Tag Archives: Obama

The ‘Original Intent’ of Benghazi

Originally posted on American Thinker blog

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of the two former Navy SEALs who lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, is demanding answers as to why, if the White House Situation Room was watching Americans die in real time, did they decide to do nothing to stop it? The grieving father’s question: “Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?”

According to Mr. Woods, “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their cries for help,” Woods said, “my son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen [Doherty] risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation.”

In other words, two Navy SEALs were killed doing what they were trained to do. They ignored the command to stand down and chose instead to rush to the aid of those in distress and did so while the State Department and the White House stood by, watching the horror unfold in real time and choosing to do nothing to stop it.

Charles Woods claims that military officials told him that they could have saved those under attack. But Mr. Woods is convinced that someone higher up gave the order not to send backup. Now, the father of the former Navy SEAL is angry, saying, “We need to find out who it was that gave that command — do not rescue them.”

According to Fox News, “Security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound.” In addition, “U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace.” Remember that old Obama adage: better to sodomize, torture, and murder an American Ambassador than dare to violate Libyan airspace.

Nonetheless, in the “fog of war” and in response to prior reports, a CIA spokesperson, under the direction of CIA director and retired General David Petraeus, put out the following statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Obama administration has spent six full weeks blatantly lying, obfuscating, and blaming a low-budget anti-Islamic video for the attack on the U.S. consulate. Now, after dodging questions about whether requests for help were denied by U.S. officials, the Obama administration — more specifically President Barack Obama — is adamantly vowing that his administration will “find out what happened” and discipline those responsible.

Of course he has to say that. However, even if the president didn’t personally instruct security personnel in Benghazi to “stand down,” it’s not at all difficult to imagine an unruffled Obama watching the attack in real time, yawning, executing a sleepy stretch, and saying, “It’s getting late guys, I think I’ll turn in.”

Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that the sanctity of life isn’t exactly a top priority for pro-choice Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his belief that some human lives are disposable. Lest we forget, the president is an avid proponent of born-alive babies being left to die, or as he so aptly put it, “looked after” by the doctor that failed to kill them on the first try.

With that in mind, if a disposable human being were being purposely asphyxiated in a burning American consulate in Benghazi by a band of terrorists, perhaps Barack Obama felt that responding to desperate cries for assistance could “burden the original decision” of some other, more significant political goal. After all, the president did once say that a doctor attending to a suffering infant does “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Therefore, along with Mr. Woods, one can’t help but wonder if some “original decision” might have been undermined if military reinforcements were given the go-ahead to save the lives of the Benghazi four.

But not to worry, though — while consistently evading questions about the tragedy prior to Election Day, Barack Obama is about the business of assuring the American public that “We’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but we’re also going to make sure we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

Wow! Coincidentally, that is exactly what a concerned American public is planning to do too, Mr. President. At all costs, the facts will be gathered as to what really happened that ill-fated night in Benghazi, as well as what actions occurred in the White House Situation Room during the seven-hour attack. And rest assured, Mr. President, those who carried out those attacks and anyone who aided and abetted the enemy in the senseless murder of four Americans will be found and brought to justice.

Obama’s Vanishing Lead with Women Voters

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Democratic party likes to portray itself as seeing women as equal to men.  Yet it’s the Democrats who think they can woo female voters by dangling free contraceptives in front of them like a carrot luring a donkey.

For months America has been hearing how it’s President Barack Obama who has the estrogen vote sewn up. Now, according to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, America comes to find out that Mitt Romney is currently leading Barry the Birth Control President in the top battleground states, and the women he thought were willing to sell the country down the river for an IUD are driving that lead.

In 2008, a large contribution to Barack Obama’s 13-point margin of victory came from women swept up in the euphoria of a wave of Oprah Winfrey flag-waving hysteria.  In 2012 it appears that Winfrey and her tear-soaked eyelashes are sitting this one out, and so are all the women who followed her lead.

According to a recent article in USA TODAY entitled Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead, Susan Page writes

“As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney.”

Much to the chagrin of the mainstream media, feminist activist Sandra Fluke, and Obama shills like ingénue Scarlett Johansson and Eva ‘Border Security Expert’ Longoria, “the Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48% while he leads by 12 points among men.”

According to USA TODAY/Gallup Romney now leads among likely voters in the swing states Obama thought he had in the can a few weeks ago. If this keeps up, it looks like Barack Obama is going to have to give away free weed whackers to the fellas just to stay in the running.

These more recent polls are consistent with a national Pew Poll taken after the first presidential debate that showed Barack Obama’s 18-point lead among women had dissolved; leaving him tied 47%-47% with Romney among likely female voters. In addition, married women, who tend to vote Republican, are more enthusiastic this election cycle than unmarried women, who tend to vote Democratic.

Whatever the reason, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake admitted that since his strong performance in the first debate, “In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney.”  According to Ms. Lake, “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney… came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.” Presidential prospects for Mitt Romney have only continued to improve after the second and third debates.

Why? Because as a rule, the fairer sex is generally more discerning and Mitt Romney just doesn’t display the demeanor of guy who would leave a woman “dying on the floor” as Nancy Pelosi predicted he would if he’s elected – quite the contrary.  On the other hand, without those Styrofoam Greek columns, during the first debate in Denver Barack Obama looked too weak and disinterested to aid a woman even if she was “dying on the floor.”

