During an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," which aired Sunday night, President Obama was asked if the recent tragic events that occurred in the middle east have given him any pause about his support for the governments that came to power on the heels of the so-called Arab Spring.
Four U.S. diplomatic staff members - [Ambassador] Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods - were killed during a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week, planned to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Obama responded to the aforementioned question, saying: "I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road."
Apparently, the terrorist attack that killed the four U.S. diplomatic personnel last week was merely a bump in the road..........
The Obama administration on Saturday lashed out at CNN for disclosing information found in a journal belonging to the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.
Cloaking itself in a guise of piety, the State Dept. claimed it was upset with CNN for reporting on the contents of Stevens' journal before returning it to his family. But, of course, the real cause of the administration's concern was the fact that the contents of Steven's journal raises questions about why the administration didn't do more to protect him and other US personnel in Libya.
Mr Stevens, in his journal, expressed concerns about the continuous security threats in Benghazi, Libya, including a rise in Islamic extremism and a growing al Qaeda presence in the country. He also mentioned that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
Additionally, CNN reported that, after an attack in June on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Mr. Stevens emailed a journalist and told him, "maybe you should head east to Benghazi to check out the situation there which appears to be heating up."
CNN questioned why the ambassador's warnings went unheeded and why he was provided with only a light security detail, and whether the lack of proper security led to his death.
CNN also reported that, about a month prior to the fatal attack that took his life, Mr. Stevens was seen entering a hotel in Tripoli without ANY security.
The CNN report, a rare departure from the Liberal news network's typically biased and slanted reporting - which routinely adheres strictly to President Obama's twisted talking points - contradicted the President's narrative on the situation in Libya and the events preceding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Eager to report a worthy scoop, CNN took a sharp and anomalistic detour from its usual slanted news coverage, and in doing so, put President Obama in an uncomfortable position, which prompted the State Department on Saturday to issue a rare rebuke to the administration's mouthpiece over at CNN.
CNN responded in kind by saying as follows:
"We felt there were issues raised in the journal which required full reporting, which we did. We think the public had a right to know what CNN had learned from multiple sources about the fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn't do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other US personnel. Perhaps the real question here is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.
"The reason CNN ultimately reported Friday on the existence of the journal was because leaks to media organizations incorrectly suggested CNN had not quickly returned the journal, which we did. We reached out to the family of Ambassador Stevens within hours of retrieving the journal and returned it through a third party, within less than 24 hours from the time we found it." Conclusion: While CNN - in a shockingly rare departure from its typically biased news coverage - reported the facts, and did so, without disclosing any private or personal matters from Mr. Stevens' journal, it nevertheless violated an unstated code of conduct of CNN and the Liberal mainstream media not to report anything that might tarnish the reputation of President Obama or his colleagues on the Left.
Instead of keeping the contents of the journal secret and playing along with the President's phony narrative of the tragic events that occurred in Libya, CNN, in its eagerness to report a newsworthy scoop, chose to breach not only its own dubious and unscrupulous ethical standards, but also its tacit oath of allegiance to Mr. Obama. And, in doing so, CNN, typically a loyal and servile mouthpiece of the Obama administration, strayed from its true path, and is, thus, deserving of sharp rebuke and condemnation from the administration.
If CNN is to make amends for this breach of trust, it should issue a sincere and heartfelt apology to President Obama, forthwith!
Nevertheless, despite CNN's unflattering report, and all the other damning evidence that has been revealed about this tragic event [including four previous attacks in Benghazi - since June - and a previous attack at the U.S. Consulate], I have full confidence in the politician-in-chief's ability to glide over the facts, and in his proficiency at conveying a completely twisted narrative in his typically smooth and convincing manner.
That is, after all, what he does best.
Manufacturing closed out its weakest quarter in three years this month and the number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits held near two-month highs last week, suggesting the economic recovery is failing to gain traction.
Other reports on Thursday suggested the economy's weakness could prove protracted, with factory activity in the Mid-Atlantic contracting for a fifth straight month in September and a measure of future economic activity dipping in August...
