President Obama's Choice Of Which U.S. Mosque To Visit Is No Mystery

President Obama is making a highly publicized visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore , his first to a mosque located in the U.S.

The purpose of the trip, according to the White House, is to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”

Odd words, considering how the White House is facing court challenges over alleged violations of First Amendment freedom of religion rights for Christians, and Catholics in particular. But even more interesting is that few people are attempting to answer the question, why this particular mosque?

It's quite simple, really.

If one looks at President Obama's policies, there's one major common thread - the empowerment and support for Islamists, whether it is in Egypt, Libya, Gaza, Tunisia or at home in the U.S.

The ISB mosque is one of a large number of mosques controlled by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim brotherhood front group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror case. Several executives with that organization were convicted of illegally laundering money to aid Hamas, and the only reason the group wasn't formally indicted along with CAIR and a number of other Muslim Brotherhood front groups was because President Obama had his attorney general, Eric Holder file 'disinclination to prosecute' motions to protect them and terminate what would have been certain convictions and jail terms for most of the leaders of these groups for money laundering, perjury and material aid to terrorism.

The ISB itself has a long history of radicalism. Its imam for fifteen years, Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh came to the ISB mosque and served as imam from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003 after long membership in the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sudan in the 1970s. He left in 2003 to co-found the Muslim American Society, a group based in Virginia that is another front group controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. It's mosque, where el-Sheikh served as imam is the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church.

Dar al-Hijrah's previous imam was none other than Anwar al-Awlaki . He was a notorious American al-Qaeda operative who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011 and helped radicalize, among others, U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood Texas in November of 2009.

El-Sheikh also has had nothing but praise and excuses for Palestinians who commit terrorist atrocities against Israelis.

And even more interesting is the fact that a president who claims to be outspokenly in favor of gay rights would visit a mosque where the resident scholar, Yaseen Shaikh is openly against any tolerance for homosexuality according to a YouTube video he published.

There are any number of mosques without this baggage available, and the White House certainly had the ability to find one. But the fact remains that President Obama chose the Islamic Society Of Baltimore, and there's no real mystery here as to the message he's sending by picking that particular one.

Crossposted at The Times of Israel

Is Obama An Anti-Semite?

President Barack Obama had something to say about that in a servile interview with the Leftist Jewish magazine Forward:

President Obama challenged critics who suggested that he was anti-Semitic as he continues to promote his nuclear deal with Iran, ignoring Israeli leaders who are expressing concerns about it.

“There’s not a smidgen of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times where I’ve disagreed with a particular Israeli government’s position on a particular issue,” Obama said in an interview with Forward.com when asked how he felt about the accusation.

Of course, one shouldn't expect the Forward to do much in the way of a real interview with this president. To show how hilarious the whole thing was, after allowing President Obama to repeat his usual talking points about how wonderful the Iran deal is, they finished up with this idiocy:

Q: Thank you. One last question. One of my daughters wants to know, what’s your favorite bagel flavor?

THE PRESIDENT: I was always a big poppy seed guy.

Q: Poppy seed.

THE PRESIDENT: So the poppy seed bagels at H&H Bagels — which somebody told me they closed —

BEN RHODES: They closed.

Q: It’s closed, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Which is shocking.

MR. RHODES: My school was a block from H&H bagels.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, I would walk down from —

MR. RHODES: Columbia.

THE PRESIDENT: — Columbia just to get H&H bagels on Saturdays or on the weekends.

Q: And what do you like on a poppy seed?

THE PRESIDENT: Just a schmear.

Q: Just a schmear.

THE PRESIDENT: Lox and capers okay, but generally just your basic schmear.


Yes, one of those tough, hard hitting interviews.Notice how he had to be prompted on Columbia University by his director of strategic communications Ben Rhodes, who apparently sat in on this?

But let's address the question seriously, shall we? The first thing that caught my eye was the president's language about there not being a smidgen of evidence that he was anti-semitic or anti-Israel. Now where did we hear that before?

Oh, now I remember! It was back when this president told us that there wasn't a smidgen of corruption in the IRS after allegations that the IRS targeted the president's political enemies or conservative groups. Oddly enough, one of them, Z-Street is a pro-Israel organization run by a friend of mine, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a Pennsylvania lawyer.

They won a suit against the Obama IRS last year for exactly this kind of targeting. And Z Street was by no means the only one targeted. Admittedly, we have, shall we say, a less than effective Republican leadership and caucus, so this never got pursued to its logical end. But there was obviously more than a smidgen of corruption based on what we now know and how the White House chose to stonewall things.

So, when this president talks about a smidgen of anything, what should we assume that means?

Since we can't know what's in Barack Obama's heart and he's not exactly the most truthful of men, let's examine this in another way and see if we can get a clue.

Suppose, hypothetically, a public figure is accused of racism against blacks, which he of course denies.

So you look into his background. And you find that from his earliest days, his closest associates have been people like Tom Metzger, Willis Carto, David Duke, Sam Bowers,Bill Church, Larry Payne, Stormfront's Don Black and Chloê Hardi and Bo Gritz.


Let's say that his pastor whom he described as his 'spiritual mentor' was Thomas Robb and his church for two decades was Robb's Christian Revival Center.

Let's further assume that this man was our president, that his administration includes a number of people with questionable views on Africa and on American blacks, and that his administration has policies toward African nations that appear to be hostile.

In fact, let's imagine that Black and Hardi are regular visitors to the White House and help in determining political strategy. And that this president is clever enough to have a number of self-serving blacks in his employ or in a bogus 'civil rights' organization he created as a cover for any accusations of racism.

I think many people might describe this politician as a racist, or at the very least someone with racist tendencies. After all, if you hang with those folks, there's obviously an affinity, no?

Let's examine President Barack Obama with that same criteria. The comparison isn't totally workable, since racism against blacks is socially unacceptable in much of the world, not well organized and hardly funded while anti-semitism, sometimes disguised as 'anti-Zionism' is well organized, socially chic and thriving, but let's try and see what we can do.