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse also maintains that “The first debate had a significant impact on these voters as they watched it and Governor Romney appeared nothing like the candidate that was essentially a caricature in the advertising by the Obama campaign. It’s these voters who began to realize that the picture being painted of him was not reality.” In the 2012 campaign season, misconceptions about the two candidates are being revealed, especially the hyped-up impression of Barack Obama, who’s turning out to be the world’s emptiest suit.

Suffice it to also say that working women are not impressed by a man who touts signing an equal pay bill while paying his own female staff roughly 18% less than his male staff. Moreover, despite the fact that our “abortion extremist” President is convinced that the way to a girl’s heart is promising free contraceptives and abortion on demand, the truth is that what impresses most women is a confident air of leadership that displays the character traits of strength, stability and security.

Hence, when compared to President Obama’s three debate performances, Mitt Romney’s poised but assertive, polite, take-charge steadiness makes him look like a knight in shining armor to female voters who are clearly paying attention.

In the end, as shocking as it may seem to Barack Obama, it’s the competence and ability to turn the economy around, create jobs, and reestablish national security that mean much more to American women than being outfitted by the White House for a lifetime of sex without consequence.

Ignorance and Incompetence Supersedes Hope and Change

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Recently at the White House Barack Obama solemnly draped Medals of Freedom around the necks of an aging rock star in sunglasses, a Democrat astronaut, a United Farm Worker/chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and a liberal poet who had written him a letter that praised his “keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity,” as well as his “creative imagination which [when] coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.”

It was during that Medal of Freedom ceremony that Barack Obama, while posthumously honoring Georgetown University professor Jan Karski, a Catholic hero of the Polish resistance against Nazi occupiers in World War II, got so befuddled that he once again managed to insult Poland.

With the way Barack Obama is racking up Polish insults, America’s Nobel Peace Prize winner seems determined to offend, forsake, and above all, misrepresent the history of one of America’s long-time allies.

It started when the President went golfing instead of attending the state funeral of President Lech Kaczynski and then blamed his absence on Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull. Soon after, the President decided to sign a treaty with Poland’s archenemy Russia to remove missile shields from – you guessed it – Poland and the Czech Republic.

That slight was followed by Obama’s refusal to present the late Jan Karski’s medal to Soviet Union-defying/Polish Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. Both Jan Karski and Lech Walesa, whom the White House laughably deemed too “political,” shared a “burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation.” Therefore, it made sense that Walesa should attend in Karski’s stead, but “President Obama said no.” Notorious grudge-holder Barack Obama probably barred Walesa from the White House because in 2010 Walesa warned that under the President’s policies the United States was “moving toward socialism.”

Barack Obama then topped off all those affronts by calling the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi concentration camps “Polish Death Camps.”

Recently, in the midst of rebutting what he claims is “Republican bigotry,” the President informed a group of conservative Jewish leaders that his commitment to the Jewish state of Israel should not be questioned because “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish.”

Still, if Barack Obama wants the Jewish community to believe he’s an authority on Judaism, maybe next time before taking to the podium he should at least know the nationality of the proprietors of the concentration camps where millions of Jewish souls lost their lives.

After boasting that some of his best friends are in fact Jewish, Obama implied that he knows more about the religion than any other president because he gained his knowledge from reading.  What the President failed to mention was whether his favorite Jewish author was Elie Wiesel, the author of Night, or his half-brother Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo,whose mother Ruth was Jewish and whose father was a notorious Kenyan atheist with the Muslim name of Barack Obama Sr..

If the President is serious about how he acquired his Jewish expertise, then attending kosher chicken and rendered-poultry-fat barbeques in Chicago and reading The Big Jewish Book for Jews may be all he felt he needed to make him an authority on the subject, which makes one wonder how a man so entrenched in all things Jewish could place “Polish” instead of “Nazi” in front of the words “death camp?”

Nonetheless, at least for the next 158 days, President “Choomwagon” remains front and center on the national stage.  In the meantime, if Barack Obama can’t navigate his way around the “57 states” — give or take — of the nation he leads, how can anyone expect him to keep straight whether Auschwitz was run by Germans or Poles?

So, before getting all apoplectic over the President’s misrepresentation of what was going on in Poland, in the name of fairness let’s show some compassion for a man whose unreleased college transcripts might reveal failing grades in geography.

In addition, while the President may feel comfortable counseling Angela Merkel and the EU on how to boost economic growth by “easing up on fiscal austerity,” it appears that besides being shaky on Poland’s history, global citizen Barack Obama is not all that well-versed on things pertaining to Deutschland, either.

In 2009, one of Obama’s many embarrassing gaffes took place in Strasbourg, France. When referring to the political interaction in Europe being similar to the United States Senate, Obama suggested that Austrians speak “Austrian” when he said that “There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term in Austrian, [is for] wheeling and dealing.”