The economy grew at a sluggish 1.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter, and economists said growth this quarter was unlikely to have picked up much -- particularly with factory activity showing fatigue...
The preliminary, manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index averaged 51.5 in the third quarter..., its worst showing since the third quarter of 2009. At 51.2, the output component was the lowest since September 2009.
"With output growing at the slowest pace since the recovery began, the manufacturing sector may have even acted as a slight drag on the economy in the third quarter," Market chief economist Chris Williamson said...
The four-week moving average for new claims... rose for a fifth straight week to its highest level since June...
U.S. employers added only 96,000 jobs in August, a step down from July's 141,000 count.
While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent in August from 8.3 percent, it was because many Americans gave up the search for work.
The jobless rate has been stuck above 8 percent for more than three years, the first time this has happened since the Great Depression.
Good job, Mr. President! You deserve another term!
President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.
For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could.
Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals.
"All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment... and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic," [says] longtime political reporter Thomas B. Edsall...
In the era of President Bill Clinton, Democratic strategists focused ravenously on winning over white industrial workers.
Ruy Teixeira, a strategist at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote in 1995 that if President Clinton couldn't win white blue collar workers, his re-election bid would be doomed.
Fast forward 15 years and Tiexeria has made an about-face: 'The Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,' he [said]...
President Obama can still get away with losing white Americans by 17 percent, Tiexeria says...
The new coalition President Obama is putting together potentially relies less on middle Americans than either Sen Kerry or Vice President Al Gore in 2000... Instead..., the president's 2012 re-election campaign will likely rely on winning over new 'young people, Hispanics, unmarried women and affluent suburbanites....
Speaking at a private fundraiser, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama uttered his infamous remarks ridiculing working-class voters.
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," he said.
Fast forward to 2012, and, according to the aforementioned political strategists, Obama has decided to abandon all white-working, blue collar voters - whether they "cling to their guns and their religion", or not; they are not worth his time and effort.
But what about those people who not only cling to their guns and their religion, but who actually wield their guns, and their rocket propelled grenades, and their cold-blooded, extremist ideologies, to wreak death and destruction upon Americans? Like the people, last week, who planned - well in advance - the attack on the U.S consulate in Libya to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Well, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, [then-Illinois State Sen.] Obama stated that, "Most often", tragedies like 9/11 "grow[s] out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair", and that "We will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe."
Hence, it's safe to assume that Obama will continue to expand his time and energy on "raising the hopes and prospects of [these] embittered" terrorists.
For ultimately, he can not, in good conscience, abandon these hapless fiends.
But the blue-collar, gun-clinging Americans, well, that's a different story altogether.........
I already noted the following point in a previous post, but I felt it should be noted in a seperate and exclusive post:
President Obama - ever the smooth politician that he is - thus far, has managed to deflect attention from his epic failures in the Libya and Egypt embassy attacks by criticizing Mitt Romney's statements on the matter. And, in a surprising moment of candor, White House officials even admitted that this was the case, according to the New York Times;
The Times notes that the upheaval in Libya, Egypt etc. beckons the following questions:
"Did [Obama] do enough during the Arab Spring to help the transition to democracy from autocracy? Has he drawn a hard enough line against Islamic extremists? Did his administration fail to address security concerns?"
The Times goes on to say: "These questions come at an inopportune time domestically as Mr. Obama enters the fall campaign with a small lead in polls. His policies escaped serious scrutiny in the initial days after the attack that killed four Americans in Libya last week, in part because of the furor over a statement by Mitt Romney.... White House officials said they recognized that if not for Mr. Romney’s statement, they would have been the ones on the defensive."
Yep. The politician-in-chief, managed to deflect attention from his epic failures in Libya, Egypt etc. by pointing his fingers at Mr. Romney. What's more, the cunning strategy appears to have had the desired effect; Obama's poll numbers have actually gone up in recent days. Incredible!
The head of the the Libyan parliament, Mohammed al-Megaryef, has confirmed earlier reports that the attack on the on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday was planned well in advance.
