It has been Barack Obama’s contention that the role the United States is playing in the bombing of Libya is now so small it doesn’t constitute “hostilities” and therefore he doesn’t have to seek the authorization of the Congress to wage war on this sovereign nation. Barack Obama has claimed that the United States is now simply providing support for these bombing missions (which coincidentally just happen to be falling near Ghadaffi’s compound) and is not engaged–with the exception of some unmanned drone attacks–in the actual bombings.
Not so fast, says this article in the Air Force Times:
Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.
U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement.
The article goes on to say that since the end of March the United States has flown over 800 strike sorties, and that of those 132 have dropped bombs on Libya. It is interesting to note that these are the numbers since the United States relinquished the lead and turned over operation control to NATO to assume a “support” role.
Gunrunner: Weapons found at crime scenes in Arizona
Anyone who has closely followed the Gunrunner scandal knows the story: The United States government approved of and ordered certain gun dealers on the Mexican border to sell weapons to known Mexican criminals in the hope that these guns would lead the government to high level Mexican drug lords, but the United States lost track of those guns and now a border patrol agent is dead. At least that is the official story; I have been of the belief that the federal government intended to use drug violence at the border as a crisis which should not go to waste, and they intended to use this crisis in order to implement gun control laws on the law abiding citizens of this great nation. Hillary Clinton blamed Americans for the Mexican drug violence when she stated:
Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians
This statement by Hillary Clinton was the first salvo–in my opinion–in an effort to enact gun control laws on law abiding Americans; little did we know at that time that the United States was sanctioning these gun sales and was actively involved, and duplicitous, in the illegal sale of guns which were being smuggled across the border, possibly as a means to further the gun control debate here in America. She is right on one count however; these sales did lead to the death of at least one American–border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with illegal aliens while he was equipped with a beanbag gun. The federal government lost track of the weapons they were supposed to be tracking, and that led to Brian Terry’s murder.
Many of us who oppose the president have grown tired of his arrogant, condescending, and insulting attitude with those he disagree with. During his press conferences, and other unscripted events, he comes off as a self-centered narcissist who is bewildered at the notion that there is anyone in the country who does not see his greatness. In other words, he sounds like a dick much of the time.
It is one thing for me–or others who disagree so vehemently with the president and his policies–to make these accusations for often it can seem simply as sour grapes, but it is another thing altogether when liberal elitists start to come around and see exactly how arrogant and condescending Barack Obama can appear to be.
And that is exactly what happened this morning when Mark Halperin stated that he thought Barack Obama came off as “a dick” in yesterday’s press conference. He has since been suspended by MSNBC for daring to speak out against the liberal messiah. Welcome to the club Mark; Barack Obama’s attitude is nothing new, but your eyes have been opened. You were simply blinded by Barack Obama because you agree with him on matters of ideology. There was nothing different about Barack Obama’s attitude during the press conference, you have finally caught up to the truth.
During the press conference Barack Obama’s arrogance was on full display: from comparing the Congress to his children, to claiming that the Congress was irresponsible for preparing to take a vacation even as he planned his next vacation, to claiming that he was too busy with Greece and Osama bin Laden to get involved in domestic affairs, to passing the buck for the debts his policies have thrust upon future generations of Americans.
Growing tired of Barack Obama’s rhetoric and vitriol with no positive results though actions, this was finally more than Mark Halperin could take and he spoke his mind, and for that he was suspended. Sooner or later the mainstream media has got to stop making excuses for Barack Obama and will have to look at results. We may be seeing the first signs that the media can no longer ignore Barack Obama’s failures, both in policies and in personality. Barack Obama promised to bring America together–remember the whole “there are no red states, there are no blue states, there is only a United States” spiel–yet he has been more successful at dividing the nation than he has been on anything else he has tried.
Mark Halperin finally realized this, when will the rest of the liberal media?
Timothy Geithner may step down as Treasury Secretary
It is being reported–and it is being denied by Timothy Geithner–that Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary is contemplating stepping down once the debate over raising the debt ceiling is completed. Rumors of this magnitude are not generally made up out of thin air, and while Timothy Geithner is denying the report, it seems likely to me that he is indeed considering the possibility of leaving the Obama regime shortly.
If Timothy Geithner does indeed resign this will result in the total transformation of the Obama regime’s original economic team, and judging by the results so far it seems to be a desirable and not unwarranted change in light of the failure of Barack Obama’s economic policies.