Note to Obama: there is no term in Austrian for “Machenschaften” because the language of Austria is German, which proves that unless Barack Obama consumed a lot of pierogies in the past and was trained in the fine art of German Slap Dancing, he can’t possibly be as knowledgeable about Poland and Germany as he is about Judaism, thanks all his Jewish buddies in Chicago.

So with very few friends in Poland and given his European geographical and language deficiencies, it should be no shock that as Obama lauded Jan Karski with heartfelt affection he included a jaw-dropping reference that Poles found extremely offensive when he said:

Jan served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II. Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale, and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.

In response to Obama’s “death camp” faux pas, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski quickly responded by declaring that the White House “will apologize” for Obama’s “outrageous” statement (which thus far they have failed to do). Sikorski also lamented the fact that the “Hope and Change” President’s Medal of Freedom ceremony was eclipsed by “ignorance and incompetence,” which was probably not the 2012 campaign slogan Barack Obama had hoped would catch on.

Faux Feminists Declare War on Women

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Presently, in an effort secure the female vote, the very women who pride themselves on preventing gender discrimination are the ones suggesting that a woman’s purpose, life experience, and ability to relate to others hinges solely on whether or not she chooses to work outside the home.  Moreover, according to some, the status of a woman in society is further measured by her husband’s ability to provide for his family.  Therefore, according to that way of thinking, as a husband’s salary increases a stay-at-home wife’s worth diminishes.

One can only suppose that initially, comingling class warfare with gender politics by making 1% of America’s women the object of derision seemed like genius on the left.  If successful, that scheme, together with the concocted Republican war on women, had the potential to secure Barack Obama 99% of the female voting bloc.

However, despite the brilliance of the plan, obstacles are arising because distributing free morning-after pills to promiscuous college students is one thing but Americans, as a whole, do not take kindly to attacking women for being dedicated to hearth and home.

The person currently at the center of a national backlash is Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal obsessed with using the word “faux.” While pointing out that it might have been a faux pas on her part to suggest that financially supportive Republican men “do not support women,” Hilary managed to squeeze in the word “faux” more than once.

It was on Anderson Cooper 360 that Rosen pointed out that affluent stay-at-home mom Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.” Lest we forget, these are the people who define feticide as “privacy.” So, defining the word “work” may not be part of the liberal skill set.

Nevertheless, Hilary’s “never worked a day” comment has been widely condemned all cross the political spectrum. If dividing women into subsets was the original goal of those on the left, prior to attacking Ann Romney for putting her children first maybe Democrats should have taken into consideration the fact that, whether a woman is a mother or not, every person does have a mother.

The White House must have realized that a liberal suggesting that a woman choosing to sacrifice a salaried career to stay home and raise small children isn’t a valid description of a “worker” could threaten the original plan to secure the Friends-of-Fluke vote in November. With that in mind, Barack Obama, the king of “ill-advised comments,” denounced Hilary’s remarks as “ill-advised.”

After being all but thrown under the Planned Parenthood shuttle bus by fellow Democrats for verbalizing what most liberals, both male and female, really think, Hilary Rosen played down the controversy by describing the uproar as — you guessed it — “faux anger.”

Scrambling to make light of the insulting situation, Rosen, who Jay Carney finally admitted visited the White House three dozen times, offered a half-hearted apology by saying “Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all.”

How ironic. In an effort to secure the female vote for Barack Obama, a liberal careerist may have unintentionally overplayed the divisive Democrat hand. Rather than guarantee votes for Obama, the combo of class/gender warfare appears to have set back the left’s “divide and conquer” effort, and from the looks of things it may have even managed to re-galvanize varied groups the left had successfully pitted against each other in the past.

Still, damage control has not curtailed other candid liberal women from speaking out. Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), disregarded Hilary Rosen being censured for her comments and poured salt on a wound the Democrats have been trying to heal for days.

And even though every Democrat from DNC pit bull Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Michelle “Every woman deserves to be respected” Obama have voiced “faux” dissatisfaction with Hilary Rosen making her stay-at-home-moms observation, arbiter of the right to choose and “equality for all women.”  Terry O’Neill, felt it was necessary to underscore Hilary Rosen’s original premise on the misogynist Ed Schultz’ MSNBC  The Ed Show.  Speaking on behalf of women, Terry O’Neill attacked Mrs. Romney for not having to work at a “salaried” job.

The NOW president suggested that because Mitt Romney was successful in business and because his wife chose to “work” inside rather than outside the home, neither Mitt nor Ann have the “kind of life experience” or the “imagination” to relate to what American families go through. Therefore, it’s apparently the opinion of some liberal women that the Romneys are a “faux” American family.

If the left ever hopes to successfully separate Americans into categorical groups that despise one another again, people like Hilary Rosen, Terry ‘NOW’ O’Neill and Maxine Waters (D-CA) — who referred to the presumptive Republican nominee as “Mitt Rot-ney” — had best zip it. However, because they all lack the necessary decorum to do so, it’s highly unlikely they will.

Instead, based on what Democrats esteem, it appears that in 2012 the left is planning to elevate Barack Obama by advancing the notion that living on food stamps, making bi-annual visits to Planned Parenthood, and introducing yourself to people on the welfare line demonstrates the type of valor and visionary status both Mitt and Ann Romney lack.