The Obama administration - in a calculated PR campaign and, in an effort to exonerate itself from blame - continues to assert that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an American video critical of Islam, but earlier reports, and now, Mr. al-Megaryef's statements, confirm that this is not the case.
"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," he said. "It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival."
"They entered Libya from different directions. Some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria," he said.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Mike Rogers, told Fox News on Wednesday that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was "a well- planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it."
"Absolutely, I have no doubt about it," he added. "It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid."
Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, told Fox News the attack appeared to be an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated strike.
"We've been talking for years about the desire of Al Qaeda, radical jihadists to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11," he said. "All my background, all of the conversations that I've had over the last 18 hours lead many people to believe that this was just more than a mere coincidence."...
They were "fully armed and fully equipped," he said.
Hoekstra noted that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri had recently released a video calling on militants to attack Americans in revenge for the killing of an operative in Pakistan. The message said his "blood is calling on you, inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders." ...
Two intelligence officials also said the attack looked "coordinated."
London-based think tank Quilliam reached the same conclusion, saying the Benghazi strike appeared to be a "well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the" film.
Also, the brother of Zawahiri was nearby during the separate protest at the American Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday...
"The timing of this on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 is more than just coincidence," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement.
Gateway Pundit notes that, despite four previous attacks in Benghazi - since June - including a previous attack at the U.S. Consulate, the Obama Administration refused to provide even “standard security” at the consulate compound.
The US consulate in Benghazi, where the US ambassador to Libya died in an attack on Tuesday, was not given the standard security contract offered to many American diplomatic missions in the Middle East...
The consulate’s walls were breached in just 15 minutes, guards were outgunned and overwhelmed and four US personnel were killed, including the Ambassador....
US embassies and consulates in areas of the world where they are deemed liable to attack are usually offered a formal security contract called a Worldwide Protective Services Agreement, known in the industry as a ‘Wips’.
The contract, or so-called tasking order, is between the US state department and any one of several major private military contractors such as DynCorp International and Aegis Defense Services.
Under this agreement, extensive security precautions are put in place, including low-profile armored vehicles, run-flat tyres, sufficient weapons, ammunition and trained personnel, as well as a tried and tested command and control system.
But..., on the advice of a US diplomatic regional security officer, the mission in Benghazi was not given the full contract despite lobbying by private contractors.
Instead, the US consulate was guarded externally by a force of local Libyan militia, many of whom reportedly put down their weapons and fled once the mission came under concerted attack.
The USA Today reported last week that the attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt was announced on Aug. 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman - before news had circulated about the aforementioned video.
But [as I noted on Thursday] President Obama - ever the smooth politician that he is - thus far, has managed to deflect attention from his epic failures in Libya and Egypt by criticizing Mitt Romney's statements on the matter. What's more, in a surprising moment of candor, White House officials even admitted that this was the case, according to the New York Times;
The Times notes that the upheaval in Libya, Egypt etc. presents the following questions:
"Did [Obama] do enough during the Arab Spring to help the transition to democracy from autocracy? Has he drawn a hard enough line against Islamic extremists? Did his administration fail to address security concerns?"
The Times goes on to say: "These questions come at an inopportune time domestically as Mr. Obama enters the fall campaign with a small lead in polls. His policies escaped serious scrutiny in the initial days after the attack that killed four Americans in Libya last week, in part because of the furor over a statement by Mitt Romney.... White House officials said they recognized that if not for Mr. Romney’s statement, they would have been the ones on the defensive."
Yep. The politician-in-chief, managed to deflect attention from his epic failures in Libya, Egypt etc. by pointing his fingers at Mr. Romney. And the cunning strategy appears to have had the desired effect; Obama's poll numbers have gone up over the last several days.
President Obama, his campaign spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the mainstream media on Wednesday tried to deflect attention from the administration's failure to protect and rescue four U.S.diplomats killed in Libya on Tuesday by rebuking Mitt Romney.
Mr. Romney criticized the administration's actions during the crisis and its failure to focus solely on the task at hand: protecting and rescuing the U.S. diplomats.
