► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Biden @ $10K a couple dinner: “(Republicans) don’t have a sense of the average folks out there”

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 125 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, government, Inflation, Misery Index, Politics, Progressives, taxation, unemployment at March 14th, 2012 - 7:00 pm

Ever notice that every time this idiot opens his piehole he says something stupid?

While at a $10,000 (minimum) a couple dinner where they were served grass-fed New York strip steaks and mashed potatoes with white truffles (truffles cost about $1,800 a pound), which was held at John flukin’ Kerry’s Georgetown mansion the late republican Senator John Heinz’s Georgetown mansion that Kerry now occupies with Heinz’s widow Ter-rayyyyza, the imbecile occupying the office of the Vice President told the wealthy dumocrats that Republicans are out of touch with “average folks” and that “they (Republicans) don’t know what it’s like to be middle class”.

“These guys don’t have a sense of the average folks out there,” Biden said according to the pool report, “They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”

BTW, a poll just was released that found that 80% of Americans are worse off now than they were 4 years ago when the Obama regime first occupied D.C.

Joe Biden- The gift that keeps on giving.

And did you know John F’in Kerry served in Viet Nam?

Netanyahu to deliver ultimatum to Obama: If the USA does not attack Iran, we will do it alone

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 94 Comments › )
Filed under Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Dhimmitude, Elections 2012, History, Holocaust, Iran, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, Progressives, Terrorism at March 5th, 2012 - 11:30 am

Bibi meets with Obungler today (Monday) to discuss Iran. Think Obama will agree to order an attack on Iran? Me neither. So I guess Israel will be on her own. And God will be on Israel’s side. I just hope the Israelis are smart enough NOT to tell anyone in the Obungler administration when and where, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they warned Iran. After all, Obama did say that he’d stand with the moo-slimes.

‘Netanyahu to Tell Obama: Attack Iran – Or Else’

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will deliver President Barack Obama an ultimatum that if the United States does not attack Iran soon, Israel will, the London Telegraph reported Sunday.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said last month that there is a “strong likelihood” of an Israel attack by June. If Prime Minister Netanyahu delivers an ultimatum, it would give the United States 2-3 months to act or face the reality of an Israeli attack that would almost certainly require the United States coming to its aid, if necessary.

Israeli officials have said that in several months, Iran will have buried so many of its nuclear facilities deep under concrete bunkers in mountains that an attack would not be effective.

The Israeli Prime Minister “has the upper hand,” claims the Telegraph’s correspondent Adrian Blomfield.

“Exuding confidence, Mr. Netanyahu effectively brings with him an ultimatum, demanding that unless the president makes a firm pledge to use U.S. military force to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb, Israel may well take matters into its own hands within months,” wrote Blomfield.

He quoted analysts and sources as saying that the year-long Arab Spring rebellion in Syria, on which Iran is dependent to maintain the “axis of evil” with Lebanon, Hizbullah and Hamas, has weakened Iran as well as Damascus.

One other factor he did not mention is that President Obama is running for re-election. Failure to back Israel, if necessary, could torpedo his campaign. Moreover, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney will address the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention this week. President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres also will speak.

The president and the Prime Minister are likely to show a unified stance in public, when they meet this week, but Prime Minister Netanyahu will tell President Barack Obama in private discussions that Israel cannot wait much longer for a military strike to stop or at least delay Iran’s unsupervised nuclear program.

President Obama ruined his already dimming pro-Israel image last year, directly admonishing Prime Minister Netanyahu for continuing to build homes in what the president called “illegitimate” settlements. In return, the Prime Minister gave President Obama a lecture on the facts of life in the Arab-Israeli struggle.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently has said that if the Netanyahu government attacks Iran, Israel can defend itself against an Iranian counter-attack.

“It won’t be easy,” a former senior Defense Ministry official told the London newspaper. “Rockets will be fired at cities, including Tel Aviv, but at the same time the doomsday scenario that some have talked of is unlikely to happen. I don’t think we will have all-out war.”

