The Border? The Mideast? Scandals? For The Obamas It's Luxury Vacay Time Again!!

 

Now isn't this precious! The Obamas and a crew of their very special invited guests are planning a 16 day luxury vacation at Martha's Vineyard on a $12 million, 10-acre forested estate with expansive water views of Vineyard Sound on the southwestern corner of the island. The house will have to be altered for security and communications facilities, and then returned to its former condition. That could cost $150,000 and up alone, based on similar jobs like this done for other trips.

From August 9 to August 24 they'll be camped out at the 8,100-square foot beachfront home of a heavy Democrat donor that includes an infinity pool and hot tub, plus a basketball and tennis court.Valerie Jarret, of course will be among the ones in attendance.

A total of 12 smaller houses have been rented for the not quite so favored and the help on the tony island resort during high season..not cheap, although the White House isn't revealing the cost. The average on the island in August is a mere $400-$500 per day. For a dozen houses,lets split the difference and say $8,000 per day, or a total of around $150,000 since the staffers normally get there a few days before the president.

And then, there's security. We can't have gawkers or the non-connected interfering with the Obamas' fun, now can we?

Figure at least 50 Secret Service agents, plus a number of Navy and Coast Guard ships that will be on hand as well.The Secret Service all have vehicles ( normally at least 20 based on the usual size of the presidential entourage, so that means Air Force One plus military transport aircraft which usually includes two VC-25As and a C-130. There is usually also a chartered press plane to bring along additional journalists. Air Force One alone costs $68,000 an hour to run, so figure over $400,000 round trip just for Air Force One, plus the same for the identical backup Air Force One 747 (that's right, there are TWO of them). Figure at least another $75,000 per plane for maintenance, so close to just over a million for the two Air Force Ones alone. The other planes add up to at least slightly more than that...let's call it two million five in all. That doesn't include food and beverages, something the Obamas and their guests are normally pretty free with according to documents obtained on other trips by Judicial Watch's FOIA suits.

Obviously the number and type of ships guarding the president is highly classified. I think assuming something like 15-20 ships including submarine and Coast Guard launches is probably pretty close to correct.Operation costs for military vessels vary according to size and type. A modern sub, for instance, costs about $55,000 per day to operate. If there are two of them, one for each side of the island, we're talking almost $2 million for eighteen days, just for the subs.Smaller destroyers cost about $150,000 per day, so a pair of those might run between $2 to $2.5 million. For the entire vacay, I would not be surprised if the naval ships cost between $5 million and $10 million for the 18 days they'll be on duty.Let's say $6 million, which is probably on the low side.

We're up to $8.8 million. And we haven't figured in food, gas, entertainment, greens fees, communications charges or a myriad of other miscellaneous expenses. I figure the entire romp will cost the taxpayers at least $10 million, probably more.

Just for comparison purposes, Mrs. Obama's previous luxury romp in Spain cost close to half a million of your tax dollars, and according to the UK Daily Mail, Judicial Watch reports that it cost more than $11 million for President and Mrs. Obama to travel to South Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorial service in December, where the president and his wife and their entourage were in Africa for less than 13 hours.

No one has even begun to calculate the cost  of the luxurious China  vacation Michelle Obama took  with her mother and assorted hangers on that was actually billed as an official trip  believe it or not, even though no official business was conducted.

And the most fun part of all? Guess who's paying for it? We are! Now there's something to think about as you're trying to figure out whether you can swing the price of gas, meals at McDonalds or Carrows and a couple of nights in a Motel Six to take your own family out for a long weekend this summer or whether its going to be another staycation at home.

But for the Obamas, its Bluto Blutarsky's motto all the way: "Take it. Don't cost nuthin'. "

 

At least, it don't cost nuthin' for the Obamas!


But let's not be too critical. The president needs to rest up from his fundraising and campaigning for his fellow Democrats. That speech he always gives, the class warfare one at each stop ranting about the awful “1 percent,” the greedy “rich” (you know, anyone making $200,000 who's not working in government) and those do-nothing Republicans in congress must take a lot out of him.

(***BIG FAT NOTE*** Yours truly edited the above part of this piece after being notified by some of the usual trolls in the comments section that I had been punked by a SATIRE SITE. Yes, even the trolls serve a purpose sometimes. The part about the vacay is true, but the former numbers were so ludicrously off I should have known. Doesn't happen often, but I had a pretty big laugh at myself at how I fell into this one! Mea culpa.