The four diplomats were killed by a group of armed Al Qaeda sympathizers in a coordinated attack that was planned well in advance to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The President responded to Mr. Romney's criticism:
"Most Americans understand that there are times when we put politics aside," the President said.
Lame response.
In truth, it is Barack Obama who refuses to put politics aside, even when American lives are at stake.
A case in point:
In 2007, then-Sen. Obama voted against funding the troops in Iraq, a move that was harshly criticized by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who said the funds were needed to procure the necessary supplies to protect the troops.
Biden said that Obama's vote to cut off funding of the troops was political, and harmful to the troops.
U.S. officials now believe the attack on the American embassy in Libya on Tuesday, which coincided with the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks - was planned well before word had spread about an American video critical of Islam, various media outlets reported on Wednesday.
Nevertheless, regardless of the stated motive of the attackers, the 9/11, 2012 attacks, in which the protesters [at the U.S. embassy in Egypt] pledged their allegiance to Osama Bin Laden by chanting "We are all Osama," was nothing more than a typical celebration, on the part of the terrorists, in commemoration of the September, 2011 attacks. The aforementioned video, was merely used as a pretext to justify the violence, and it certainly did not warrant a violent or murderous response.
But the question arises: The newly minted President of Egypt, and Muslim Brotherhood member, Mohammed Morsi, once offered his views on the 9/11 terrorist attacks saying: "When you come and tell me that the plane hit the tower like a knife in butter, then you are insulting us. How did the plane cut through the steel like this? Something must have happened from the inside. It's impossible."
Morsi was also once quoted as saying that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq “due to the U.S. administration claims that the doers of the 11 September attacks [were] Muslims, without proving such a thing until now... This requires a huge scientific conference that is devoted to analyzing what caused the attack against a massive structure like the two WTC towers."
Other Muslim Brotherhood leaders have expressed similar views [despite the fact that similar statements coming out of Iran have angered Al Qaeda officials who openly, and proudly, have taken credit for the attacks. (It should be noted however, that despite Al Qaeda's unhappiness with Iran's statements, the terrorist organization has maintained close ties with Iran - as far back as 1991. According to the 9/11 Commission, in its June 16, 2004 report, "between eight and ten of the fourteen" hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks "passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001". The 9/11 commission report also concluded that , "Iran had a history of allowing Al Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000.") ]
Hence the question arises, if Mr. Morsi and his comrades do not believe Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks, if he believes the World Trade Center attack was an inside job, why did he allow the protesters to ransack the embassy in celebration of an attack perpetrated by the U.S. government? The protesters were chanting, "We are all Osama", but if, indeed, Bin Laden did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, then the protesters were, in essence, celebrating an inside job on the part of the U.S. government, and not a jihadist attack by Osama and his minions!
But of course, Mr. Morsi knows full well that his ideological partner, Osama Bin Laden, was indeed the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, which is why Morsi allowed the protesters to celebrate the historic event, and why he gave them free reign to storm the embassy and take down the American flag.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood colleagues have deliberately depicted the 9/11 attacks as an insider job, Barack Obama has embraced Mr. Morsi. In fact, as I've noted previously, Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood well before former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, was deposed.
Does Obama also embrace Mr. Morsi's outrageous lie, that the attack on 9/11 was an insider job? No. But he did express his sympathies to the 9/11 attackers when he proclaimed - shortly after the 9/11 attacks - that, "Most often", tragedies like 9/11 "grow[s] out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair", and that "We will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe." And thus, his embracement of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood makes perfect sense. In fact, it is a match made in heav--. No! Scratch that one... It is a match made in hell......
Fox News reports that the attack on the U.S embassy in Libya appears to have been a coordinated and planned attack, and not a sudden burst of outrage over the aforementioned video and its critique of Islam:
Current and former U.S. lawmakers, and others, claimed Wednesday that the attack looked like a coordinated strike.
"Absolutely, I have no doubt about it. It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Fox News. Based on his own briefings, Rogers said "military movements" were involved.
"This was a well- planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it," Rogers said.
Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House intelligence committee, told Fox News the attack appeared to have the markings of an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated strike.