Barack Obama’s economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster and it is time for a change, the American people realized this during the mid-term elections and set out to effect change. The Republicans in the Congress are now trying to give the American people the change they desired but they are meeting resistance from the Democrats; Timothy Geithner’s resignation would be just the change that is needed in Washington, and a sign that the American people are winning this battle.
Of course, the change will not be complete for the man in charge of the economy will still be in the White House and he will simply appoint a replacement who holds the same economic views as he does. The only way to truly change the economic mindset in Washington will be to change the president, and turnover the Senate, but that is still two years away, so for now we will have to be content with this indictment on Barack Obama’s economic policies.
Heading into the election cycle it would seem as if this would give the Republicans a golden opportunity to hammer Barack Obama and his economic policies as there will be two high profile confirmation hearings scheduled right about the same time the election cycle hits full gear. Americans are growing more and more dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s economic policies and these hearings will give the Republicans the spotlight and they should be able to make hay over the fact that Barack Obama has lost his whole economic team when Americans are in desperate need of a leader on this issue.
Barack Obama deflects the blame for the debt, saying “these are debts Congress ran up”
While talking about the possibility of the the United States defaulting on her debt if the debt ceiling were not raised, Barack Obama subtly deflected the blame by stating, “these are debts Congress ran up” thusly implying that these debts are the fault of the Congress and that he was simply an innocent bystander.
I would ask the president if he vetoed these bills when they came to his desk, or if he signed these debts into law? I think we all know that while the Congress appropriated these monies, that the president approved these debts when he signed them into law. And let us not forget that it was Joe Biden who declared the United States had to spend more money in order to avoid bankruptcy, so this irresponsible ideology is rampant in the upper levels of the Obama regime. The Democrat controlled Congress was simply doing what Barack Obama wanted them to do. Now that the United States is in a fiscal crisis he is looking to pass the buck back toward the Congress.
This comment shows an unwillingness from Barack Obama to lead on this issue as the country reaches critical mass, and the president even scoffed at the notion that he needed to provide more leadership on this issue; even going so far as to claim he found this notion “amusing.”
And I have to say, I am very amused when I start hearing comments about ‘well the President needs to show more leadership on this.’
He even went so far as to claim that the Congress wasn’t acting like leaders:
“Now’s the time to go ahead and make the tough choices, that’s why they’re called leaders,”
According to Barack Obama the Congress isn’t willing to make tough choices and is avoiding the leadership role even as he suffers from the same symptoms. After all, the very notion that we are even debating the debt ceiling is a sign of failed leadership from the very top:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.
Barack Obama made those comments when the Congress was debating raising the debt ceiling in 2006; at the time Barack Obama was a member of the Congress and certainly he was not talking about either himself or his colleagues in the Congress, he was talking about President Bush. Yet now that he is president he doesn’t see this debate as a symptom of his failed policies and lack of leadership. While one he declared that the buck stops here, he is now looking to pass the buck onto the Congress.
The latest battle in the fight against Obamacare, and the individual mandates, has gone in favor of the Obama regime when a Cincinnati court declared that the federal government could order people to purchase healthcare insurance. This is a big victory for the Obama regime for two reasons: Firstly, this was the first case heard at the federal appeals court level, and as such was a huge victory for the insidious legislation, and secondly; because a Republican appointed judge sided with a Democrat appointed judge to hand the Obama regime this victory. It was predicted that the individual mandates would be ruled unconstitutional in this court.
Even while siding with the majority Justice Sutton, a George W Bush appointee, voiced his concerns with the mandate he voted in favor of:
The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far, but it also may offer one more example of a policy necessity giving birth to an inventive (and constitutional) congressional solution
It seems odd that this justice would indicate that the healthcare mandate was “a bridge too far” in one sentence, while also claiming that this may be a necessary and “inventive” congressional solution to a problem. It also seems as if this statement would open the door to other “inventive” congressional solutions on a myriad of other perceived problems down the road; where will the nation of acceptable congressional solutions end in regards to a person’s personal decisions?
Judge Sutton’s verdict on this issue is crucial moving forward for other judges will look upon his statement when coming to their own conclusions moving forward; will they side with the “bridge too far” aspect of his statement, or will they side with the “inventive congressional solution” side of his statement?
This is a bothersome decision as this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, but the fight is not over until the final appeal is made to the Supreme Court. It looks like this will be a 5-4 decision when all is said and done, but right now it is unclear which side the Supreme Court decision will come down on.
Did Barack Obama violate federal election laws by announcing a raffle while in the White House?
It is being reported in this story that Barack Obama may have violated federal election laws by filming a video for his re-election campaign in the White House.