So I researched what the likely costs would be for a presidential vacay in  a place like Martha's Vineyard, the  actual cost of operating the aircraft, renting auxiliary properties and the cost of operating the naval vessels.Of course, the trolls missed the forest for the trees, like always  -  that at a time when our economy is actually shrinking, so many are in want  and there are so many major problems to deal with, it's a selfish, indecent  and  classless move to go on a luxury vacay of this sort. That part was right on the money, and they of course ignored it. We now return to our regularly scheduled program )

Ah, but what about BUSH! Didn't HE go to that satanic ranch of his in Crawford all the time. HUH!?!



I hate it when the insane Left makes me defend a mediocre president like George W. Bush. Although of course he looks good, you know, in retrospect to some people.

The Bushes spent a mere fraction of what the Obamas have spent on vacation, and there's a simple reason why. Rather than renting a different house each time in a high cost resort, almost of of their vacations were spent in one of three places - at the family home in Crawford, at Camp David or at a family compound in Maine.

When a president goes on vacation, the biggest costs involve Air Force One, the subsidiary aircraft for staff and the Secret Service and accommodations for them.And the extensive changes to any property so the computer and communications networks are encrypted and secure and can be used successfully by the president in case something comes up, or simply if a decision needs to be made while he's on vacation.

In the case of the Bushes, two out of three of these location already had the communications networks and accommodations for the Secret Service and staff already in place on the premises, Camp David ( which doesn't even need to be flown to, so no Air Force one expenditures) and the Bush Compound in Maine, because of George HW Bush's presidency. The Bush family home in Crawford had to have these facilities prepared precisely ONCE, after George W. Bush became president. The only further expenditure for Crawford in 8 years was the flight time and the phone bill.

Now, in the case of the Obamas, they stay in different high priced digs each time where similarly high priced accommodations have to be found for the Secret Service, staff and help each and every time. And each and every time whatever mansion they're staying in has to be refurbished for security access and to accommodate the computer systems, surveillance cameras and communications networks needed...and then repaired and returned to their original condition when the Obamas leave...at literally millions in government expense, of course.

The Bushes weren't exactly high livers compared to the Obamas either. There was nothing like some of the gaudy spectacles we've seen since the Obamas came to town. And no one ever saw Mrs. Laura Bush sporting high fashion designer gowns at gala White House events.

There's no way of working it out besides hearsay from people who have served both presidents, but the overall impression we get is that President Bush spent a great deal more work time on his vacations than Barack Obama ever has. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true.

Oh, and one more thing. President Bush was an enthusiastic golfer, just like our current president. But he gave it up entirely once we went to war after the invasion of Afghanistan. To paraphrase the president's own words, he didn't want some mother or wife of an American soldier in harm's way to see her president playing golf when their loved ones were in danger.

That showed a certain amount of empathy and class. We have a very different kind of man in the White House now.

And speaking of empathy and class, I also seem to remember that during the Depression, FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt weren't ones for ritzy parties, high fashion and expensive vacations either...and they could have afforded to pay for such things themselves, let alone getting them on the government dime. Whatever one thinks of their politics they were, essentially, decent human beings who had a sense of what living it up during war and depression would look and feel like to their fellow Americans.

 

As much as I might disagree with some of her views, Mrs. Roosevelt was an amazing human being and exactly the First Lady the country needed during depression, hardship and war. She flew all over the country at a time when flying wasn't anywhere near comfortable as it is now, and she went to the slums, the mines and the small towns left without hope to let the American people know that someone in Washington knew what they were going through and actually gave a damn. Franklin couldn't walk, so she became his legs.

And when war came, she ran herself ragged visiting the troops, selling bonds and comforting Gold Star mothers who had lost loved ones. She would have been outraged at the idea of spending millions on vacations or prancing around in designer clothes.



And FDR? His vacations consisted of therapy and playing pater familias at Warm Springs, going to Camp David and the odd yacht cruise for a day, a special relaxation for an old sailor.



 

Again, they were very different people than the current inhabitants of the White House. They were by no means perfect, but they came to give, not to take.

Cheney Only Decided Invading Iraq Was A Good Idea Because He Made Millions Working For Halliburton? Sheer BS

Soros front The Raw Story has posted a clandestine video of Senator Rand Paul from 2009 talking to student Republicans at Western Kentucky University courtesy of far left bottom feeder David Corn of The Nation and other fine quasi-Marxist sites:



Most of the video is about problems with the Patriot Act (and by definition, fuzzy, undeclared wars) that I largely agree with. After that is where it gets interesting.