"We've been talking for years about the desire of Al Qaeda, radical jihadists to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11," he said. "All my background, all of the conversations that I've had over the last 18 hours lead many people to believe that this was just more than a mere coincidence."...
They were "fully armed and fully equipped," he said.
Hoekstra noted that Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri had recently released a video calling on militants to attack Americans in revenge for the killing of an operative in Pakistan. The message said his "blood is calling on you, inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders." ...
Two intelligence officials also said the attack looked "coordinated."
London-based think tank Quilliam reached the same conclusion, saying the Benghazi strike appeared to be a "well-planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the" film.
Also, the brother of Zawahri was nearby during the separate protest at the American Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday...
"The timing of this on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 is more than just coincidence," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said in a statement.
An American staffer in the U.S. embassy in [Benghazi], Libya was reportedly shot to death and several others were wounded Tuesday when a huge mob carrying automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades stormed the embassy and set the building ablaze. Update: Four Americans [diplomatic personnel] were killed in the attack.
Looters hauled office furniture and appliances from the embassy. Others entered the compound to take photos with their cellphones.
In Cairo, Egypt, thousands of demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy, took down the American flag and destroyed it, then replaced it with a black flag similar to the banner used by Al Qaeda. For several hours, the Egyptian police remainded indifferent to the violence and made no effort to confront the demonstrators until, at long last, they removed the demonstrators from the embassy compound.
"Take a picture, we are all Osama," was among the various anti-American chants that the crowd yelled out toward the embassy.
Tuesday marked the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and, as Americans here in the U.S. commemorated the tragic event with solemn memorial services, the Egyptian and Libyan thugs celebrated the anniversary in their usual manner.
A Libyan pedestrian, who witnessed the embassy attack, said that one protester "told me very proudly not to pass because we have burned the American consulate."
Demonstrators said that they were merely protesting an American film that was deemed offensive to their moral and upright sensitivities. Heh.....
The murder, mayhem and violent 9/11 anniversary celebrations - which just happened to be carried out on the very day that the 9/11 attacks occurred - were all perpetrated in response to the film. Yeah, right, heh.......
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, then-Illinois State Sen. Obama proclaimed that, "Most often", tragedies like the 9/11 attacks "grow[s] out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair..." [Heh.]
"We will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe", he added.
The aforementioned proclamation from Obama - a genuine heartfelt and empathetic response to the 9/11 attacks [heh] - hits the nail on the head. And, indeed, on Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it was this kind of hopelessness and despair that compelled thousands of demonstrators to commit murder, mayhem and unbridled destruction. [Heh.]
Indeed, none of us can truthfully say that we would have the capacity, and forbearance, to watch a film we deem offensive, without responding in similar cold-blooded and murderous fashion. It's human nature! Or, as Obama explained so articulately shortly after 9/11, it is "hopelessness and despair".
And, to quote Obama once again, "We will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of" these "embittered", murderous thugs. [Heh.....]
On a more happier note, the violence in Egypt and Libya, a continuation of the Arab Spring , is clearly a confirmation of the sentiments shared by President Obama and Osama Bin Laden, namely, that the winds of change are blowing over the Muslim and Arab world. [Heh.]
No doubt about it, the winds of change are clearly blowing over the Arab world - and the once-hopeless and despairing thugs are now trailblazing a new path: the path of hope and change, the path torward a brighter and more violent future; the way forward......
President Obama visited one of his campaign offices in Port St. Lucie, Florida on Sunday and borrowed an iPhone from one of his aides. But the Washington Times reported that the backward and technologically inept President couldn't get the phone to work.
"It's not clear he knows how to dial on an iPhone," a pool reporter noted while observing the President grappling with the 21st century device.
The pool reporter then noted that Mr. Obama "had a little more trouble dialing."
Later on, when the President's call failed to go through, he faulted the owner of the phone for having an insufficient cell phone plan.
Heh.....
A campaign staffer then called out to Obama, "I'll give you my phone, call my wife."
"I'll call her and tell her that you're messing around here in the office, giving the president ....," Mr. Obama said, his voice tailing off.
