• Barack Obama,  Debbie Wasserman Schultz,  Libya

    DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Says Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn’t Mean They Were False

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Libya

    Democratic National Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz say what?

    Piers Morgan, CNN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who are in positions of responsibility and we would assume knowledge. And it’s pretty unAmerican, pretty unAmerican to be putting up completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it?

    Debbie Wasseerman Schultz, DNC chair: Piers, it is not okay for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence that they were given —

    Piers Morgan: That turned out to be completely wrong.

    Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn’t mean it was false. It doesn’t mean that it was deliberate. It means that.

    Morgan: What?! Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

    Wasserman Schultz: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate. What they did was it was important to get information out that they had at the time. And they did that. And as they learned more information, they corrected the original information that they put out. But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time that we had based on our best intelligence and then as more intelligence was gathered we gave the updated information. There is nothing sinister about that.

    What’s terrible unfortunate though, is that you do — there’s no around these investigations that Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have left to go after the administration questioning whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to mislead. We should be closing ranks, working together to prevent this from happening again.

    Morgan: Well the answer to that Debbie, is — the answer to that is to make sure that the original statements that were made are accurate.

    Say what again?

    The Obama Administration put out false, untrue information that the four deaths in Libya, including the American ambassador, were the result of some phony baloney You Tube video. The Libyan deaths were result of a terrorist attack. This is well established early on by Obama’s own State Department.

    What Wasserman Schultz is saying is like Bill Clinton saying he did not have sex with that woman – Lewinsky.

    Give me a break….

    Here is the video:

    [youtube]http://youtu.be/-_u7u9SB7Qc[/youtube]

  • Barack Obama,  Libya

    Video: The Obama White House Disinformation Campaign On Libya

    [youtube]http://youtu.be/uFf0dUH3OtU[/youtube]

    There is little doubt now that the killing of the American Ambassador in Libya was a direct terrorist attack on the United States. It was NOT about some stupid video or cartoon mocking Muhammed.

    Here is a timeline of the incriminating disinformation campaign.

    The latest incriminating information on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya indicates that the State Department turned down a request for additional security from concerned U.S. embassy staff.

    New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.

    And when the terrorist attack did take place, the Obama Administration peddled the ridiculous story that an offensive, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube video was to blame in order to avoid characterizing the murders of four Americans as terrorism.

    President Obama will have to answer to this obvious misdirection during the next Presidential debate next week.

  • Barack Obama,  Big Bird,  Mitt Romney

    Obama Steps Into It with Big Bird Campaign Ad

    Sesame Street tells Obama to leave Big Bird aloneThe Obama campaign ad was released this morning, but the Big Bird folks want Obama to pull the ad.

    Big Bird, it seems, isn’t thrilled about his cameo in the presidential race.

    The folks at Sesame Street are asking the Obama campaign to pull down a TV ad released Tuesday that mocks Mitt Romney for vowing to yank the subsidy to PBS.

    At the presidential debate in Denver last week, Mr. Romney said he would end the subsidy in view of the nation’s fiscal troubles.

    “I love Big Bird,” the Republican challenger said “… But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

    Up went an ad by team Obama called “Big Bird’’ that suggests Mr. Romney is targeting children’s programming rather than legitimate threats to people’s economic interests.

    The ad shows images of Bernie Madoff and others implicated in various financial and corporate scandals. A narrator then intones: “And the evil genius who towered over them?”

    A silhouette of Big Bird flashes on screen.

    “Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street,” the narrator said.

    The ad is airing on national cable and broadcast TV, in time slots devoted to comedy shows, the Obama campaign said.

    Sesame Street isn’t amused. Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces and owns the show, issued a statement Tuesday saying “we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.”

    This is the biggest Obama GAFFE of the Presidential campaign so far.

    The ad trivializes the Presidency and really is unbecoming to President Obama. His campaign should pull the ad and apologize.

    In response, the Romney campaign issued the following:

    The choice in this election is becoming more clear each day. Four years ago, President Obama said that if you don’t have a record to run on, ‘you make a big election about small things.’ With 23 million people struggling for work, incomes falling and gas prices soaring, Americans deserve more from their president.

  • Barack Obama,  President 2012

    Obama Campaign Gets Serious with Big Bird Ad?

    [youtube]http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc[/youtube]

    Of course, the Obama Campaign folks will say that this is just a light-hearted dig at Romney. But, the fact that in their press release they did not list the states where this purported television ad will air, everyone suspects that this was a “trial balloon.”

    The add is a pretty stupid move when the President just had his ass kicked on the issues in the first debate with Mitt Romney.

    I mean, really, 8 per cent unemployment for 44 months of his Presidency and a stagnant economy, then the President attacks Romney over Big Bird.

    Obama and his campaign are flailing….

  • Barack Obama,  Saturday Night Live

    Video: SNL Mocks MSNBC’s Reaction to Obama’s Disastrous Debate Performance

    SNL Mocks MSNBC over Obama Debate

    This is hilarious as the MORONS over at MSLSD, I mean MSNBC go apoplectic over President Obama’s disastrous debate performance against Mitt Romney.

    Remember Obama’s performance?

    [youtube]http://youtu.be/819q62ZMYVk[/youtube]

    Watch the video now:

    Keep in mind, that SNL will next week, hail the Obama comeback – regardless as to what happens in the campaign.