Let's see...closely associated with Jew haters and Israel bashers his entire life, including Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Khalid al-Mansour, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers (who dedicated one of his books, Prairie Fire to Sirhan Sirhan) and George Soros, to name just a few.

Check.

Participated in and helped organize the Nation Of Islam's 'Million Man March' with Louis Farrakhan, one of the worst public exhibitions of Jew hatred in American history.

Check.

Spent two decades in a rabidly anti-Israel church with a harshly 'anti-Zionist' pastor.

Check.

Has noted anti-Semite Al Sharpton as an intimate who is frequently at the White House and whom helps in determining political strategy. And has a number of servile, secular Leftist Jews in his employ, including the folks at J Street, the anti-Israel organization he created with George Soros as a cover.

Check.

Gave out the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jew haters like Bishop Tutu, and to anti-Israel UN functionary Mary Robinson, who officiated over the the infamous Durban Conference and did nothing to stop it.

Check

On record as saying he wanted to create 'daylight; between America and Israel, and insists on creating 500,000 Jewish refugees and moving Israel back to indefensible borders. And best pals with Samantha Power, who wrote that the US should send its army to impose this and forcibly evict the Jews. Also, has said publicly that Israel has no rights to its religious sites in Jerusalem and must give them up to 'Palestine'. Refused to honor guarantees made by the Bush Administration as part of the Road Map to include Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as part of Israel in any peace settlement as a quid pro quo for Israel's disengagement from Gaza. Openly lied and said they never existed.

Check.

Gave out more money to the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians, including Hamas, than any other president in history. Armed and trained two combat brigades under the PLO and armed and trained Hezbollah, an officially designated terrorist group.

Check

The only president since Israel became an ally in 1970 ever to hold up arms
shipments during a shooting war. And actually put in place an arms embargo on Israel for his first three months in office.

Check.

illegally Interfered directly in Israel's last election with money and operatives, and threw a tantrum when that failed.

And finally, put together a farcical deal with the genocidal Iran that will
allow them to have a clear path towards nuclear weapons. And has used
anti-semitic themes and buzz words against people who opposed it.

Check.

Hmmmm...it does seem like a pattern is emerging, doesn't it?

In the end of course, it doesn't really matter if President Obama claims to like an occasional bagel or has a nice smile and a warm greeting for certain Jews he finds useful.

It's the overall pattern of actions and associations that count, and I will let you decide what that signifies. Especially when it comes to his obvious hostility towards the only Jewish country on earth, whom he obviously treats differently than any other, and not in a good way. There's a word for that.

it was Jesse Jackson (yet another Obama associate with less than complimentary views of Jews) , who has known the Obamas for decades who famously said in 2008 " Now that Obama's elected, the Zionists are going to lose all their clout."

It does seem he knew what he was talking about.

Obama's Hotel Bill For One Night In Australia: $1.7M

"Can You Believe Those Suckahs Voted For Me Twice!"

No, that headline isn't a typo...$1.7 million for one night the president spent at the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia for our Dear Leader and his entourage. And that doesn't count food, vehicles, security costs, transpo on Air Force One and the back up plane.

Over 4,000 hotel rooms were booked on our dime for this one night. Is anyone going to seriously try to tell us that this one night stand was anything more than a taxpayer paid junket, and that it couldn't have been done for far less with a much smaller delegation?

At least this time it wasn't one of his many vacations.

Obama Shields Companies from Lawsuits Arising from Importing Ebola to US

 

President Obama issued an executive order today preventing government contractors of their personnel from being sued for any damages resulting from their bringing the Ebola virus into America.

The president’s directive gives the administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the authority to indemnify companies from lawsuits related to “contracts performed in Africa in support of USAID's response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa where the contractor, its employees, or subcontractors will have significant exposure to Ebola.”

This authority may be exercised solely for the purpose of holding harmless and indemnifying contractors with respect to claims, losses, or damage arising out of or resulting from exposure, in the course of performance of the contracts, to Ebola,” the memorandum explained.

CNSNews.com emailed USAID to ask if the president’s directive also protects these companies from being sued by a U.S. citizen who contracts Ebola from an employee who brings the disease back from West Africa after working under a government contract.

An unnamed spokesperson for the agency responded: “Yes. The indemnification applies only to the extent that the claim, loss, or damage arises out of or results from exposure to Ebola in the course of performance of a contract and exceeds applicable insurance coverage.”

In other words, if a Company A employee contracts Ebola while working in West Africa, brings the disease back to the United States, is not quarantined and ends up infecting members of the general public, Company A is protected from any damages arising from lawsuits by these secondary victims.

Considering how certain doctors and nurses persisted in wandering around and refusing to be quarantined, I think what we're seeing here is damage control for a problem that is going to become a lot worse..especially when those 3,000 troops the president sent into ground zero of an epidemic start coming home.

This president claims his authority to do this without consulting congress supposedly comes from Public Law 85-804, which allows the president the authority to enter into, amend or modify contracts with private companies in order to “facilitate the national defense.”

I certainly had no clue that Liberia was vital in any way to our national defense, did you?

Barack Obama, the cherry pickin' president. Oath be damned. He will faithfully execute the laws he likes, even if he has to twist them out of recognition. And he'll ignore the ones he doesn't.

Scenes From A Country With No Borders 10/03/14

 

The amnesty for illegal aliens lobby - oh, pardon, 'immigration activists' has gone far beyond merely asking for anything. This is no longer our country but theirs, you see, and they have demands that must be met - or else.


 

Rep. Louis Gutierrez (D-IL), one of the radical members of the lobby made that plain in a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last Wednesday.

"Imagine for a moment the president of the United States makes an announcement. We figure out who the 5 million, 6 million people are. We get ready to register them [to vote] and the Republican majority decides they will obstruct the process. They will be the end of the Republican Party as a national party in the United States of America, because then it won’t be that the Democrats didn’t act and that the Republicans didn’t act. It will be the last act."

"This is a concrete example of justice for a community of people that we love and cherish and will defend. I’m ready for the president to act. And let me tell you something. Whoever attacks the decision of the president to bring justice and fairness to millions of undocumented immigrants and allow them to have justice in this country, I’m ready for that fight and I’m ready to join everybody in this room in winning that fight."

