America is broke, but Obama has found a way to gives $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas. Wonder how much of it will turn into weapons? Obama is the worst President in history. Loser.
From CNN:
The United States will contribute $400 million in development aid to the Palestinian territories and work with Israel to loosen its embargo on Gaza, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.
Obama's announcement came after White House talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The money will be used to build housing, schools, water and health care systems in both the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.
Obama called the situation in Gaza "unsustainable," and said the United States would work with its European allies, Egypt and Israel to find a "new conceptual framework" for the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
"We agree Israelis have right to prevent arms from coming into Gaza," Obama said. But he said "new mechanisms" were needed to allow more goods to reach the territory - and he repeated that the long-term solution was a permanent deal creating "a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israel that is secure."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Who Exactly is in the White House
The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz nails it with her editorial today. President Obama pretended successfully to 'of the people' during the campaign. Clearly now we know he is not of the people. He is not of America. He is not for America. He is for himself and his ideology. Period.
From Ms. Rabinowitz's editorial:
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe...
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
From Ms. Rabinowitz's editorial:
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe...
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Helen Thomas Resigns
Helen Thomas resigned/retired after yesterday's blog was posted.
While I think Helen Thomas should be able to a bigot if she wants to, she did not belong as member of the White House press corps. It is a very selected and coveted position, and Americans deserve a more competent journalist than Thomas. I don't want to shut her up, she can run a blog, write for a publication etc., but an anti-semite does not belong as a member of White House press corps.
Good riddance. She was always overtly liberal in her questioning, and often completely off base. The only time she asked liberal leaders a tough question was when she thought the leadership wasn't being liberal enough.
While I think Helen Thomas should be able to a bigot if she wants to, she did not belong as member of the White House press corps. It is a very selected and coveted position, and Americans deserve a more competent journalist than Thomas. I don't want to shut her up, she can run a blog, write for a publication etc., but an anti-semite does not belong as a member of White House press corps.
Good riddance. She was always overtly liberal in her questioning, and often completely off base. The only time she asked liberal leaders a tough question was when she thought the leadership wasn't being liberal enough.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Helen Thomas Should Be Fired
Anti-semite Helen Thomas must be fired. This was no random outburst, she's always been an extreme leftist who's pro Hamas and a bigot.
From the Media Research Center:
Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas was captured on video telling an interviewer that Israeli Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany and Poland. The May 27 exchange with Rabbi David Nesenoff was posted June 3 at RabbiLive.com and featured at the top of the Drudge Report on Friday and Saturday.
Thomas has not been shy about expressing her left-wing views and reliably anti-Israel opinions since she became a White House “columnist” in 2000, after a lengthy career as UPI’s straight news White House correspondent. “I censored myself for 50 years....Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” she boasted in 2002. But a review shows Thomas was expressing solidly liberal opinions even as a supposedly neutral reporter.
From the Media Research Center:
Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas was captured on video telling an interviewer that Israeli Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany and Poland. The May 27 exchange with Rabbi David Nesenoff was posted June 3 at RabbiLive.com and featured at the top of the Drudge Report on Friday and Saturday.
Thomas has not been shy about expressing her left-wing views and reliably anti-Israel opinions since she became a White House “columnist” in 2000, after a lengthy career as UPI’s straight news White House correspondent. “I censored myself for 50 years....Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” she boasted in 2002. But a review shows Thomas was expressing solidly liberal opinions even as a supposedly neutral reporter.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Guiliani Rates Obama's Gulf Oil Response
fHere is Rudy Guiliani rating Obama's oil spill leadership. Best part is when Rudy talks about the "crimes" BP has committed according to the Obama administration. Guiliani basically says that if the BP organization has committed crimes, why is Obama letting them handle the leak? Ah, logic the domain of conservatism.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Could Blago Trial Bring Down Obama?
Dare to dream, fellow patriots. Sestak, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Israel, gulf oil spill...Blago could be the final nail in the coffin. The American Spectator is already speculating that Obama could be so damaged after the 2010 elections that even Democrats will call for his resignation in 2014.
From the Politico:
The Blagojevich defense team contends the president can clear up inconsistencies in a portion of the case offered by prosecutors that deals with interactions a labor union official is reported to have had with Obama, Jarrett and Blagojevich during several days in early November 2008.
Defense lawyers say Obama sent a labor union official to make the case for Jarrett with Blagojevich. But Blagojevich himself offered the most exonerating assessment of Obama’s role, according to the prosecutors’ account.
“Blagojevich said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat, but ‘they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F[—-] them,’” reads the juiciest passage in the original complaint against Blagojevich.
But there are at least a couple of angles that could arm Obama’s political opponents if they are explored in depth during the trial: Convicted Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko — a onetime Obama supporter — could testify, thrusting his name back into the headlines.
In addition, any holes in the White House story, as laid out in a memo developed by incoming White House Counsel Greg Craig in December 2008, could tarnish the image the president has sought to build as a proponent of transparency.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38015.html#ixzz0piNIwEyc
From the Politico:
The Blagojevich defense team contends the president can clear up inconsistencies in a portion of the case offered by prosecutors that deals with interactions a labor union official is reported to have had with Obama, Jarrett and Blagojevich during several days in early November 2008.
Defense lawyers say Obama sent a labor union official to make the case for Jarrett with Blagojevich. But Blagojevich himself offered the most exonerating assessment of Obama’s role, according to the prosecutors’ account.
“Blagojevich said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat, but ‘they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F[—-] them,’” reads the juiciest passage in the original complaint against Blagojevich.
But there are at least a couple of angles that could arm Obama’s political opponents if they are explored in depth during the trial: Convicted Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko — a onetime Obama supporter — could testify, thrusting his name back into the headlines.
In addition, any holes in the White House story, as laid out in a memo developed by incoming White House Counsel Greg Craig in December 2008, could tarnish the image the president has sought to build as a proponent of transparency.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38015.html#ixzz0piNIwEyc
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Shows Leadership Obama Lacks
President Obama couldn't suck enough. We are officially leaderless in Washington D.C. Thank God for people like Bobby Jindal.
From NECN:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana's marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.
Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.
"It is so much better for us. We don't want oil on one inch of Louisiana's coastline, but we'd much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.
The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.
"We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it," Jindal said.
"We can either fight battle -- we can fight this oil -- on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option. "Every day we're not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil."
The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.
"It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here," Gov. Jindal said. "Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies."
From NECN:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana's marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.
Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.
"It is so much better for us. We don't want oil on one inch of Louisiana's coastline, but we'd much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.
The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.
"We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it," Jindal said.
"We can either fight battle -- we can fight this oil -- on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option. "Every day we're not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil."
The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.
"It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here," Gov. Jindal said. "Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)