If liberals are planning to gather unto themselves the votes of women by demeaning stay-at-home mothers and suggesting that raising children limits “life experience” and “imagination,” divide-and-conquer Democrats may be making a huge political mistake.

Try as they might to advance the cause, undisciplined mouthpieces like NOW’s Terry O’Neill and frequent White House visitor Hilary Rosen only underscore the notion that the same Democrats who base the value of human life on a woman’s choice also base a woman’s worth on the size of her paycheck which, quite frankly, sends a message to America that is contrary to the one Democrats originally intended.  And that message is that it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have declared war on women.


Obama Fundraiser: Fashion’s One-Percenters Sell Overpriced Garb to Fellow One-Percenters

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

Just like four years ago, another group of legendary Obama 1 percent supporters have stepped forward to lend a creative hand to help the President raise money for his 2012 bid for reelection. Last time around it was “Runway to Change.” This time the design-for-Obama group effort has been dubbed “Runway to Win.”

Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor that hosted Obama’s supporters in her New York townhouse and who recently co-hosted a $35,000 per person fundraiser at Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s home, is heading up the venture. In the past, Wintour’s tony political functions were attended by the likes of Alicia Keys and $70,000 dinner power couple Coldplay singer Chris Martin and his actress wife, the “suddenly everywhere” Miramax “muse,” Gwyneth Paltrow.

So with Wintour now raising reelection funds, you can just forget the $5 raffle tickets for a hot dog dinner with Barry and Shelley. Instead, the campaign will be hawking designer duds to people who, last time around, were in such dire straits they hoped the new president would fill their gas tank and pay their mortgage.

For her latest effort, Anna Wintour has recruited Hollywood notables, designers, pop and hip-hop artists, and other all-around really rich people to raise money for Barack 2012 by designing overpriced T-shirts, tank tops, scarves, wristlets, and bags to sell at inflated prices to people who, in the midst of an Obama recession, really can’t afford them.

Thus, “Runway to Win” is yet another example that Barack Obama and his helpful circle of elite Hollywood friends and Seventh Avenue designer devotees are all pretty much insulated from reality, out of touch, and oblivious to the plight of the common man.

Recently, in order to make a point that a $40 tax cut is needed in order to feed starving American families, Obama asked the question: “What does $40 Mean to You?” Most Americans were probably thinking warehouse club paper towels and lunch for two at Taco Bell, not $45 T-shirts.

Unlike them, Obama was thinking T-shirts!  Apparently, the budget-minded President is comfortable with Mrs. Jay-Z, barely off the delivery table and out of the special maternity suite with the 10-man security team at Lenox Hill Hospital, designing cotton tee jerseys for impoverished Americans.

Beyonce’s creation stands to pull down a hefty profit for merchandise that’s actually worth no more than $5. For 45 bucks, clotheshorses all along the “Flaws and All” campaign trail, instead of buying groceries, will have a chance to wear a cheap quality “Yes we can… Greater Together” T-shirt.

New mom Beyonce is only one of many slobbering Obama supporters who will be joining forces to produce a trendsetting Barack Obama clothing line for 2012.

Thanks to all the participants, Obama for America supporters will have an opportunity to parade around with an Obama-logo tote bag while wearing clothing that shouts to the world that just because a person’s been unemployed for more than three years doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to four more years of watching Michelle Obama wear $2,000 sundresses.

For most Americans, splurging means shopping at Target. In the meantime, while the 99% eat Spaghetti-Os for dinner, the “Runway to Win” list of designers reads like a Who’s Who of attendees at White House Wednesday-night Kobe-beef Conga/cocktail parties.  The list is a couture catalog of who dresses Mrs. Obama in outfits whose one-year cost, when totaled, tallies to an amount that could save 1.2 million American homes from being foreclosed.

Some of the 22 designers participating in the effort are: Russell Simmons, billionaire business magnate of Def Jam fame; Sean “Diddy” Combs, another billionaire, rapper, and record producer who’s also recognizable by the names Sean John Combs, Puff Daddy, and P. Diddy; and even Tory Burch, the designer of the $500 boots Michelle wore to turn over the White House lawn when instructing Americans on the money-saving benefits of planting an at-home organic vegetable garden.

Many of Michelle Obama’s highbrow clothes designers will also be contributing to the effort: Narciso Rodriguez, Jason Wu, Alexander Wang, Joseph Altuzarra, Rag and Bone, Rachel Roy and Tracy Reese.

For those wanting a “first access pass,” on the tongue-in-cheek “Proudly made in America” campaign blog is the following announcement:

We’re launching something new, and a little different, over the next few weeks: Runway to Win, a collaboration by some of the country’s top fashion designers in support of Obama 2012. In the coming weeks, we’ll be rolling out Obama-inspired designs by everyone from Tracy Reese to Jason Wu to Tory Burch at runwaytowin.com. The details are still under wraps, but sign up for your First Access pass to get updates—and a first look at the new designs. Then invite your friends and family to do the same.

The truth is, any designer invested in Obama winning another term is probably secretly hoping their names will continue to be printed on the tags of what fills Mrs. Obama’s sartorially-stuffed clothes closet.