***UPDATE***

Obama- Give diplomacy more time!

Just what the Iranians were hoping to hear (and expected)…

Obama offers Netanyahu assurances over Iran

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama, aiming to head off any premature Israeli strike on Iran, sought to assure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday that the United States would always “have Israel’s back” but said there was still time for diplomacy.

Netanyahu, in a show of unity with an American leader with whom he has had a rocky relationship, said at the White House that both Israel and the United States stood together on the need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“The bond between our two countries is unbreakable,” Obama said. “The United States will always have Israel’s back when it comes to Israel’s security.”

The two men, sitting side by side and smiling at each other in the Oval Office, sought to present a united front in the Iranian nuclear standoff after weeks of mounting concern that Israel would preemptively strike Iran on its own.

In one of the most consequential meetings of U.S. and Israeli leaders in years, they made no mention of any differences they may have over red lines that could trigger military action to curb an Iranian nuclear program that Israel sees as a threat to its existence.

“We believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution,” Obama said.

Netanyahu made clear that Israel would be the “master of its fate” in deciding how to deal with Iran, which has called for the destruction of the Jewish state.

“It must have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat,” Netanyahu said, echoing remarks Obama made a day earlier in a speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.

Obama has been urging Israel to allow sanctions more time to work against Iran’s nuclear ambitions while balancing that with assurances of his resolve to do whatever is necessary to keep the Islamic republic from becoming a nuclear-armed state.

At the White House meeting, Obama told Netanyahu the United States reserved “all options” in dealing with Iran. The president has made clear that would include a possible military component.

“We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world,” Obama said.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Obama’s Latino Landslide?

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Headlines, Media, Misery Index, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, Uncategorized at March 4th, 2012 - 11:11 am

Brent Bozell tends to be a bit of a prude at times, but’s he correct with this assessment of Obungler and Latino voters, and about the Obama-flavored kool-aid they’re obviously drinking shooting up over at CNN.

Obama’s Latino Landslide?

It seemed like someone had been inhaling something at CNN on Friday morning. They kept touting an upcoming interview: “Barack Obama could win the presidential election by a landslide. Op-ed contributor Charlie Garcia tells us how next.”

Garcia, a consultant to corporations on how to market to Hispanics, broke out rainbows and unicorns for Obama: “He’s doing all the right things. He’s basically saying, ‘look guys, comprehensive immigration reform. I’m all for it. It’s those Republicans that just keep getting in the way.'”

Neither Garcia nor his CNN anchor/enabler, Kyra Phillips, could recall that Democrats couldn’t get amnesty for illegal aliens (“comprehensive immigration reform”) passed when they controlled both the House and the Senate. So much for the canard that it’s the GOP’s fault. How could he promise that he can do it in a supposed second term, especially if Republicans make further gains in Congress?

Don’t trouble Garcia with facts. “He wins by a landslide. And I think that the White House knows now that he has it locked. That’s why he’s on the air all time talking to Latinos about the things that are important to them.”

Where does CNN find these guys? Does no one vet them? Garcia was in exclamation-point mode about how Obama granted an interview to Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, “the biggest radio star in the Hispanic world … He’s the Rush Limbaugh of the Latinos.”

Obama told Piolin, “I have five more years and I’ll get it done,” Garcia said. “He’s feeling pretty cocky and he should. I mean, you can accuse him of a lot of things, but he can count.”

Is that true? Did Obama really go on Spanish radio and claim a Republican Congress would support him? And no one challenged him? He said Republicans have “shown themselves unwilling to talk at all about any sensible solutions to this issue, and we’re going to have to just keep up the pressure until they act.”

In his opinion piece on CNN.com, Garcia boasted, “After watching the Republican candidates lock the kryptonite that is the immigration issue around their necks during the Arizona debate, my bet is that President Barack Obama could win another term — even if he loses key swing states such as Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.”