That sounds very much like 'no justice no peace', a threat to riot if President Obama's promise to break established law isn't fulfilled and there is no amnesty for illegal aliens...from a sitting congressman who swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

How would you rate Rep. Gutierrez's 'true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution and our laws?

That aside, Gutierrez's threat to Republicans has no basis in reality, as I've pointed out before.

If Republicans in congress knuckle under and allow this blatantly illegal action to happen, they will become a permanent minority party if they even continue to exist at all. Aside from the effect of 5 or 6 million additional voters ( a number you can double once chain migration is accounted for), many of whom don't speak English and are easily manipulated by demagogues like Gutierrez, they will lose most of the 2/3 of the Hispanic vote that's currently up for grabs and their party's base, which will never vote Republican again but seek to develop a new political party.

President Obama, for his part seems entirely ready to deliver. And why not? It doesn't matter that Americans overwhelmingly oppose amnesty by better than 2 to 1. It doesn't matter that we have almost one hundred million Americans who have given up looking for work and are no longer in the labor force, a record number. It doesn't matter that 3 million people who are trying to enter America legally are being done an injustice.It doesn't matter that schools will struggle to maintain our already poor levels of public education to accommodate the influx of illegal aliens, many of whom are not even literate in Spanish let alone English. Or that diseases are coming to America unimpeded that we've never seen before or that were eradicated in this country decades ago.

What matters to President Obama and his party is pure politics. This is about changing the electorate to stay in power and turning America into something very different than our founders intended.



At a dinner last night with the aforementioned Hispanic Congressional Congress, President Obama promised an executive order granting amnesty between the midterm elections and the year's end.

“This is not a question of if, but when,” he said.

He also boasted about riding over to the dinner with two CHCI (Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute) interns whom he called 'Dreamers' because they are two of the illegal aliens brought to America as children the president already has given amnesty to by executive order.

The president also said that he needed Hispanics to 'have his back' and to get out the vote for Democrats.

The president finished by leading a chant of “Sí se puede, si votamos" ('yes we can, if we vote).

What, you thought this was about anything else but partisan politics?

Obama Ranked Fifth Best President In History

Yes, it's true, and as my pal Nice Deb relates, even Ted Cruz agrees.

Who'd a thunk it?

(h/t,Louie Louie)

Putin Vs. Obama - A Head To Head Comparison

Enough said....

(h/t, Bookworm Room)

Obama: 'Racism Is Why My Approval Rating Is Down'

Remember, nothing is ever his fault.

President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition.

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,” Obama said in his most direct comments on how race has affected his political standing since he’s been in office.

No...really? Of course utter incompetence, fiscal irresponsibility, ObamaCare and scandals like Benghazi, Fast and Furious and using the IRS as his personal goon squad have nothing to do with anything.

This is his response to a Gallup poll rating of 39% approval, 53% disapproval.

Must be raa-aa-acism. When in doubt, pull out the card. It's certainly worked well so far.

Me? I'd say, to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that this president is upset over being judged by the content of his character..but he blames it on his skin color.

Kid's Cards For Wounded Vets Refused By VA Because they Mention 'G-d' and 'Christmas'

 

Here's a story for you to ponder.

A group of elementary school kids in North Texas thought it would be a wonderful idea to make some handmade Christmas cards for wounded warriors in a local VA hospital at Christmastime. What happened next is a pretty good sign of what Obama's America has become:

"I'm hoping that it might make their day because their family might live far away, and they might not have somebody to celebrate Christmas with and I'd like them to know they've not been forgotten and somebody wanted to say thank you," said fourth grader Gracie Brown.

Gracie and her brother, Luke, put a lot of thought and effort into their Christmas cards.

"It includes ‘Merry Christmas,' and when you open it up, it says 'Thank you for your service' and the American flag," said Luke.

Fifty-two students at Grace Academy in Prosper spent Friday making the cards they planned to hand deliver to bedridden veterans at the VA hospital in Dallas Monday morning.

When Gracie and Luke's mom, Andrea, found out they wouldn't be able to, she was outraged.

"This wasn't the country I grew up in, when you couldn't say ‘Merry Christmas,' you couldn't say ‘God bless you' or reference any scripture," she said.

The cards were the idea of Susan Chapman, a math teacher at Grace Academy. She's married to a veteran and volunteers with the American Legion and other veterans' organizations.

"It really didn't occur to me there would be a problem with distributing Christmas cards," said Chapman.

She didn't find out about the VA's holiday card policy until she called Monday morning to arrange details for the cards' delivery.

"I told him my students made cards, we'd like to bring them down for the veterans," said Chapman. "And he said, 'That's great. We're thrilled to have them, except the only thing is, we can't accept anything that says ‘Merry Christmas' or ‘God bless you' or any scriptural references because of all the red tape.'" [...]

Parents say as disappointing as this experience was for their children, they're more heartbroken for the veterans.

"They couldn't believe the people that these people they wanted to honor weren't going to get the chance to see what they had done," said Andrea.


Personally, as a non-Christian I can't imagine lying in a hospital as a wounded warrior at any time of year and not being warmed inside by getting this sort of thing from children.

I suspect this policy is likely the work of atheist and virulent anti-Christian activist Mikey Weinstein. President Obama's czar in charge of secularizing the military and eliminating all mentions of G-d and religion, period.

Obviously the servant is doing his master's bidding..the Obama's own 'holiday cards' have no mention of Jesus, G-d or even Christianity.



But they do show the White House dogs, in front of an empty building, which actually says a great deal the president didn't intend. And remember, these cards are being sent out at Christmas time ostensibly from a Christian man and his family.

This kind of wholesale rejection of the principles our nation was founded on is going to come with a price, and I only pray that this is reversed before that price becomes heavier than we can bear.

Were The Saudis Complicit In 9/11? - What You Won't See Elsewhere

Something rattling the blogsphere thew last two days is an op-ed in the New York Post by investigative reporter, author and columnist Paul Sperry. It concerns an alleged cover up by the Bush Administration on Saudi involvement in 9/11:

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today.

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

Sperry goes on to detail a number of specific instances, all of them factual, as is his habit. He cites Saudi diplomats like Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy, Saudi intelligence agents Omar al-Bayoumi, Osama Bassnan actually set up safe houses for the 9/11 hijackers and provided them with funds. He relates how these men set up private meetings for the hijackers with American al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who fled America to escape terrorism charges and was later killed by a drone in Yemen.Bassnan later fled America as well after 9/11.

He also says that then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan, much of whom went to the hijackers and to al-Qaeda. The questionable donations are not actually not classified, but a matter of public record...yet nothing happened to Bandar and he was simply recalled.

it is also a matter of record that a number of Saudi government official and nationals were given priority after 9/11 in getting out of the country, including members of the bin-Laden family.

None of this is news, frankly, to anyone who took an honest look at 9/11. Nor is the news on how FBI attempts to investigate 9/11 were stymied by the Bush Administration.

Where Sperry and I part ways is his conjecture that this was an organized attack and an act of war by the Saudi government.

What we had instead, I think, was a number of high level members of the Saudi government and the royal family, plus others in the Gulf Emirates who funded and supported bin-Laden, mostly because, you know, jihad. Some were more involved than others, but probably few of them really believed a second attack on the WTC would succeed, or that it do the damage it did. If you recall, even bin-Laden was pleasantly surprised as how successful the attack went.There was no upside to the Saudis attacking the U.S.

So now we come to the Bush Administration's role in this.

Revealing that high level Saudis had been involved in 9/11 would have meant a declaration of war. Now had I been president, I would have had no problems going there, or at the very least getting a full Saudi mea culpa, financial compensation, the guilty Saudis repatriated back to America to stand trial and an end to their financing mosques and jihad friendly imams here in America.

But President Bush's relationship with these people was, shall we say, somewhat different.



As more than one Bush biography relates, the Bush family was so close to Prince Bander that his nickname within the family circle was 'Bandar Bush'. And a look at Neil Bush of Silverado Trust fame also reveals the family's close connections with the Gulf States.

Nor is it limited to the Bushes. A look at the 'bi-partisan' Carlyle Fund(a huge mega-hedge fund mainly run by former cabinet members, influential congressmen and yes, a few former presidents that included substantial investments by the bin-Laden family), the plethora of six and seven figure speaking and 'consulting fees' enjoyed by a number of political figures on both sides of the aisle including the Clintons, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former senators Bob Dole and Tom Daschle just to name a few, the vast amounts spent to fund presidential libraries and foundations, former president Bill Clinton's special 'business relationship' with the Sultan of Dubai that made him a multimillionaire and helped fund Hillary's Clinton's last presidential campaign..lots of members of our ruling class have had their snouts in the trough.

Which by the way, might just tell you why America has never sought to seriously become energy independent even though we have ample oil and are one of the top five petroleum exporters.

In any event. let's just say taking out Saudi Arabia would be bad for business with all that money involved...not to mention that as keeper of the Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina, a strike at the Saudis might have widened the scope of the war just a bit.

Or would it? Aside from the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates, there was another Muslim country that was very much complicit in 9/11. And unlike The Saudis, we are talking about direct, proven government involvement.

Hezbollah and Iran were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and it is a matter of record thanks to a federal trial that took place in response to lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims.

Iran facilitated the transit of the 9/11 hijackers into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, just like they allowed entry to al-Qaeda fighters after we invaded their stronghold in Afghanistan.

On page 240 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report, it mentions a “senior Hezbollah operative” who accompanied some of the future 9/11 hijackers on their final airline flights into and out of Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon.

It's now known beyond any doubt that the “senior Hezbollah operative” was our old friend Imad Mugniyeh. You'll remember that he was not only a member of al-Qaeda but a founding member of Hezbollah and a former member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17. He was the commander of the operation that killed 247 marines in Beirut, the man who tortured to death Marine Colonel William Buckley,videotaped the proceedings and sent it to the White House, and the facilitator in the Karina A arms shipment, which involved Iranian weapons sent to the PLO.

Mugniyah was the natural liaison man for the 9/11 hijackers as well,because he was one of the few people trusted by by all parties involved...Hezbollah, Iran and al- Qaeda. He was finally sent to hell in 2008, most likely by the Israeli Mossad.

The 9/11 commission report strongly suggested further investigation of the Iranian complicity at the time, but neither the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration ever saw fit to follow up.

As evidence given in the trials show, in addition to directing Mughniyah’s extensive involvement in recruiting, guiding, and training the hijackers, Iran provided vital material support to those hijackers by ordering its border and passport officials not to stamp their passports when they crossed Iranian territory. That meant they could enter the U.S. with clean passports, no questions asked and was of huge help in maintaining their cover.

Not only that, but there's evidence that emerged from the trials that the hijackers may even have received some training in Iran.

According to testimony by a former senior Iranian intelligence officer, Abolghasem Mesbahi, Mugniyeh helped train the hijackers in a camp set up by the MOIS, Iran's intelligence service. Mesabi, who has also been a witness for the German BND in investigating and trying cases involving Iranian assassins of expatriates and dissidents in that country, testified in Federal court that al-Qaeda received instruction in spy craft, explosives, communications, operational guidance and time on a flight simulator purchased by Iran from China for the exact model of domestic airliner the hijackers would use in the 9/11 attacks...which Iran did not have as part of its domestic air fleet in IranAir at the time.

None of this has ever been followed up on.

So, if we were actually talking about going after the perpetrators of 9/11, it seems like Iran Hezbollah, and probably the Saudis and some of the Gulf Emirates might have been on our list. Pretty specific targets, either for a diplomatic or military reckoning. Instead, we went after al-Qaeda, the jihad subcontractors, and we have done so in two consecutive administrations. Worse than that, we continue to appease these regimes who were involved in butchering 3,000 of our fellow Americans.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has talked several times about reconvening the 9/11 Commission to get some answers. As you might imagine, the response from the White House has not been overwhelming and I doubt it will happen.

The complicity of a number of Muslim countries is what they're not telling you about 9/11, and that's why more evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11 is no big news.

The real story is how we got from there to where we are now over the past 12 years, and why. That's what we have yet to find out.