Moe Lane notes that it's only natural for the President to shift the blame for his own ineptness on the owner of the phone:
"Blaming other people is the default option for Barack Obama."
And lastly, it is worthy to note that the Obama campaign, in 2008, released an ad depicting Sen. John McCain as Technologically inept.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Melbourne, Florida on Sunday, President Obama boasted that he has created jobs in the Florida Space Coast, despite the fact that he canceled the Constellation Moon program launched in 2004 by President Bush, which resulted in the loss of 7000 jobs in the Kennedy Space Center. The Space Center layoffs also created a ripple effect which wiped out an additional 7000 jobs in the community and surrounding area.
Obama also gloated about the Mars Curiosity Rover program, despite the fact that the program was planned and devised during the Bush administration.
It is also worthy to note that Obama's 2013 budget would slash funding for NASA's Mars exploration program by nearly 39%.
An audacious rhetorician and crafty politician, indeed......
Speaking at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, former President, Bill Clinton, used a bit of faulty arithmetic, and a disingenuous and fallacious argument to coax the American people into believing that Barack Obama is actually growing the economy. Mr. Obama and former President Jimmy Carter have used this same argument in the past to try to pull the wool over the American peoples' eyes.
Mr. Clinton also borrowed a line from the late former President, Ronald Reagan. But sadly, the Reagan quote actually weakened the case for Mr. Obama's re-election.
See the video below.
Incidentally, it is worthy to note what Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, recently pointed out: Barack Obama is actually doing a worse job in handling the U.S. economy than Mr. Carter had done during his Presidency. The unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8% - which is lower than the current unemployment rate. And, the number of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy under Obama, thus far, is much, much, larger than it was during Carter's Presidency.
Which means it is time for 'Change'; time to move forward; time to elect Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
First Lady, Michelle Obama, appeared at this year's State of the Union address wearing a $2400 dress from designer Barbara Tfank’s 2012 Resort collection. Last year, while meeting with Prince Harry and his wife [the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge] in Buckingham palace, Michelle also wore a dress from the same designer. The Duchess, however, dressed a little more modestly; she wore a $340 dress.
Heh......
Commenting on her own taste of clothing, Michelle Obama once said: “Everything in my closet is something that I love. So that I can make choices based on what makes sense, knowing that I’m going to love whatever it is.”
What's there not to love about $2400 designer dresses?!
Heh.....
And while the First Lady was once quoted as saying that, "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more," apparently THAT "someone" is someone other than her.
In any case, there's an old saying that says, "Birds of a feather flock together", and if Michelle and Barack married one another, they must have something in common, right?
"A spokesman for top Italian designer Giovanni Bosco has confirmed that President-Elect Barack Obama is looking to purchase a $30,000 Harmony ring made of rhodium and encrusted with diamonds as a thank you gift to his wife Michelle....One of the world's rarest and most precious metals, only about 25 tons of rhodium are mined each year, setting the price at over $7,660 per ounce -- or about ten times the cost of gold. The ring may be uncharacteristically extravagant for Mrs. Obama, but we're sure she'll find a way to wear it with all her usual grace and confidence."
Heh...
But the biggest common denominator between Barack and Michelle is, well, that they're both a couple of phonies!
The Liberal lamestream media is now reporting that Michelle Obama wore a $350-400 dress to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, while Ann Romney appeared at the Republican National Convention with a dress that cost nearly $2,000.
Hmmm, suddenly the First Lady is toning down her extravagant lifestyle?!
But what will become of those lavish, high-priced vacations? And the $2,000 a night suites at the Sebastian hotel?!
$2000 suite for one night's sleep - almost as expensive as her Barbara Tfank designer dresses.
And what will happen to the $2000 dress that Michelle wore last year at the Christmas Day church service at the Kaneohe Bay Marine Base? The aforementioned dress was designed by the French-born, U.S.-based designer Sophie Theallet, and - according to an ABC News celebrity blog - it would have cost Michelle almost $2,000 when she purchased it in 2009? [More recent designs by Theallet sell for even more.]
What will become of all those luxuries?
