better relations with our neighbor Canada. But then again, nothing the President does has made much sense.

OMG...Obama Must Go.

Re-Election Obsessed Obama Goes Political On Keystone
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
Posted 01/19/2012 Investors.com

President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it.

All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions.

Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. Then there's the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama's decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder.

Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the U.S., could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama's decision forgoes all the project's jobs. There's some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment.

Apparently, this refers to "job years," meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it's in the thousands and important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There's no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil's natural market is the U.S.

There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy.

First, we're going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that American oil consumption will increase 4% between 2009 and 2035

The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.

The more oil we produce domestically and import from neighbors, the more we're insulated from dramatic interruptions of global supplies. After the U.S., Canada is the most dependable source of oil — or was until Obama's decision.

Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America's CO2 emissions will increase by 16% from 2009 to 2035. Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were that possible, wouldn't affect these emissions.

Finally, even if — as Keystone critics argue — some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the U.S. and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.

By law, Obama's decision was supposed to reflect "the national interest." His standard was his political interest. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline's route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 — after the election.

Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route — already being negotiated — might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking

POTUS mucks it up in a speech regarding MOH Recipient Sgt. 1st Class Jared C. Monti

Everyone makes mistakes...that's a given. The issue isn't making the mistake but the way you handle it and making sure you don't make mistakes about certain things - Things that are very very important.

When you are the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, you don't make errors about who you awarded the Medal of Honor to and whether he was awarded the medal posthumously. Unless you are a former Community Organizer who doesn't respect the military......

YOU are the PRESIDENT - YOU are speaking about a MEDAL OF HONOR recipient...You can't make a mistake in speaking about this, especially when you are speaking to his comrades in arms.

Really??? - I know he has issues when he speaks without a teleprompter but REALLY??

Please, I am begging you...don't re-elect this fool....we have already had enough of his level of incompetence. His lack of care for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice is appalling. He is hazarding our nation and our military.


Commander In Chief Misspeaks About Soldier Killed in Afghanistan
Dana Ritter
CBN News White House Producer

During his remarks to troops at Fort Drum today, the President was reminiscing about the times he has spent with the US Army's 10th Mountain Division, when he got something wrong.

" Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

The problem is, Jared Monti was killed in action in Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, September 17, 2009. President Obama handed the framed medal to his parents, Paul and Janet Monti. He and the First Lady comforted them in the Oval Office following the ceremony.

I contacted the White House to see what happened. I'm told the President didn't have prepared remarks.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "“At Fort Drum, the President misspoke when discussing the first Medal of Honor he presented posthumously to Jared Monti, who was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. The President paid tribute to Monti in his remarks to troops in Afghanistan in March 2010. Last year, the President presented the Medal of Honor to Salvatore Giunta, who was the first living recipient of the Medal who served in Afghanistan.”

The gaffe comes one day after the President announced his plan to bring troops home from Afghanistan at a faster pace. He deliberately spoke at Fort Drum because of the 10th Mountain Division's multiple deployments to Afghanistan

Government-by-press-release...POTUS reverts to form

One of the key skills any good Leader needs is to LISTEN to others.....any empty headed idjit can stand at a podium and blather on about what they think, the true sign of Leadership is accepting input from others.....especially those who are your "customers "

Well, it should come to no one's surpirse that our present White House doesn't understand this basic principle....They are stone-deaf to anyone else's input as they are the alledged " smartest people " and know better than the rest of us......

The Fool-In-Charge thinks because America's best, the US Navy Seals, offed OBL, he has a free pass to do whatever he wants and America will faun all over him....WRONG.

The economy is still mortibund, good paying jobs with benefits are not being offered (although McDonalds in hiring !!) and the cost of everything is going through the roof... people are getting squeezed like never before even though when GW was President, the DEMS decried the cost of living under Bush but you hear nothing out of the DEMS about the cost of living now that they have control of the White House.

It seems like right now, the Former Senator from Illinois who voted " PRESENT " on most everything should realize that being "Tone Deaf" to the American people is NOT the mark of a Leader...just a Fool who is in love with his own PR.


Obama's one-way conversation
By JULIE MASON 05/17/11 Politico.com

President Obama today met King Abdullah of Jordan in the Oval Office -- statements, no questions. Still, it was better than last week's meeting with the NATO leader: No pool, no statements, no questions, no photos.

Yesterday, Obama met with flood victims and first responders in Memphis. That was a total lockout and the White House took up pool reporting duties, distributing details of the president's closed-door meetings that reporters had to take on faith, or not at all.

The president hasn't taken questions from the press since April 5, and then he only called on four reporters.

That was during the budget impasse, and since then we've seen the birth certificate, the end of Osama bin Laden, a deficit crisis looming, a big immigration reform push, the resignation of his Mideast peace envoy and more -- all without questions, all government-by-press-release.

It's a good way for the White House to control the message, something they are trying to do more as the campaign rumbles to life. But does it meet the standard for transparency and accountability? White House press secretary Jay Carney got a question about it today.

"I'm sure you'll have opportunities," Carney said, adding that Obama would be taking questions on next week's foreign trip.

"As you know, he has given some interviews in that time, two journalists who have asked him questions about all of the pressing issues of the day, and he'll continue to do that," Carney said. "You know, I think his track record of taking questions and giving interviews is very strong and will continue to be strong going forward."