How the Left Excuses Obama's Schmoozing with Dictators

 

A comment came in this morning from one of my readers on the Left that said "About President Obama Shaking Raul Castro’s Hand…".

It wasn't published because it contained a link to Mad King Chuckle's asylum over at Little Green Footballs, which I and a plethora of other sites refuse to link to for reasons you can discover for yourself here.

And by the way, my prediction about Chuckles getting shut out by both sides and dropping like a stone came true...it just took a bit longer than I thought.

So what did the linked article contain? Pictures of people who, in Chuckles mind are 'right wing fascists' shaking hands with dictators. Of course, there's nothing in the gallery like Madeline Albright smiling and drinking champagne with Kim Jong-il in North Korea, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton sucking Yasser Arafat's extended appendage, Tony Blair kissing Khaddaffi, nothing like that.

Instead, we see things Nixon shaking hands with Mao, President Reagan in an obviously posed picture with Soviet leader Gorbachev,Kissinger shaking hands with Chilean dictator Pinochet, Churchill shaking hands with Stalin, an ancient picture of Newt Gingrich with Arafat and a picture of George HW Bush shaking hands with Hugo Chavez as an ex-president.

Again, this is a teachable moment on how the Left lies as a matter of instinct. It's worth a peek, since a ton of White House connected Lefties got their marching orders from the White House this morning and will probably peddle the same schtick.

In the first place, we have here a fine example of one of the Left's primary arguments used as a cover for doing anything despicable - 'hey, he did it too!"

This is how eight-year-olds attempt to excuse their misdeeds when caught doing something they shouldn't by a parent or teacher. And it's an absolutely worthless argument. If one president does something wrong, (if they actually did) does that excuse the current occupant of the Oval Office from doing the same thing, just like magic? Nope.

Not only that,but you'll notice another favorite Leftist tactic, false equivalency. Over half of these photos are NOT of serving American presidents. Unfortunately for the country, President Obama is, and as such is a much bigger symbol of the country than some congressman or secretary of state.

And then, there's context. Nixon's trip to China? That was a major tour de force in geopolitical strategy, which constrained the Soviets after they had virtual free range during Jimmy Carters failed presidency, and was a big part of ending the Vietnam War because neither the Soviets or the Chinese were willing to intervene on behalf of North Vietnam and risk antagonizing America. After all, you can't blame Nixon because the radical Leftist Democrats in congress whom came in after Watergate refused to abide by the treaty we signed with Vietnam's Thieu and Cambodia's Lon Nol and allowed the commies to overrun those countries and murder and enslave millions.

Reagan and Gorbachev? Now, based on what the legacy media and the alphabet networks were putting out at the time, here I thought the Left loved them some Gorby, and also loved nuclear disarmament, which is what they our president and Gorbachev were actually.No mention, of course, that when the Soviet dictator made demands President Reagan felt were unreasonable, like abandoning our missile defense, Ronaldus Maximus simply got up and walked away. And bye bye Evil Empire.

Churchill and Stalin? Once FDR made the Soviets an ally after the Nazis invaded and put them at the top of the list for Lend Lease, thanks to Soviet sympathizer (and possible agent according to the Venona Papers)what was Churchill supposed to do, spit on him?

There are plenty of other examples of this I could give about the pictures Chuckles chose.On the other hand, there's no diplomatic or strategic excuse whatever for our president fondling Raul Castro or most of the other dictators he has a fetish for.Unlike any of the others,(the only possible exception is Iran's Rouhani, and the less said about that swamp of appeasement, the better) this is a constant pattern with him. He apparently is simply on their wavelength. He likes them and what they stand for. And that's very different, and sends a huge message...especially at an international shindig like the Mandela memorial.

It's to be expected that Chuckles and other Obama lackeys would pull this out of the nether portions of their anatomy, hoping to slide it by you as gold instead of the material it actually is. Don't be fooled.

Roundup - ObamaCare's Epic Fail

This gets funnier and funnier the longer it goes.

After the president's pathetic performance last week, the blowback is almost sit-com worthy.

As you now know, what the president actually said yesterday is that he's not giving individuals the same delay he gave corporations or the same subsidies and waivers he gave congress and certain favored corporations and government bureaucracies, he's merely prepared to wink and look the other way and indulge in what he called 'selective enforcement' ...and just until after the 2014 midterms.

The president is trying to pretend that insurance companies are free to offer the old policies, but, they aren't. And aside from the financial impact and the bureaucratic snafu involved inturning the clok back, they don't wish to break the law...which has not been repealed. What President Obama is hoping is that the anger of the low information voters will be directed on to the insurance companies and that people will still be forced into the expensive, hidden-subsidy exchanges. After which, he can say 'hey it isn't my fault.' That's his thinking, but I have doubts it will fly. Three years ago, maybe but not now.

The insurance companies were, to be polite about it, not exactly pleased. They spent millions of dollars complying with ObamaCare, antagonized a number of their customers and now the Prevaricator-in-Chief expects them spend millions more to rewrite and recreate insurance plans that no longer exist and are still illegal policies under the law and expose themselves to litigation! Given this president's credibility and his tendency to change his mind depending on which way the wind is blowing, they'd be fools to trust his word and expose themselves legally.

Only an arrogant and not particularly bright you know what would expect that.And the industry is reacting as you might expect. Chris Wallace read this statement from the trade association of American insurance companies:


Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law, Obamacare, could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers. Premiums have already been set for next year, based on assumptions of when consumers will be transitioning to the marketplaces.

If now fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase health coverage in the exchanges, premiums will increase, and there will be fewer choices for consumers.

And the state insurance commissioners aren't thrilled either:


"For three years, state insurance regulators have been working to adapt to the Affordable Care Act in a way that best meets the needs of consumers in each state," the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said in a statement. "It is unclear how, as a practical matter, the changes proposed ... by the president can be put into effect."

Thus far, the insurance commissioners of Washington state, D.C., Arkansas, and Vermont, all Democrats, have rejected Obama's attempt to gut the exchanges with his 'fix' .