In the video, President Obama promotes a “Dinner With Barack” raffle. To participate in the contest you need to donate at least $5 to the president’s re-election campaign and your name will be raffled off to enjoy a dinner with the President, airfare and accommodations included
The White House is denying that this was a violation of election laws because the “raffle” is not considered to be fundraising.
A presidential spokesman said that the video does not constitute fundraising under the law, that portions of the White House can legally be used for that purpose anyway, and that previous presidents have done so
I find it hard to believe that a “raffle” in which the proceeds go to a re-election campaign is not considered fundraising under federal law, but taking Barack Obama at his word, and conceding the point that portions of the White House can legally be used to fundraise just in case it is ruled that this does constitute fundraising, does this make it any less offensive?
Even if no laws were broken it is still in extremely bad taste to conduct a national raffle anywhere in the White House and should be considered beneath the office of the president. Think about this for a minute; Barack Obama has decided to hold a raffle for the privilege of having dinner with the president, and the announcement was made in the White House. Is this really the level he has stooped to in his bid to hold onto power?
I can’t even put into words how disgraceful I find this to be.
Gunrunner: The ATF fires the Gunrunner whistleblower
Operation Gunrunner is an expanding scandal which in the end my prove to be bigger than the Iran-Contra scandal, yet as the media ignores this story the scandal is imploding all around Eric Holder as he looks to find a scapegoat to take the fall for him. Eric Holder thought he found that fall guy in Kenneth Melson, but Darrell Issa said this wasn’t good enough because the scandal went higher than the acting head of the ATF. And then came the news that Kenneth Melson was refusing to resign because he did not want to be the fall guy, and in fact was looking forward to testifying in front of the Congress but has not yet been granted permission by the DOJ to testify.
This all reeks of a coverup of massive proportions being conducted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department in an effort to protect either himself or Barack Obama, and this story took yet another turn today with the news that the ATF is going to fire the man who blew the whistle on this scandal, Vince Cefalu.
Vince Cefalu says he was served with termination papers last week, and he says it’s because he’s been so vocal about ATF mismanagement, past and present. He was one of the whistleblowers who helped publicize the ATF’s role in allowing thousands of guns to be purchased by associates of Mexican drug cartels
The ATF is denying these charges, sort of: Read more…
George Stephanopoulos implies the media will investigate Michele Bachmann’s foster children
When Michele Bachmann appeared in Concord New Hampshire back in March and erroneously declared that this was the place where the shot heard around the world occurred I was fairly harsh on her for this historical gaffe. This was the first time that I paid any real attention to Michele Bachmann and I was less than impressed with her for her lack of knowledge regarding American history, but then came the debate a few weeks ago and she caught my attention; in a field that I would categorize as less than impressive Michele Bachmann stood out and I feel she did exceedingly well in the debate. I have decided to give he a close look during the primary, and have not ruled out casting my vote for her.
And now the media is firing at her with both barrels, and the fact that the media finds her so offensive has me thinking that there is something about her that they fear; and when the media is against someone I tend to gravitate to that person. During a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos it was implied that the media would be investigating her 23 foster children in an attempt to bring her down.
New Hampshire governor vetoes voter ID bill
Voter turnout in New Hampshire is among the highest in the nation, election after election. There is no voter fraud problem in New Hampshire. We already have strong elections laws that are effective in regulating our elections
That was the statement New Hampshire Governor John Lynch made when he vetoed a voter ID bill earlier today. He claimed that this bill “creates a real risk that New Hampshire voters will be denied their right to vote.” I want to know which legitimate voters would be denied the right to vote under this bill, after all, in order to register to vote you need an ID. So who had an ID when they registered that no longer would have an ID to present when they went to the polls?
I am always amazed when I go to vote and I can walk right in and claim that I am Steve Dennis and I am not required to prove I am who I claim I am. When I walk into the polls the book of registered voters in open in front of me; I can easily see all of the names in the book and I can see who has already voted. It would be all too easy for me to look at the information in front of me and pick a name on the list that is unchecked and vote in that person’s place. The voter ID law would stop that possibility from becoming a reality but John Lynch doesn’t think this potential problem is a legitimate concern.
While this bill passed with a veto proof majority in the State House, it fell short of a veto proof majority in the State Senate so it looks as though this bill will fall by the wayside. With all of the activities for which an ID is needed it seems strange that a person can conduct the most important civil obligation without showing any proof of who they are. And that is the way the Democrats want it…..go figure.
America's Watchtower 