Losing all those states wouldn’t make for a “landslide.” It will make for a loss.

Garcia told Kyra Phillips, “The president had issues with Latinos …(but) the Tea Party has the Republicans locked in because they need to pander to the Tea Party to win the primary, but they’re not going to be able to pivot back because Latinos are looking for someone authentic. You can’t all of a sudden in August or September come back to Latino voters and say, ‘Oh I love you. I want immigration reform.’ They’re going to say you’re a phony.”

So how “authentic” is Obama when he sidelined this supposed gold mine of a political issue to sell Obamacare, insisting all the way that his health “reform” wouldn’t cover illegal aliens?

In fact, he was openly denounced by liberals for abandoning the issue. “He is the deportation president,” said “undocumented activist” Daniel Rodriguez in Time magazine. Time’s cover carried the words “Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President.”

This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time’s Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for “the most incendiary immigration law in the country.”

But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was “incendiary” despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it “incendiary” for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.

Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party “racism” an issue to Latino voters.

Republicans shouldn’t write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that 9-percent slice of Latinos would vote Republican if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino “landslide” by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty. But they’re too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.

Starting with the scoundrel occupying the White House, why is black racism and violating the law Okay?

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Religion, Socialism at February 28th, 2012 - 11:30 am

Imagine it’s 2012, and John McCain is President of the United States. And for his re-election, he decides that he wants to make sure he gets his message out to white voters, so he forms “White Americans for McCain”, to get white voters to knock on their neighbor’s doors, to volunteer to work at call centers, and to make sure that his message gets out at white or mostly white churches.

Of course, it wasn’t McCain who did that, but Obama did.

Obama and his re-election campaign formed “African-Americans for Obama”, although why this is even necessary, considering he got over 90% of the black vote in 2008, is perplexing.

Unless, of course (and this is why I think they did it) that they’re extremely worried about many blacks having no enthusiasm to vote for him again, because his socialist economic policies and profligate spending, with the help of the dimocrat-controlled House and Senate.

He said numerous times that if we spend these trillions of dollars on various stimulus bills, that millions of unemployed Americans would have good paying, shovel-ready jobs, and that in turn would fix the bad economy and unemployment to go down.

Not only did this out-of-control spending not improve the economy and lower the unemployment rate, regardless of the regime’s lies about it going down the last few months, it has only made black unemployment and job opportunities worse, the worst they’ve been for blacks in over fifty years.

Obama released a video taped specifically for African-Americans and black churches, in which Obama calls them the “faith” community, but we all know what he means- black churches- to support his regime and his failed policies.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it these loudmouth libs who are constantly squawking about the separation of church and state?

And also, as is usual with these detestable scumbags, there’s always a double-standard, and it’s only supposed to work in their favor.

White racism? Bad!

Black racism? Good!

Speaking in (mostly) white churches about voting for pro-life candidates? That’s a violation of the First Amendment, call Eric Holder to prosecute whitey!

Black pastors in black churches urging blacks to vote for Obama and other dimocrats? Why, that’s freedom of speech, and should be allowed because of slavery!

Then there’s actor Samuel L. Jackson, who was at least honest enough to say that the only reason he voted for Obama is because he’s black. And after saying that, we don’t even get a collective yawn from the MSF’inM.

But what if, let’s say, Clint Eastwood, had come out and admitted that the only reason he voted for McCain was because he was white? There’d be an uproar in the press and on Capital Hill!

Je$$e Jack$on and Al Sharpton, and the usual gaggle of race-baiting poverty pimps, such as Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and John Lewis, would all be demanding an apology and boycotts of all of his movies, DVD’s, etc.

All the MSDNC hosts’ heads would explode with outrage that Eastwood would make such an overtly racist statement, and demand his movies not only be boycotted, but that he be burned at the stake!

But the truth is, probably 95% of the blacks who voted for Obama voted from him for one reason, and once reason only. Because of the color of his skin.

Again, who are the REAL racists???