In a rare bit of opera comique, the insurance commissioner of DC, one William White was summarily fired and had his remarks critical of the president's fix removed from the department’s website for daring to voice criticism, where he wrote, "The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate". Even worse, he concurred with the above statement by the insurance commissioners' national association above. So he had to go.

But it's worth noting that White’s initial opposition to the president's “fix” was that it would ultimately undermine the very goals that the ACA is supposed to be working towards, the successful corralling of all Americans into the exchanges. White's firing, of course just underlines that President Obama's little 'fix' was nothing more than sheer politics, just something to direct the the public’s rage away from Obama and the Democrats.

Obama has summoned the CEOs of several insurance companies to the White House for a meeting today, presumably on the Obamacare "fix." Apparently, checking with the insurance companies before enlisting them in a scheme with major practical and legal consequences didn't occur to the White House. My suspicion is that he's promising them so kind of bailout, but again, why would they trust anything he says at this point?

"'I don’t know how he f—-ed this up so badly,' said one House Democrat who has reportedly been very supportive of Obama in the past.

The Upton bill, AKA the 'You Can Keep Your Health Plan' bill which would have done exactly what president promised but would actually have amended the law to make it legal and would have allowed people whose policies were cancelled to renew them and keep them for longer than the president's one year period if they wished passed in the House by a bi-partisan vote of 261-157, including 39 Democrats.

Needless to say,President Obama has already threatened to veto it, although Majority Leader Harry Reid will probably just table it in committee, as he has with every other proposed fix to ObamaCare.

Among other things, The Upton bill would not only let existing policies continue, but insurers could sell individual policies to new customers without the necessity of them going to those pricey, high deductible exchanges, and it is a permanent amendment to the law, not just a one-year-nod-and-wink-let's -get-past-the-elections can of horse manure.

The president's angry threat to veto this is just another sign that actually 'fixing' this or keeping his word to the American people is the last thing on our Dear Leader's mind..it's all about politics and the upcoming midterms.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) made an interesting admission yesterday appearing on ABC's This Week with fill-in host Martha Raddatz. The senator admitted that she and her senate colleagues all knew that the president was lying when he repeatedly said that if Americans like their healthcare plan, they could keep it.

“We all knew,” she said,referring to the cancellations that would occur.“He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew.”

She then made a big pitch based on the redistribution of wealth aspect of ObamaCare (although she didn't put it in those words) essentially endorsing the soaking of the middle class to pay for those the Obama Administration deem more deserving.

Now, if the president knew he was lying ( and there's really no way he couldn't have) and the Democrat congress members knew he was lying, as Senator Gillibrand admitted, that's actually a criminal offense in the real world known as fraud and collusion to commit fraud. People lost jobs, lost income when their hours were cut, and experienced pain and suffering based on choices they made because they were informed by this president that keeping tyheir health plans would be no problem. Former federal prosecutor and noted author Andrew McCarthy puts it quite well:

Let’s quickly recap the lawlessness and cynical politics behind Thursday’s pathetic press conference. Obama, who poses as a constitutional-law expert, knows full well that a president has no legal authority to waive statutory mandates. Even if he had such power, moreover, he knows that there is no practical possibility of undoing — within the next few weeks, as the ACA would require — the new arrangements that insurance companies and state regulators spent the last three years structuring to comply with Obamacare mandates. In sum, Obama is well aware that his proposed “fix” is frivolous. His hope is that the country overwhelmingly consists of dolts who are too uninformed to realize that this is the case, and who, with a little help from his media courtiers, can be convinced to blame the insurance companies, rather than the president, for the fact that millions of Americans are losing their coverage under his “reform.”

Now, having covered Thursday’s con job, let’s get back to the overarching Obamacare scheme perpetrated by the president for more than four years — a fraud that, I contend, the Justice Department would not hesitate to prosecute had it been committed by a private-sector executive. I’ve related the standards for criminal and civil enforcement that would militate in favor of prosecution in a case involving the dimension of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty we find here. In addition, NRO’s Andrew Stiles had a superb report on Friday showing the sundry ways the administration’s dysfunctional Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, runs afoul of various consumer-protection laws. Again, when such infractions are committed by private businesses, the government punishes them quite severely. {...}

The president well knew that, in implementing the “grandfathering” provision, his administration wrote regulations so narrow that tens of millions of existing plans would be eliminated. Congressional Democrats knew this, too: When Republicans endeavored in 2010 to enact legislation that would have broadened the regulation into a meaningful safe harbor, Democrats closed ranks and voted down the proposal – including Democrats such as Senator Mary Landrieu, who now pretends to be a crusader in the cause of letting Americans keep their insurance.

I would also point out that since the president's 'fix' is highly unconstitutional (there is no provision in the Constitution to selectively alter the laws unilaterally by the executive branch, and none to allow 'selective enforcement' either on that same basis) President Obama is, once again in violation of his oath of office.

Obviously, while it can be proven easily that the president willfully deceived the American people, we do not indict and jail sitting presidents. The political remedy for this sort of thing is impeachment and removal from office.

The political climate isn't right for that now, but in 2014, when people start losing their employer provided healthcare and co-pays and deductibles skyrocket, you may very well see a change, especially if the Republicans take the Senate and retain the House in the midterms. Infact, you could very well see more Democrats jumping ship to save their own skins.



Oh, one more thing...the tab for all this. Aside from the $678 million cost to put up the dysfunctional website, paid in a no bid contract to  a company run by an Obama donor and with one of Mooch-elle's pals and ex-sorority sisters  as senior vice president, there's also the matter of a mere $4.4 billion given to 14 state exchanges to put up their own websites...which means, of course, a lot more palm greasing and crony capitalism.Some of the states even took federal money, then decided to let the federal site handle enrollment.

Top of the list? California of course, ($910 million) followed by New York ($401 million).

And remember, this $5 billion plus is just for websites...15 websites.

The Help Turns: Obama Played Cards During Osama Raid; 'I Can’t Watch This Entire Thing.'

Reggie Love, the president's former 'body man', AKA his personal assistant, valet and court jester reveals a little something about the president's bold, hands on leadership.

Among other tidbits, starting at 6:20 Love reveals he and President Obama played cards during the Osama bin Laden raid.

“Most people were like down in the Situation Room and [President Obama] was like, ‘I’m not going to be down there, I can’t watch this entire thing,’ We must have played 15 games of spades," said Love at a public event.

Yes, that was one gutsy call...East bids 4!

Also enjoyable is  the way Love talks about how President Obama 'finally found his birth certificate'.

Unbelievable.

UPDATE: As you know by now, the White House saw to it that this video was deleted once it went viral on Drudge. But you can still see it here.

Yet Another Taxpayer Paid Luxury Vacation For The Obamas, Including a Private Jet For The First Dog

You can't make this stuff up.

Our president and the First lady are enjoying the president's fourth luxury vacation this year, at the ultra-pricey Martha's Vineyard.

Like many of us, the Obamas will unfortunately be downsizing their vacation this time. Their normal rental, the 28-acre Blue Heron Farm has been sold, so they will be reduced to making do at a $7.6 million, 5,000-square foot retreat on nine acres located in Chilmark on the western tip of the island that includes its own basketball court. They'll be there eight days, so the American taxpayer will probably be picking up the tab for a full two weeks. Martha's Vineyard in season is extremely pricey.

Now, no details of what that's costing us, but we do know that over 70 rooms have been booked for the Secret Service and the rest of the entourage not deemed worthy to spend the night on call at the estate. Each room costs $345 per night. mere hovels by Martha's Vineyard standards. The Secret Service normally gets there a few days before the First Family, so let's figure ten days. That works out to well over $240,000, just for lodging for the help. With food and incidentals, we're probably talking around $300,000 plus on the conservative side, not counting transportation and fuel.

And speaking of transportation, President Obama decided to commandeer two MV-22 Ospreys, military aircraft that carry 24 passengers each and cost $11,000 per hour to fly. One of them held the first family, its luggage and some of their more favored servants. The other one was - wait for it - a dog taxi used to fly in the First Dog, Bo.

Round trip cost for two MV-22 Ospreys, about $88,000, not including maintenance.

This also doesn't include the cost of transporting the president and his wife's entourage who didn't manage to hitch a ride in the ospreys. Or any additional Cadillac Escalades or other vehicles they required.

Another little item we have to account for is construction costs for each one of the president's little idylls. Whenever the president travels, extensive renovations have to be performed for the length of his stay to deal with things like security, advanced communication networks and the like. And then these renovations have to be removed and the house returned to its original condition when he leaves. This can cost anywhere up to several hundred thousand dollars.

I've never had much good to say about President George W. Bush, but because he made a point of vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, the American taxpayer only had to do this once. We've already had to do it four times this year alone for President Obama.

Our final tab for President Obama and his family's little taste of the sweet life? Probably around a million dollars, give or take a few greens fees or the odd less than four star meal. That comes out to about $125,000 per day...a lot more than the majority of families in America live on for a full year.

President Obama 'gets' the middle class, all right. Good and hard, and without any lubrication.

Another Posh Vacay..The Obamas To Spend A Week At Martha's Vineyard

 

Yes, the Obamas have scheduled yet another lavish, taxpayer funded vacation for themselves...this time, it's a week at Martha's Vineyard:

C’est la Vie, is designing a new t-shirt to mark the president’s return. Sharky’s Cantina is preparing to roll out its “Obamarita” once again, enticing customers with a margarita made with mandarin oranges, pineapple juice, and tequila (they also have Barack-o-taco, and Barack-guac).

“We’re just pandering,” concedes owner JB Blau.

One mystery is where the Obamas will stay. The 28.5-acre estate they have rented in the past, called Blue Heron Farm, was sold in December 2011 to a European couple and it is apparently unavailable to the Obamas to rent.

The White House won’t say where he plans to stay, and neither will his friends.

“I’ll just say he won’t be as far away as he has been in the past, and I’m grateful for that,” said Charles Ogletree, a Vineyard regular and Obama’s former Harvard Law School professor.

On the island, rumors have been rampant that Obama has been eyeing property in Farm Neck. But others have said that area, where the lots are smaller and less secluded, is unlikely.

Regardless, Obama will be there during a busy time on the island.

The Martha’s Vineyard Livestock Show and Fair, which Obama’s daughters have attended in the past, is Aug. 15-18. The Grand Illumination, an annual outdoor festival in Oak Bluffs, is slated for Aug. 14, and the Oak Bluffs annual fireworks show is scheduled for Aug. 16.

“That third week of August is really the highest of high season,” said Sean Federowicz, a real estate agent.

Harry Belafonte will be performing at an invitation only event at Dreamland theater on Aug 12, an event that’s being organized by Charles Ogletree, Obama’s former professor at Harvard Law School.

Isn;t that just precious? Oh the jolly frolics of our ruling class! Honestly, we're just not worthy.

Obama Gives OK To U.S. Fundraising For Jihadi Groups

President Obama has an executive order, backed up by a fair amount of existing U.S. law that prohibits fund raising for terrorism or terrorist groups here in the United States.

But as reporter Patrick Poole ferreted out, apparently an exception was made back in July for a group known as the Syrian Support Group headed by long time Obama associates with hard line Islamist backgrounds and pre-existing ties to fundraising for named terrorist groups:

In July, the Obama State Department approved an extraordinary license for a newly formed U.S.-based organization, the Syrian Support Group, to raise money for Syrian rebels – overriding the administration’s own sanctions and Obama’s Executive Order against such activity.

To some counterterrorism and terror finance authorities in Washington D.C., this extremely rare privilege raises considerable concerns.

This is especially true because two related figures with the organization, Louay Safi and Mazen Asbahi, have previously been tied to terror fundraising efforts by Islamic organizations identified by the U.S. government in federal court as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood front Poole is talking about, of course is Hamas. And the court trial he's talking about is the Holy Land Foundation trial, where a whole slew of Ikhwan fronts like CAIR, The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others were named an unidicted co-conspirators.

 After the original trial was concluded successfully,  a second round of trials was scheduled to go after the 'unindicted co-conspirators'.