On the other hand, previous Obama supporters like Donna Karan, who participated in 2008, decided this year their idea of change would be to put Republican customers and capitalism first. Apparently, some decided to bow out because maintaining a customer base means more to them than being introduced by Scarlett Johansson at an Obama 2012 fashion show/fund raiser.

So, while Americans continue to suffer, big-name fashion designers and a diverse group of entrepreneurs like ‘Let’s Move’-Beyonce will be directly involved in “Runway to Win.” And yet, aside from the all the glitter and glamour, in light of 2008’s “Runway to Change,” the whole thing is really a bit scary. Why? Because if “change” is any indication of what four years of “winning” will be like, instead of walking the runway, if Mr. Fashionista manages to win a second term, America will more likely be walking the plank.

Barack’s NASCAR Blues

Originally posted at BIG Government


Update:  Contrary to original report, Kurt Busch is going to White House

During the 2008 presidential campaign NASCAR chairman and CEO Brian France invited candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to a race. John and Cindy graciously attended in New Hampshire, but bicycle-loving Barack was a “no show.”

In an article entitled “Don’t assume all NASCAR equates to Republican,” Raygan Swan concluded that Obama failed to attend because “Obama’s brain trust chose to end associations with NASCAR, because the sport shares the same stereotypes as Republicans.”

Barack Obama’s people must have surmised that point because NASCAR races open with public prayer, are traditionally attended by flag waving, “smokin’ hot [pastor’s] wives” and everyone in attendance enthusiastically sings along to patriotic renditions of the national anthem.

Now, three-plus years later, on a typical Wednesday-is-Funday-at-the-White House, the President has plans to honor NASCAR champion/John McCain supporter Jimmie Johnson and the “11 other Chase drivers from last year in a White House ceremony.”

Ironically, in a week where scheduling problems are widespread, “nearly half of the 2010 playoff contenders won’t be there.” NASCAR claims that the five drivers – “Greg Biffle, Kurt Busch, Carl Edwards, Kevin Harvick and Tony Stewart – will not be attending the White House visit due to ‘schedule conflicts.’”

In light of the jobs speech/Republican debate/NFL Football kerfuffle, who more than Obama should understand how schedules can upset the best-made plans? Apparently he doesn’t, because the President who lacked consideration for NASCAR in the past has become a schedule-stickler, demanding a level of consideration from others that oftentimes he refuses to extend to anyone else.

Between unemployment, the economy, and the general mood of the nation, Barack must feel like a political race car driver in an out-of-control vehicle with a stuck accelerator, traveling 200 miles per hour on Talladega’s Super Speedway.

To add insult to injury, first the President was banned from holding a joint session of Congress speech on Wednesday night, where he planned to tout his plan for job creation during a week where, for the first time in 66 years, it was announced that job growth was 0% for the month. Following that initial humiliation, Obama was then forced to postpone until the following night and is now scheduled to address a distracted audience anxiously waiting to see the Green Bay Packers challenge the New Orleans Saints.

Now we come to find out that earlier that same day, the President was dissed by a quintet of NASCAR drivers who probably remember the President declining the invitation to a NASCAR race in 2008, and who would rather airbrush a vehicle than meet with Barry.

In the future, Barack Obama should spare himself the embarrassment and restore Wednesday to its original function as the night he and Michelle originally designated for weekly cocktail/Conga parties.

The White House’s response to having the invite declined by five guys in sunglasses and colorful jumpsuits was at best a tad off-putting. Tongue-in-cheek, a testy spokesperson acknowledged that “They must be very busy people.”

Following up with a defensive rebuke, a White House spokesperson maintained that “Regardless of one’s political views, the president is still the president – and an opportunity to speak with the leader of the free world is a rare and special one.”

Snippy, snide and sarcastically chiding the NASCAR no-shows, an irritated Obama advocate argued: “You’d think whatever photo shoots or sponsor appearances these drivers have lined up on Wednesday afternoon – if that’s indeed the reason – could be rescheduled. After all, this is the President of the United States we’re talking about here.” Ouch!

The truth is that, while not justifiable, White House causticity is understandable, especially after being barked off the hydrant after attempting to mark political territory by disregarding the Republican debate and scheduling a speech that should have been given weeks ago.

Either way, it’s not surprising that a typically patriotic group would turn down the President’s invite, but what is a little strange is that a White House that so recently had a very public struggle with a scheduling issue would react in such a huffy manner to an identical excuse.

Nonetheless, honorees Jimmie Johnson, Denny Hamlin, Jeff Gordon, Kyle Busch, Clint Bowyer, Jeff Burton and Matt Kenseth will attend. For the other five, if during his Thursday night job-creation speech the President should happen to mention creating jobs for car mechanics, in the future it might be wise to know who’s hanging around the pit stop, tightening the lug nuts on the cars of the drivers who chose to respectfully decline the President’s invitation.

Obama presser: holding other people’s feet to the fire – American Thinker – May 29, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

President Obama’s transparency was on display during a long overdue press conference to address the Gulf Coast oil spill.  In fact, so on display, that Barack invited the nation into the Obama home to observe morning routines and listen in on private father-daughter sharing sessions.