  • Barack Obama,  Government Regulation,  Mitt Romney,  Polling,  President 2012

    Poll: Americans Don’t Want MORE Government Regulation of Business and Industry

    According to the latest Gallup Poll.

    Americans say there is too much (47%) rather than too little (26%) government regulation of business and industry, with 24% saying the amount of regulation is about right. Americans have been most likely to say there is too much regulation of business over the last several years, but prior to 2006, Americans’ views on the issue of government regulation of business were more mixed.

    The collapse of Lehman Bros., the failure of the secondary mortgage market, and other business problems in 2008 and 2009 might have been expected to increase Americans’ desire for more government control of business and industry. But that was not the case. Americans’ views that there is too much government regulation in fact began to rise in 2009, perhaps in response to the new Obama administration and new business regulation policies such as Dodd-Frank, reaching an all-time high of 50% in 2011 before settling down slightly this year to 47%.

    There has been little change since 2003 in the percentage of Americans saying there is too little regulation of business. The changes that have occurred in recent years have involved shifts between the percentages choosing the “too much” and “about right” alternatives.

    Congressional Democrats and President Obama are vulnerable on this issue and this is certainly exploitable by the GOP.

    I, certainly, would have expected to see some national cable television ads on this subject. But, maybe, they will be hitting this issue hard in the coming weeks with their ad buys.

    Even independent voters say there is too much government regulation of business.

    Here is the chart:

    Poll of Goverment Regulation by party preference chart

    What does this mean?

    Despite what some observers call a pattern of excess by big business that helped lead to the 2008 recession, Americans continue to say there is too much rather than too little government regulation of business. In fact, over the 15 times since 1993 that Gallup has asked this question, never have more than a third of Americans said there is too little regulation of business and industry.

    The increase in the “too much” viewpoint since 2008 largely results from Republicans’ increased agreement with this point — most likely reflecting their reaction to Democratic President Obama’s election and his policies once in office.

    All in all, the results suggest that a call from Mitt Romney for a reduction in government regulations and red tape may strike a more responsive chord from the average American, particularly independent Americans, than a call from Obama for more regulation.

  • Barack Obama,  Michael Ramirez

    Michael Ramirez: Don’t You Have Something More Important?

     

    Chris Muir’s Day By Day cartoon is down for a few days for upgrades, so I will bring you one of my other favorite cartoonists, Michael Ramirez.

    Ramirez’s point is that shouldn’t the President be discussing more substantive issues with the state of the nation as it is?

    But, remember Obama’s primary goal is to win re-election. Why talk policy if the media will allow you to do “fluff” interviews and coast to victory?

    I am feeling that even should Obama win re-election, that he will be a “lame duck” the minute he is sworn into office. Now, can Mitt Romney step up his game in the next 43 days and hold Obama accountable?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

  • Barack Obama,  Matt Drudge

    Matt Drudge: Obama Has NO Time for Netanyahu

    Obama talking to a pirateLeave it to Matt Drudge to ding President Obama on his failure to arrange a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    For the first time since taking office, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is slated to visit the United States without meeting US President Barack Obama. The lack of a meeting later this month comes in the midst of roiling tensions between Jerusalem and Washington over setting red lines for Iran’s nuclear program.

    Some have seen the absence of a face-to-face conversation as a further sign of strain in the relationship.

    But, the pirate photo which was taken in 2009 was revived by the Obama Campaign for International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Here is the  tweet:


    You know it is all priorities for the President.

    Somehow, I think meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister over Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is a bit more important. But, maybe Obama will be MORE flexible after the is re-elected?

    Anyone want to make a bet on that?

  • Barack Obama,  Day By Day

    Day By Day September 13, 2012 – The Flip Side

    Day By Day cartoon for September 13, 2012

    Day By Day by Chris Muir

    The Obama Administration’s foreign policy has NO CLOTHES.

    The fecklessness is so readily apparent.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday that the attacks on American embassies in the Middle East were happening as a result of “the policy of appeasement” and called for immediate congressional hearings into the violence that has left four foreign service officers dead.

    “You can start them tomorrow. These hearings should start,” Inhofe told Fox News.

    “Let’s keep in mind, this is a big deal,” he continued. “We have four countries right now attacking America. When you attack an embassy, you’re attacking America. We can’t sit around and wait for hearings. We’ve got to do it right now.”

    Inhofe was then asked by Fox host Steve Doocy if the attacks were the result of President Obama’s foreign policy, and specifically his “apology tour” when he visited Egypt at the beginning of his presidency. Although the president did not issue any apologies during that trip, Republicans have criticized the tone as too conciliatory.

    “Yeah. What foreign policy? The policy of appeasement,” Inhofe said. “Yes, it’s happening as a result of that… this thing is huge. we mentioned four countries, let me tell you, it’s not going to stop there. there is war against america throughout the entire region. they’re attacking us now.”

    Inhofe went on to call for the suspension of aid to countries where diplomatic missions had been attacked. In an interview Wednesday with Telemundo, President Obama said the United States didn’t “have the option of withdrawing from the world.”

    Yet, the main stream media is all over Mitt Romney for comments that are consistent with his world view and his foreign policy positions.

    Are American voters watching?