That trial would have been a slam dunk, because the Islamist group's attorneys appealed to have their names removed and not only lost the appeal but ended up causing government evidence to be unsealed that connected them even more directly with the Hamas fundraising and material support for a terrorist group.However, the Obama Department of Justice filed Disinclination to Prosecute briefs in these cases, letting the Islamists walk free.

Which brings us to the Syrian Support Group, the Syrian National Council and two long time Obama Administration associates heading these grouips, Louay Safi and Mazen Asbahi:


The attorney who actually incorporated the Syrian Support Group and applied for the State Department OFAC license was a Chicago attorney, Mazen Asbahi. When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama appointed Asbahi to head Muslim outreach for his campaign – a position he held for only a short period of time.

After his appointment, several media outlets noted that Asbahi had previously served as a board member of the Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a division of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT was identified by federal prosecutors as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 and 2008 and named unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Prosecutors entered into evidence hundreds of wire transfers showing that NAIT was actually the conduit used by the Holy Land Foundation to transmit millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas.

Also joining Asbahi on the board of Allied Assets Advisors was Jamal Said, a Chicago-area imam who was personally named unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial. A February 2004 article on the front page of the Chicago Tribune reports on Imam Said raising $50,000 in one night for Sami al-Arian, the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in North America.

Asbahi came under fire when news of his leadership role with NAIT, his affiliation with Jamal Said, and his connections with other Muslim Brotherhood front groups was noted by several media outlets. While he claimed that he only served for several weeks with the NAIT organization (a claim he never provided evidence for) he nonetheless resigned his position with the Obama campaign, though he continued to work “unofficially” in support of Obama’s election.

Interesting..just a couple of hardline Islamist lawyers from Chicago, who seem like they have some kind of relationship with President Obama, a little history.

Louay Safi, now the head of the Syrian National Council is even more interesting. The SNC is the official Syrian resistance group, who also are in charge of the Syrian Free Army, the chief armed resistance group fighting against Assad.Both groups are heavily dominated by Islamists and Salafists, most notably from the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Poole relates, Safi has quite a history. At one time, he was one of the Pentagon's top Islamic 'advisers', but that ended abruptly:

Safi’s relationship with the Pentagon ended in 2010 after it was revealed in media reports that he was teaching classes on Islamic theology to deploying troops headed for Afghanistan. What concerned some observers was Safi’s ties to terrorism, which included his being named unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami Al-Arian terrorism support trial, being caught on federal wiretaps in conversations with top terror officials, and having his office raided in 2002 by U.S. Customs in a wide-spread terror finance investigation.

Those revelations prompted 13 members of Congress to send a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding an end to the use of Safi as an approved instructor. By year’s end, Safi’s role with the Pentagon had come to an end.

As Poole reveals, we essentially are funding a hard line jihadi group headed by a man with clear ties to terrorism..and with another man tied to the Brotherhood and Islamist terrorism being given free reign to raise money here in America with zero accounting of where that money actually goes.

And apparently both men have excellent access directly to the White House.

Read the whole thing.

Reactions To Sandy Point Out A Key Difference Between Romney And Obama

 

Hurricane Sandy points out yet another key difference between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

With the huge storm coming in, both candidates have suspended campaign events for the next few days.But that's where the similarity ends.

Unlike his reaction to the Benghazi debacle, President Obama has said he's canceled campaign appearances and is going to 'monitor the situation'.

Mitt Romney? He's not 'monitoring' anything. He's filled his campaign bus up with emergency supplies and having them delivered to storm relief centers for those in the path of the hurricane.And knowing his past performance in these kinds of circumstances, I'm sure it's more than one bus.

Barack Obama 'monitors' things, waits and calculates what's to his political advantage before doing anything. He's a talker, always concerned with saying what's right..for his political agenda.

Mitt Romney sees what's needed and makes it happen. He's a doer, more concerned with doing what's right.

A small thing, but it reveals a lot.

I know which  kind of neighbor I'd rather have living next door to me if I needed help. And what kind of man I'd rather have in the White House.

What To Expect In Tonight's Debate

First of all, expect Bob Schieffer to 'moderate' even more in Obama's direction than Candy Crowley did.The above clip should give you a pretty good idea what we're dealing with, and Michelle Malkin has a few more example of how biased and partisan this shill is.

Mitt Romney will end up with all the tough followups and will be interrupted frequently whenever he starts to make traction. Expect President Obama to end up with significantly more speaking time.

However, Romney may very well make a couple of good hits on Obama's foreign policy record. There's certainly plenty of targets.

Bob Schieffer will try to lure Romney into a soundbite that the Obama media can magnify into a gaffe or talking point. Do not be surprised if the president is fairly smooth tonight, as the questions will likely have been leaked to the White House in advance to allow him to rehearse some answers. Expect a lot of variations on 'I got bin-Laden'.

With all that, barring a major gaffe by either candidate, I'd be surprised if this particular debate had much impact. Barack Obama needs a knockout, to mak e Mitt Romney appear unpresidential and I doubt he's going to get it.

Americans are primarily concerned about the economy, the president's abysmal mismanagement of it is pretty well known, and in the end that's what the election will come down to..that, and turnout.

Romney Does Stand Up Last Night At The Al Smith Dinner!!

The Al Smith dinner is an annual gala event held every year at this time in New York by the Al Smith Charitable Foundation, a Catholic charitable organization named after New York's former governor, the first Catholic ever to run for president as a Democrat in 1928. It's a $2,500 a seat fundraiser for the foundation.

In keeping with its namesake's sharp wit, noted goodwill and friendship for people on both sides of the aisle, the dinner is a bi-partisan affair noted for barbed humor and witty byplay by the speakers..and all in a good cause.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both spoke to the assembled bi-partisan crowd and I note with interest the difference in tone, the sense of humor, the difference in their ability to laugh at themselves and the way their remarks were received.

To me, Mitt Romney seemed confident, comfortable and loose. The president did not. See what you think.



( thanks and a hat tip for the Romney video to Wolf Howling via Dr. Sanity)

Mommy! Take Him Away, He's Stealing My Future!!

Smart kid..knows danger when he sees it.

Feel free to supply your own caption.