Obama, although a stickler for transparency, oftentimes refuses to take questions.  However, yesterday the President came to the East Room “angry and frustrated,” ready to address the situation in the Gulf with full disclosure and accessibility, as well as share intimate grooming conversations he has with daughter Malia.

At the start of the press conference Obama exhibited the strength of leadership that comes from a President adept at holding other people’s feet to the fire for things like natural disasters and unfortunate accidents. Obama emphatically stated, “BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimized by this tragedy.”

Obama’s pre-question statements addressed government involvement, technicalities, responsibility, environmental ramifications and global cooperation.

Then the President got to the meat of the matter and spoke on behalf of Americans vacationing. Preparing for a fun Memorial Day weekend in Chicago himself, Obama encouraged beachcombers to hit the sand despite the six-mile wide, potentially toxic plume snaking toward the coastline.

The President reminded Americans to not let anything stand in the way of bi-weekly vacations.

Heading north to Chicago for an extended weekend, Obama said, “Americans could help by continuing to visit the communities and beaches of the Gulf Coast… except for three beaches in Louisiana, all of the Gulf’s beaches are open. They are safe and they are clean.”

So far, Obama has not walked on or parted the water, at least not publicly. However, the president did propose steps ensuring, “a catastrophe like this never happens again.”  Instead of promoting onshore drilling, which doesn’t leak into water and cause environmental mayhem, the president chose to not let this crisis go to waste and instead proposed further government regulation through tragedy exploitation.

Obama also pitched clean energy and tweaked Sarah Palin by demeaning the motto, “Drill baby drill.”

The President openly and transparently answered all kinds of questions, except those having to do with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa).  Sestak accused the White House of attempting to bribe him with a job in the Obama administration in return for dropping out of a Pennsylvania Democratic senate primary.

Then, in an effort to add a sense of poignancy to the gravity of the oil spill the President invited America into the White House family residence. America caught a glimpse into a steamy mirror where historic greatness, adorned in a white T-shirt, lathers his face with shaving cream.

Carrying the weight of an environmental disaster on her young shoulders, supposedly little Malia knocked softly and poked her head through Papa’s bathroom door.  Malia asked her father as he, this one time, lifted his chin to shave under his neck and said, “Did you plug the hole yet Daddy?”

Obama shared the story to stress the point that even children recognize the Gulf Coast oil spill is  “fouling the earth.” Then Barry further enforced Malia’s sentiments with off-the-cuff personal impressions gleaned from being “Hawaii raised,” which gave insight into Obama’s past and raises a whole host of questions Barack Obama would rather avoid.

Presidential Paramour


The world watched the first British citizen in 300 years marry an heir to the British throne on July 28, 1981.  Reminiscent of that day, the world celebrated the first African-American president sworn into office in a historic American election. Obama’s inauguration was the closest thing to the wedding of Charles and Diana ever witnessed this side of the pond. The event included all the pomp; pageantry and romance to earn it the title of, Camelot Part II. Just as, “the fairytale romance of Charles and Di, and the grand pageantry that, by binding them in holy matrimony, secured the future of the British monarchy” — Obama’s Presidency held the promise of hope and change for America’s future.

Yet, despite the historic nature of both events, sadness prevailed.  During our nation’s betrothal, America was so besotted by the cult of personality that we failed to realize Obama, like the Prince of Wales, wasn’t all he was cracked up to be.

When Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office, for all intents and purposes, he married the Presidency.  In doing so, he committed himself to defending, protecting and preserving the Constitution as if it was his bride. Obama would have been better sitting in a pew with Camilla Parker Bowles then participating in a disingenuous ceremony whose vow he never intended to keep.

When Charles married Diana he wore Camilla’s cufflinks to keep her close to him in spirit.  Similarly, Obama took the oath but clutched close to his heart were the collective doctrines that have proven to be his first love.  On Inauguration Day Obama committed to “…preserve, protect and defend” a Constitution we now know he fundamentally believes is a “flawed” document.  If this were matrimony, perjury would be grounds for annulment.

Being from the royal line of Henry the VIII, Charles was well aware a ceremonial step was a necessary means to providing an heir.  Off spring drove the Prince to the altar; after his sons were born…he cast off his bride. Obama accomplished the goal of becoming successor to power by bamboozle not bloodline. What drew Obama to the Presidency was the potential to circumvent the Constitution as a precursor to insure a legacy where socialistic seed produces fairness and shared equity. Like Charles forsook Diana, Obama is presently in the process of, “…breaking free from the essential constraints that were placed by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Twenty-eight years earlier, the Prince of Wales bumbled his vow to share ‘his’ earthly goods with Lady Spencer.  He then put her ring on the wrong finger and forgot to kiss the bride.  Obama, on the other hand, firmly planted the kiss of death on the Constitution by prophetically misspeaking his vow to “execute the office of president to the United States, faithfully.”  To date, and to our detriment, Obama has executed everything he swore to defend.  Barry has been as faithful as Charles meeting Camilla for secretive trysts, never missing an opportunity to ravage the Constitution.

Through the years Obama in no way made it a secret that he believed, “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”    His true intentions have reduced the President to a Charles-type groom who marries and then, on the honeymoon, spurns the mate he had no desire for prior to the wedding.  Yet, it was a less than perfect Charles that crawled into a virginal marriage bed. Likewise, Obama stained with the sin of socialism attempts to defile the purity of the Constitution by injecting his rabid ideology into our democracy.