Heh.....
Conclusion: Michelle and Barack are, without doubt, a couple of shammers, phonies, frauds and fakers, aided and abetted by the drive-by media.
Speaking at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, claimed that, "The American people are still asking who is Mitt Romney? But", Mr. Reid added, "the American people know Barack Obama."
Heh......
A question that has often been asked about Barack Obama is, "Who is Barack Obama?", or, "who is the real Barack Obama?" And, indeed, many have tried to answer that question.
In truth, when Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, the American people knew very little about him, aside from what they had learned about his shady friends and acquaintances, and the far-left ideologies he espoused.
Fast forward to 2012, and Barack Obama still remains an enigma. But the failed policies he has implemented thus far - which have netted him a failed presidency - tell us more than we need to know about him.
It is time to move forward, it is time for change.....
Speaking at a campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina on Thursday, Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, said that, "The Jimmy Carter years look like the good ol' days compared to where we are right now", under Barack Obama!
Mr. Ryan pointed out that the unemployment rate under Barack Obama is higher than it was under Jimmy Carter [7.8% under Carter]. He also noted that the number of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy under Obama is immensely higher than it was under Carter.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that both Obama, in 2008, and Carter, in 1976, ran for the Presidency on a platform of "Change". And, not surprisingly, both of them managed to change America for the worse.
U.S. and NATO officials have acknowledged that, in the rush to implement the President's politically calculated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Afghan troops were not properly vetted, which resulted in the deaths of 45 coalition members since the beginning of the year - most of them Americans - at the hands of their supposed Afghan allies.
Hence, in an extremely belated response, the senior commander of U.S. special forces in Afghanistan has finally decided to suspend training for all new Afghan recruits until they can be re-vetted, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The spike in green-on-blue attacks has forced NATO officials to concede the 'painful truth': Many of the attacks might have been prevented "if existing security measures had been applied correctly," the Post reported.
Numerous military guidelines were not adhered to by either Afghans or Americans because of concerns that they might impede the growth of the Afghan army and police.
“What we learned is that you just can’t take [the vetting process] for granted," a senior special operations official was quoted as saying. "We probably should have had a mechanism to follow up with recruits from the beginning.”
NATO officials also acknowledged that, in certain instances, the vetting process was never properly implemented because of concerns that comprehensive and thorough background checks could slow the recruitment process. Requirements that Afghan soldiers produce proper credentials while on base were also ignored.
One U.S. official said that there was a lot of pressure to increase the size of the Afghan forces. Consequently, the vetting process was "was cast aside" because it was viewed as an impediment to accomplishing this goal.
But why was there was a lot of pressure to increase the size of the Afghan forces?
Because President Obama is exerting this pressure.
Mr. Obama [the Politician-in-Chief] insists on handing over primary responsibility for Afghanistan’s security to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013 and to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That requires developing a sizable Afghan force in a short period of time, which is why stringent security measures and a thorough vetting process have not been properly implemented. And sadly, this has led to a huge spike in green-on-blue attacks, which has resulted in the deaths of U.S. and coalition troops.
And while insider attacks in Afghanistan have increased dramatically under President Obama's watch, he only recently [within the last week or two] acknowledged the problem. But, in truth, this is typical of Obama, who always seems to have an extremely belated and delayed response to problems: It takes him months [if not longer] before he is willing to acknowledge that a particular problem exists, no doubt because he would rather pretend as if these problems, which reflect poorly on his policy-making decisions, do not exist.
Frustrating, indeed.
In a related development, two American soldiers were killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan on Saturday. In a separate attack on Saturday, two suicide attackers blew themselves up near a U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan killing at least 12 people. No American or coalition troops were killed in the attack, but a number of troops were wounded.
In May of this year, I noted that, contrary to President Obama's assertion that the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan had been broken as a result of his [failed] policies, both Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees, upon returning from from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, asserted that the Taliban has grown stronger over the last three years.
But of course, it's easy for Obama to lie when he's got the mainstream media on his side.
"I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care.... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!" Barack Obama in an interivew with the New York Times - April 2009