Assuming the video wasn't selectively edited (always a possibility with these creatures), Rand Paul had a few things to say about Iraq, starting at about 6:40:

There’s a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush Number One [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf war], and he goes on for about five minutes. He’s being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that’s why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.

Paul then goes on to describe events following the 9/11 terrorist attack when, then CIA director, George Tenet is told by George W. Bush adviser Richard Perle that the attack had given them reason to invade Iraq, despite the fact that the intelligence had yet to show a connection:

The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he [Perle] says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.

Interesting that Senator Rand Paul would so perfectly parrot the Leftist line here, but if he in fact said it (and remember, this is five years ago and subsequent statements on national defense have shown that his views have broadened since then)it was sheer horse manure then and now.

If he said this, Rand Paul got it wrong on two important points. He's totally correct that Dick Cheney opposed our toppling Saddam during the first Gulf War. Where's he's mistaken is that Cheney somehow changed his views "because of Halliburton". It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who were against invading and occupying Iraq. At most, they wanted a quick, punitive strike. It was Clinton  holdover George tenet,head of the CIA and Colin Powell who pushed the idea of making Iraq 'the model for a Muslim democracy' to Bush '43.

And by the way, the CIA Inspector General's report on CIA head George Tenet's tenure as head of the CIA faults Tenet directly for the failure of intelligence leading up to 9/11 and the period afterwards.

At any rate, after Dubbyah bought the idea of Iraq the model, he put Rumsfeld in charge of implementing it, even though our military wasn't prepared. That's the meaning of Rumsfeld's famous remark, that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have. And then Bush made Rumsfeld the scapegoat for his stupidity, having already fired Powell and Tenet.

One source on Rumsfeld's views some of you might find interesting is Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning, who was quoted in an interview with journalist Orin Kerr, hardly a right winger, as having been told by Rumsfeld to plan for a war with Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Jed Babbin, deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration and a noted writer on national security subjects has also weighed in on this topic.

Oh, and Halliburton? Most of those so-called no bid contracts were for things nobody else was even willing to bid on because of their lack of expertise, facilities, equipment or the insurance costs for the risks to their employees in a war zone. Among them was putting out the horrendous fires after Saddam Hussein set the Iraqi oil fields on fire as a parting shot. Every one else said it was impossible to save the oilfields and avoid an ecological disaster, but Halliburton pulled it off. No one else could have.

As for the insurance costs, it was four Halliburton employees who were kidnapped, lynched, had their bodies mutilated and were then hung off the bridge in Falujah by Moqtada al-Sadr's thugs.. not many companies were willing to risk that sort of thing to rebuild Iraq, not that we should have done that in the first place.

Of course, the one huge thing the 'Bush lied, people died' crowd were flat out wrong about was that supposed 'fifteen words' about Saddam Hussein having purchased yellow cake uranium for use in manufacturing nuclear weapons. That uranium was found...and the new Iraqi government sold it to Canada.

I am frankly sick and tired of the maligning and slander of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney that goes on from both sides of the aisle...especially since it conveniently exonerates the real culprits behind the intel failure of 9/11 and our unfortunate adventure in Iraq.

Are Iranian Ships Making A Dry Run For An EMP Attack On The US?

While the attention of the American people is directed elsewhere, some ominous developments are occurring. Along with an increasingly belligerent and hostile tone, upgrades in centrifuges and long range missile tests, Iran has announced a naval 'training mission' with two of its warships off our Atlantic coast.

At least one expert on Iran and EMP attacks, Peter Pry thinks the Iranians are doing a dry run for a future nuclear launch or an EMP attack off our coasts.

For those of you unfamiliar with an EMP attack, it involves a nuclear missile that explodes above the earth's atmosphere and sends out an electromagnetic pulse that fries all digital and computer electronics in the area affected.

Most vehicles simply stop running, along with all other machinery configured digitally..gas pumps, ATM machines, most cash registers, credit card readers, microwaves, cell and land line telephones, computers, toll gates and turnstiles, medical equipment, power stations, the Internet, a whole gamut of items we've simply grown used to as part of a 21st century civilization. All of the drones our current military is so reliant on are no longer controllable, and most aircraft and military vehicles become inoperable. The power grid and our missile defense systems go down.

Deliveries of all kinds, including food and fuel become difficult if not impossible, and any patients using pacemakers or hooked up to any medical equipment using digital electronics simply die.

Pry, president of EMPACT America thinks that the Iranians are simply making a dry run, with th eidea of preparing for a future assault:

“I think the Iranian Navy patrols off our coasts may be intended to lull us into complacency, to get the U.S. Navy accustomed to an Iranian naval presence in our hemisphere, so eventually they could contribute to 'Zero Hour' and the great day when the Mullahs decide to drop the nuclear hammer on America,” said Pry, who staffed a former congressional EMP commission.

“I think the Iranian Navy patrols are also intended to humiliate Obama and the United States for the Geneva [nuclear] interim agreement that Tehran interprets, correctly I think, as U.S. surrendering to the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran,” he added.

Pry also mentions that the Iranians have recently purchased Russia's Club-K missile launcher, which can be hidden in a container cargo box aboard a seemingly harmless freighter:

“I and my colleagues, including Reza Kahlili, who warned six months ago that these Iranian patrols were coming, think it more likely Iran would make an EMP attack by launching a missile off a freighter, so they could do the deed anonymously, and escape retaliation,” Pry explained.

“Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a missile off a freighter. Iran has also purchased Russia's Club-K missile system. The Club-K is a complete missile launch system, disguised to look like a shipping container, that could convert any freighter into a missile launch platform. The Club-K, if armed with a nuclear warhead, could be used to execute an EMP attack.”



Keep in mind that the North Koreans have the same sort of capability, and they already have nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

It wasn't so long ago that the United States was free of such threats, thanks to the actions of Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush. Then came three successive presidents who had, shall we say, other priorities.

There was Bill Clinton, who helped the Chinese PLA make a Great Leap Forward in their military capabilities by signing off on shipping them high tech super computers, technology and software with military applications through companies like Democrat donor Loral that analysts like Jane's estimate allowed the Chinese to advance twenty years during his 8 years in office. He also essentially allowed North Korea to develop and enhance its nuclear weapons arsenal, as well as essentially ignoring Islamist terrorism on his watch.

There was George W. Bush, who knew full well that the Iranians had a clandestine nuclear weapons program going as early as 2005, but allowed former Secretary of State Condi Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to talk him out of doing anything about it and to refuse to ship the Israelis the tools to do anything about it they requested from us, something Secretary Gates revealed in his latest book.

And of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who has essentially signed off on a nuclear armed Iran in favir of appeasing the Ayatollahs and likewise has chosen to ignore North Korea.

Need I even mention that all three of them also have refused to do anything much in terms of border security? And if you believe that it's only illegal aliens seeking jobs that have taken advantage of this, do a little research on things like Hezbollah cells here in America and links between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and the Mexican drug cartels.

Elections have consequences. I pray we don't find out the hard way,but the stage is certainly being set for exactly that.

Guess where your president was Wednesday morning...insh'allah

... rededicating the Saudi funded Islamic Center of Washington D.C.

That's right..our war president took a little time off from hawking the amnesty legislation to the senate to participate in ceremonies honoring a wahabist outpost within spitting distance of the White House.

To get a good sense on what the Saudis push in mosques like this, here's an excerpt from the report on hate literature found in Saudi Mosques, courtesy of Freedom House:

* Various Saudi government publications gathered for this study, most of which are in Arabic, assert that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations;

* The documents promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law. They condemn democracy as un-Islamic;

* The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. Any other reason for lingering among the unbelievers in their lands is illegitimate, and unless a Muslim leaves as quickly as possible, he or she is not a true Muslim and so too must be condemned. For example, a document in the collection for the “Immigrant Muslim” bears the words “Greetings from the Cultural Attache in Washington, D.C.” of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to “hate” the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel;

* One insidious aspect of the Saudi propaganda examined is its aim to replace traditional and moderate interpretations of Islam with extremist Wahhabism, the officially-established religion of Saudi Arabia. In these documents, other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric’s reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: “He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his.” Since, under Saudi law, “apostates” from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence;

* Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned;

* For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect’s sexual mores (i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage), the edicts published by the Saudi government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and found in American mosques advise, “it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money;”

* Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they “should be killed;”

* Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim’s duty is to eliminate the state of Israel;

The Washington DC Islamic Center is identified specifically in the report as a center of this kind of hatred.

Aside from the incongruity of a president who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land speaking at a place like this, especially on religious tolerance, the current occupant of the White house has big plans...he wants to appoint a US envoy to one of the world’s most bigoted groups, the Organization of the Islamic Conference:

"To underscore America’s respect for the Muslim faith here at home, I came to this Center six days after the 9/11 attacks to denounce incidents of prejudice against Muslim Americans. (Applause.) Today I am announcing a new initiative that will improve mutual understanding and cooperation between America and people in predominately Muslim countries.

I will appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This is the first time a President has made such an appointment to the OIC. (Applause.) Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America’s views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship...."

For those of you not familiar with the OIC, let's revisit a few highlights:

• The conference is the place where Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed received a standing ovation for a keynote speech delivered on October 16th, 2003 that was nothing less than a declaration of jihad against the west. In it he declared that `Jews run the world' and essentially said in so many words that the destruction of Israel was a goal towards a larger pan-Islamic caliphate, and that essentially, the US and Europe will only accept Islam as their master after their current masters, the Jews, are destroyed.
  

• In 2004, just after the massacre of children at Beslan, the OIC famously defined Islamic terrorism as `legitimate resistance' and refused to cooperate with the UN in condemning it.
  

• In 2005, the OIC called for universal application of sharia and demanded a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
  

• Also in 2005, Iranian president Ahmadinejad got a standing ovation speaking at the OIC in Mecca, denying that the Holocaust occurred, calling Israel a `tumor' and demanding that the world 'move the Jews to Germany'. And in 2006 Ahmadinejad called for “the elimination of the Zionist regime,” and recieved widespread applause in a speech at the OIC that year. Needless to say, the OIC failed to condemn this is the least.
  

• In 2006, during the Danish cartoon seethefest, the OIC passed a resolution demanding that the UN pass a resolution bannning `attacks on religion' ( read `Islam) with sanctions for violators.
  

• This same organization, the OIC has an office, the Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel, entirely devoted to enforcing a boycott contrary to US law. And they recently passed a resolution condemning Islamophobia and `insults to Islam' as `worst form of terrorism’. And they have never unequivocally condemned the terrorism that occurred here in America on 9/11, in Britain, in Madrid or indeed, anywhere else.
  

• The OIC, as one of the largest voting blocs in the UN has repeatedly obstructed any actions against Sudan for the genocide in Darfur.

• The OIC consistently supports Hamas, and Hezbollah, groups identified as terrorist organizations under US law.

This is the racist, anti-American group our president legitimized and wants to send an envoy to, `to listen and to learn'.

So, let's reiterate: the president of the United States shows up to make some sort of statement on moderate Islam and religious tolerance, in a wahabist mosque with representatives of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators CAIR , the Saudi Islamic Society of North America ( ISNA) that's used as a front to fund and export this kind of jihad to America present. And concludes his remarks by stating that he's going to send an American envoy to the Heart of Darkness `to listen and to learn.'

This is apparently President Bush's latest foray into influencing Muslim hearts and minds..by dealing with the same people that are spending millions to radicalize Muslims world wide and undermine our society.

I still remember what President Bush said on September 20th, 2001 in his speech to Congress and the nation.

He told us that Islam was a religion of peace, which was untrue. And he also made a point of saying ( and perhaps he truly believed it) that al-Qaeda was `a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics.' And as we've seen, that was also untrue. While there are many Muslims who reject what al Qaeda stands for, there are also a significant number of Muslims who think otherwise.

The president made a point of telling Muslims how much we respect them...but he did not once call for America's Muslims to come forward and out the jihadis in their midst or provide even so much as an `800' tip line as a framework for them to do so. Instead, the president preferred to enable people like CAIR and the Wahabi institutions here in the US....like the Washington DC Islamic Center.

The president once also said this:

" We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (emphasis mine)

Remember the Bush doctrine?

Had President Bush actually done this, with no equivocating, this war would have been over long ago and the president's reputation very different from what it is today. The fact is, he didn't,and he continues along the same path.

Unfortunately, that nuanced response to naked aggression has merely exhorted our enemies in the Religion of Peace to even greater efforts. You have to remember, the president just wasn't heard, or judged, by us....then or now.

While we're exporting Coca cola and I-Pods to our enemies, they're exporting jihad ideology here. And we're enabling them.

The irony is, in a word monstrous. But obviously, not for this president....