Our wanton President is smitten by a whorish socialistic system and is guilty of cavorting with radicals since youth.  And so our nation eagerly engaged a politically licentious groom. On Election Day, America was so busy stuffing yards of tulle into a glass coach we willingly overlooked Obama’s leftist past. Barry Sotoero came to the altar to be inaugurated, breathless and disheveled from promiscuous associations with ACORN, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Gamaliel Foundation, Bill Ayers, the New Party, and the Arab American Action Network and many, many more.

Throughout the 80’s, Charles brazenly carried on his sordid affair with Camilla.  In the same way, the third entity of socialism is presently threatening fidelity to a Constitution Obama made an oath to uphold. It is becoming apparent that Obama came to this union from the get-go with two-timing intentions to destroy and attack the tenets of democracy by “…entering into issues of redistribution of wealth, and … basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Why can’t we recognize betrayal when we see it? The world watched for two decades as adultery, infidelity and deceitfulness destroyed the storybook marriage of Charles and Diana and eventually destroyed the Princess’ life.  British tabloids reported that,  “The night before his wedding to Lady Diana Spencer Charles and a ‘blonde woman’ spent the night on the Royal Train. Diana rightly guessed it was Camilla, but she hoped Charles would eventually grow to love her and forget his old flame.”

America, like Diana, was deceived into believing that Barack Obama would eventually grow to love liberty and forget the flame of socialism that stole his youthful heart. Like Charles with Camilla, Barack Obama remains fiercely loyal to his first love. The promise of the fairytale blinded a naïve nation to willingly disregard what was so painfully obvious.

Now that the honeymoon is over, its time to check the Presidents collar for lipstick stains because his paramour is surveying the Constitution’s residence awaiting the directive to move in. Obama’s actions, policies, statements and czars indicate that he desires to cast out Liberty and move into the palace a mistress whose shadow can be seen hiding lately in every corner of the halls of power.

Charles’ many years of public philandering caused Diana to meltdown on the global stage.  His perversions slowly became accepted as the world was desensitized to the Prince’s faithlessness. After Diana’s untimely death the British eventually justified Charles replacing the Princess of Wales with his consort.  America should take heed as czars wrest power from Congress and government seizes the means of production, undermines Capitalism, the free enterprise system and democracy.  We like the Brits are in danger of being slowly desensitized to our beloved Constitution being made to live in a political Kensington Palace, while socialism resides in bed beside a presidential prince.

At the royal wedding ceremony Lady Diana Spencer broke with tradition by refusing to promise to obey Charles. In keeping with that independent spirit, hope endures that the American people will decline submission to a disloyal President who refuses to keep his vow to our founding documents and remain faithful to our Constitution. As a young nation hopefully we’ll evict the adulterer from the main quarters before America suffers an end where Obama lives in the White House with his very own Camilla, while our Constitution, like the Princess of Wales, lays six-feet under in a cold and lonely grave.

Obama’s Hampton University Hula – American Thinker Blog – October 19, 2009

Slide1Originally posted at American Thinker

Who better to form a racial tolerance coalition than two native Hawaiians — one a White beauty queen from a historically Black university, the other an African-American President of a historically White Executive Office?

The saga began when Nikole Churchill, a 22-year-old, Asian-Italian was crowned homecoming queen of the traditionally Black college, Hampton University.  After donning the sash and balancing the rhinestone diadem upon her head it appears her coronation didn’t sit well with the student body because, “the vast majority of students at Hampton are Black … some worry Churchill isn’t representative of the typical Hampton student.” Appearing at a Howard University football game with her royal entourage, “Miss Hampton University” was jeered.

Barack Obama exudes such welcoming approachability that even young, female, Asian-Italian, nursing students, attending Black colleges feel camaraderie with him.  In an open letter to the President, Nikole appealed to him for help saying, “I feel as though you could relate to my situation.”

Of her win, Nikole told the President that, “It would be much easier to say that possibly some were not accepting of the news because I wasn’t the most qualified contestant; however, the true reason for the disapproval was because of the color of my skin.  I am not African-American.”  No doubt, even Barry would have to agree that admitting you’re not the most qualified for a job could lighten the load of expectation. In addition, who qualifies more than Obama to advise on the dilemma of being awarded a position based merely on skin color?

Nikole invited Obama to come to Hampton University to speak to the student body about how to, “…stop focusing so much on the color of skin.” Asking Obama to encourage people to disregard skin color and to focus only on qualifications is on par with asking Al Sharpton to speak on the dangers of using too much hairspray. During the run up to the election wasn’t it Obama who was obliged to remind supporters that his opponents were, “…going to try to make you afraid of me” saying, “He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s Black?”

According to students Nicole is not a true Hampton University representative because she attended a satellite campus in Virginia Beach. Just like Nikole, Obama “came out of nowhere, with no connections.” A well-spoken community organizer with questionable associations from an outpost in Chicago–Obama might as well have come from Nikole’s  “10th floor high-rise, where students study nursing and hotel management.”

Nikole wowed the pageant judges with the hula.  Bedecked with a huge pink flower tucked behind her undeserving ear she cinched the deal the same way Obama hulas his way out of any challenge to his credibility with astounding oratory that rivals the technical skill of combining the kaholo step with ami hip roll.

Like Miss Churchill, Barry isn’t handling the fact that coherent Americans view him as nothing more than a college kid in a hula skirt. Like a heckling gaggle of disgruntled Hampton University students Americans are beginning “…doubt Obama’s abilities to represent.”  Our historic American President has been reduced to the status of a rebuffed Hampton University beauty queen viewing himself as, “…the victim of sinister domestic forces beyond his reach.” Lately, at public forums Obama snivels and whimpers so much that even those in the press believe “Poor President Obama” thinks, “Everybody is picking on him.”

In the end the letter from the ingénue may end up benefiting Obama.  Always eager to campaign, maybe he will buck up and join the determined homecoming queen as she, “…plans to be at as many events as possible so she can meet the students she now represents.” As second half of a powerful miscellany duo, Barack can join the homecoming queen on her crusade to utilize the hula to persuade everyone to stop the negativity – disregard lack of qualifications and instead “…be proud of the changes our nation is making towards accepting diversity.”

Precluding the Right to Paternal Protection

obama_hawaiiSigmund Freud said, “I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.”

Fatherly dedication to the safety and well being of children is a need that offspring have and a duty that all fathers possess regardless of rank or station.   In an interview in the June 21, 2009 edition of Parade Magazine the President shared insights on his relationship with his daughters in an article entitled, Obama: I have been an imperfect father’ the commander in chief reflects on what good parenting means to him.

In the commentary, the President expressed gratitude for the opportunity to be a protective presence in the lives of his girls.  He articulated that, “As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well – but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling.  That is when they need us most.”

Obama exposed his own childhood pain by saying, “In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence – both in my life and in the lives of others.” He went onto share his gratefulness for the unhindered opportunity to pursue a level of paternity he lacked in his own life. Aware of the negative influence an absentee father has on a child’s development, one wonders why Obama cultivates paternal absence by supporting extreme anti-parental notification laws that affect parent-child relationships?

Obama fluently stated what he believed to be essential in successful parenting. Then contradicting his own decree he raises bureaucratic obstacles restricting fatherly rights to the protective standards he sets forth. On the surface the President convincingly articulates the need for men to be responsible for their children’s security.  Yet, beneath the poignancy of his words lies the inescapable paradox of Obama granting personal father-child bonding privileges to himself, while precluding other fathers that same right.

Liberalism advances a conflicted caste system; one set of standards is applicable to the political elite and another in the lives of those they govern. Obama expresses that it is incumbent upon fathers to “…set limits and expectations” for children. Then, he allocates government as a surrogate parent, which undercuts what ought to exist exclusively between father and child.

In his brief stint in the United States Senate, Obama voted against a law that would stop the underhanded practice of taking a minor girl from a state with a parental notification law to one that doesn’t to obtain a secret abortion.

The President expressed in the Parade interview that he “…came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill.” Yet, Obama’s support of excessively liberal abortion policy fosters unintentional desertion by disallowing inherent parental rights to notification. Denying both fathers and mothers the right to support and protect their children, “…when they [are] needed the most,” bestows on government the authorization to fill a “hole” by proxy, which even Obama admits bureaucrats are incapable of satisfying.

Lamenting lost opportunities, the President plaintively shared with readers, “I was missing moments of my daughters’ lives that I’d never get back.  It is a loss I will never fully accept.” This is a stunning statement from someone who enthusiastically separates parents from children through legislation that willingly promotes devastating loss to and in innocent lives.

Obama gasses up the bus that shuttles minors across state lines to abortion mills, while his daughters remain safely sheltered in the shadow of his protective wings. Recently, Obama requested his children be granted time alone during a family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.  Agreed, his little girls shouldn’t be dragged into the political arena and must be provided the normalcy every child deserves. In an effort to safeguard them, Obama, “…asked for privacy for… 8-year-old Sasha and 11-year-old Malia.

As a nurturing dad, Obama stood between his girls and the world, protecting them as well he should.  This is both his obligation and their birthright. Yet, while protecting his own daughters from being photographed while eating ice cream, Obama touts an abortion voting record imperiling minors and depriving parents the power to shield their children from things more detrimental than having a photograph taken at Dairy Queen.

Barack Obama’s exhortation that, “…we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one,” is at best, both duplicitous and disingenuous.  He encourages fathers to exhibit valor in shielding their children from harm.  Then, by voting “No, on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions,” proceeds to legislatively undermine the ability to follow the protective suggestions he proposes.

If Obama wants to further the cause of fatherhood, rather than advocating for extreme pro-choice policies, he should support men having the right to protect their own daughters in a time of crisis. Moreover, from a paternal perspective, he might consider rethinking his support of legislation, which has neither the safety of children, nor their well-being in mind.

Barack Obama should restrain from pontificating on the obligations of fathers and instead, as a concerned parent himself, consider disassociating from the liberal agenda he presently promotes, which threatens everyone’s daughters, including his own.

%d bloggers like this: