WE ARE AT WAR AND I WANT A LEADER! Obama campaigns with Beyonce and Clinton celebrates Muslim holiday! – Tea Party Nation

Benghazi Mosque

Benghazi Mosque (Photo credit: an agent)

WE ARE AT WAR AND I WANT A LEADER! Obama campaigns with Beyonce and Clinton celebrates Muslim holiday! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Kasey Jachim

The United States is in crisis mode while Obama skips security briefings to chat with ‘Pimp with a Limp’ and Hillary hosts Lockerbie bomber supporter!  We are at war and I want a leader – not a narcissistic detached campaigner who supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States just lost four Americans, 17 others are wounded, and we have experienced another 9/11 terrorist attack – where is our President?  He is busy campaigning and scheduling appearances with David Letterman, Beyonce, and Jay Z.   Our ‘Commander in Chief’ passed up security briefings to discuss football and his favorite rappers with Pimp with a Limp.  But not to worry, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett is still in charge at the White House!

Reports have also circulated that the attack in  Benghazi was an inside job and that the U.S. Department of State knew of the attack up to 48 hours ahead of time, yet chose to do nothing.

Well, not exactly nothing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy celebrating Muslim holiday Eid Mubarak two days after 9/11 attacks with Libyan ambassador Ali Sulaiman Aujali – the man who supported Scotland’s release of Lockerbie bomber.  But not to worry, Muslim-sisterhood member Huma Abedin has our backs!

Obama has put his campaign and ego ahead of national security and our safety.  Hillary Clinton is in denial.  Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco are burning flags and chanting ‘Death to America.’  Are they concerned?  Obama declined a meeting with our Israeli ally, Bibi Netanyahu, while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

As the bodies of the four victims were returned to the US today, I was astonished to hear Clinton say this tragedy occurred because of a movie.  THAT is denial.  THAT was an excuse to kill Americans.  When will this administration understand that Islam is NOT a religion of peace?

As our President and Secretary of State play down the volatile situation in the Middle East, Newt Gingrich tells it like it is:

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again perpetuated the kind of intellectual dishonesty that cripples the U.S. response to radical Islamists.

The president asserted we have to oppose “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, “We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence.”

This concept of “senseless violence” is at the heart of the left’s refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists.

These are not acts of senseless violence.

These are acts of war.

We are at war and we should demand a leader who will make our safety and the safety of our men and women serving in the Middle East his top priority!  Clint Eastwood nailed it – President Obama has failed us and it is time for him to go!

Kasey Jachim www.lettingfreedomring.com


EDITORIAL: Slick Willy is sinking Barack – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Slick Willy is sinking Barack – Washington Times.

We all have ringside seats in Clinton vs. Obama

If Bill Clinton wants Barack Obama to win re-election, he is doing a good job of hiding it. Just when the Obama campaign was trying to convince the country that Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital disqualifies him from the presidency, former President Clinton chimed in last week saying Mr. Romney did “good work” at Bain. He added, “a man who’s been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.” All he left out was, “especially compared to a community organizer.”

On Tuesday, the former president feigned surprise at the response to his remarks, saying he “didn’t have any idea” that he was “wading into some controversy in the campaign.” On the same day, he said he supported at least temporarily extending George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which spurred another cycle of “Clinton vs. Obama” headlines. The notion that one of the most gifted politicians of his generation doesn’t know the impact of his words is as credible as his not inhaling.

Theories abound as to why Mr. Clinton is making life so difficult for the White House. Some see it as a Hillary-centric ploy, helping ensure a Democratic loss in 2012 so she could run in 2016. This scheme makes little sense since even if Mr. Obama won, she could run in 2016, and from a better position not trying to unseat an incumbent.

The answer has more to do with the reality that in Mr. Clinton’s world, everything is about him. This is also true of Mr. Obama, but with important differences. While Mr. Obama covets power, Mr. Clinton craved approval – which explains differences in their presidencies. Both men started out pushing ambitious left-wing agendas that caused popular backlashes and led to their party losing control of the House in midterm elections. Mr. Obama’s response to the 2010 “shellacking” was to push his liberal agenda harder and blame Republicans for refusing to see things his way. The result has been a dismal economy, middling public approval ratings and a stumbling campaign effort.

By contrast, Mr. Clinton learned from the 1994 election and went into full triangulation mode. He sought to co-opt the most popular aspects of the Republican uprising and took credit for welfare reform and the balanced-budget initiatives he previously opposed.

The results are clear. In mid-June of 1996, Mr. Clinton’s Gallup approval rating was 58 percent, while Mr. Obama tracks around 10 points lower. But given this, why would Mr. Clinton seek to sabotage Mr. Obama? Because he needs to win. Mr. Clinton always wanted to go down in history as one of the great presidents. He rarely makes the list of the top 10, and he has been thoroughly eclipsed by Mr. Obama, whose ethnicity made his election historic from Day One. The current president achieved the health care reform Mr. Clinton could not and ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden when Mr. Clinton would not. Most galling of all is Mr. Obama being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the recognition Mr. Clinton most sought in his presidency but which eluded him. He then had to witness his former vice president Al Gore be given the prize for his crazy ranting about global warming.

Helping make Mr. Obama a one-termer will harm Barack’s standing in history, perhaps dropping him below Mr. Clinton on the list of presidential greats. That’s right where Willy wants him.

Your tax dollars not at work. – Tea Party Nation

Joe Biden

Joe Biden (Photo credit: xomiele)

Your tax dollars not at work. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

This is just wrong on so many levels.

 As Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden gets Secret Service protection.  So do a number of other people. 

 Joe Biden is actually charging the Secret Service for the privilege of protecting him.

 I kid you not.

 From The White House Dossier:

 Vice President Joe Biden last year earned $20,900 in rental income from the Secret Service, which is paying him to host agents on his property so they can protect him.

Most high-profile people in need of protection pay people to keep them safe. Government officials are allowed to have taxpayers pick up the tab. Biden is unique in that he actually gets paid by his bodyguards for the right to protect him.

 Biden’s tax records list rental income of $20,900 from a “cottage” on is property, which is reportedly being leased by the Secret Service and paid for at a rate that could earn him even more money next year.

 Biden took deductions for mortgage interest and taxes that allowed him to report only $12,653 of the amount on his federal tax return.

 Of course, the Bidens badly need the money. They only had an adjusted gross income of $379,035 last year. This probably also explains why they gave less than 1.5 percent of their income to charity.

 Of course, Biden was not the genius that came up with this scheme.  Everyone should realize that.  Biden is not bright enough.

 This scheme was pioneered by none other than Bill and Hillary Clinton.  In 2000, when the Clintons left the White House and moved her to New York so she could be a Senator, they wanted to find a way to pay their house note, which ran about $12,000 a month.

 As a former President and First Lady, they were entitled to lifetime protection from the Secret Service.  So they answer came to them.

 The Clintons had a small building on their property; so they charged rent to the Secret Service of, wait you guessed it.  $12000 a month. 

 Of course, Joe Biden is a financial idiot.  After all of his years in government service, his net worth is estimated to be somewhere between -$209,000 and $734,000.

 This guy has been in government for 40 years drawing a fairly significant salary.  He has virtually nothing to show for it.  His wife has been a college teacher for thirty years and she has nothing to show for it. 

 Even Barack Obama figured the game out quickly and with only a few years in government service, he is a multimillionaire.

 The fact that Joe Biden has had anything to do with the financial state of this nation is not only terrifying; it explains why we are in such a hole.

 And if you ever want proof Barack Obama was worried he might be declared ineligible to be president, look no further than Joe Biden. 

 It should give every American nightmares to think this clown is only one heartbeat from the Oval Office.

‘Honest’ PBS Clinton Documentary Lies About the Economy – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative Columnists

‘Honest’ PBS Clinton Documentary Lies About the Economy – Larry Elder – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Public Television touted the Bill Clinton documentary as a long-awaited warts-and-all piece. USA Today called the two-parter a “solid and even-handed account … of a remarkably skillful politician with an immense intellect.” While calling it “tedious and predictable,” The Washington Post described the documentary as “honest.”

In the first hour, the documentary stumbled out of the gate. If it were a racehorse, they’d have to put it down. The whopper we get hit with right away and again and again is this: Clinton inherited a recession — not an economy that long ago came out of a recession. Never mind that 1993 — 19 years ago — is within the living memory of many Americans. Yet we are repeatedly told that Clinton entered office under a full-on economic meltdown.

The narrator says: “Heading into the fall (of l992) … with the economy still faltering. …”

The narrator later says, “As Clinton took office in the winter of 1993, the economic crisis that had propelled him into office showed few signs of abating.”

Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin adds: “We had had a recession. We had high unemployment. And it was a lot of uncertainty about whether the United States was going to get on its feet again or whether we could be in for a prolonged period of real difficulty. So he came into a very difficult environment.”

Journalist Joe Klein describes Clinton’s first budget battle, in the late summer of ’93, as a gamble “in the midst of a recession.”

And midway through the piece, the narrator informs us that “by the fall of 1994, the economy was growing again.”

This is simply extraordinary, mind-boggling.

Whether Bill Clinton was a good president, whether he deserves the credit for balanced budgets and projected surpluses or whether he should have been impeached are matters about which reasonable people can and do disagree. But whether Bill Clinton entered office “in the midst of a recession” and whether, in the fall of ’92 and the winter of ’93, the economy was “still faltering” and “showed few signs of abating” — these are matters of fact.

The National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass., is the official keeper of the U.S. business cycle. It defines a recession as “a period of diminishing (economic) activity.” It tracks when recessions begin (a “peak” — the month when a period of economic growth ends and a downturn begins) and when recessions end (a “trough” — the month when the downturn bottoms out and the economy begins to grow again).

Bill Clinton entered office in January 1993. According to the NBER, did he inherit a recession? Not even close. The recession began in July 1990 and ended eight months later, in March 1991 — a full 19 months before Clinton was even elected.

Let’s be charitable. Perhaps the documentary used a different definition of recession. True, some experts use another standard: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. But during Bush-41’s last year in office — 1992, the year voters elected Clinton — the economy grew every quarter, averaging 3.2 percent.

But today, nearly two decades after the fact, the PBS narrator solemnly states that “as Clinton took office in the winter of 1993, the economic crisis that had propelled him into office showed few signs of abating” — even though the economy was then on its 22nd consecutive month of positive growth!

Really? “In the winter of 1993 … the economic crisis … showed few signs of abating”? Jan. 29, 1993, seven days after Clinton took office, The New York Times wrote, “U.S. Says Economy Grew at Fast Pace in Fourth Quarter: The economy grew at a faster-than-expected annual rate of 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 1992, the strongest performance in four years, the Commerce Department reported today.”

The confusion is understandable. Many in the media suffer from CRAP — Clinton Recession Amnesia Problem. CRAP spares few victims. Take MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who once said she knows little about economics and, bless her, seems determined to prove it. In January 2009, the month President Obama took office, Maddow said: “Clinton took the oath during an economic downturn, but that was a romper room compared to today’s down-crash.”

In October 1992, as President George Herbert Walker Bush ran for re-election against Bill Clinton, the economy was 18 months into a recovery. But as Investor’s Business Daily noted, 90 percent of the newspaper stories on the economy were negative. Yet the following month, when Clinton defeated Bush-41, suddenly only 14 percent of economic news stories were negative!

Given the media recitation of the false history of the state of the 1992-1993 economy — when Clinton entered office — why expect PBS to get it right?

Historical revisionism occurs when someone challenges a conventional point of view. But the Clinton documentary — as to the state of the economy he inherited — is not historical revisionism. This documentary simply recites the “facts” as the traditional media see it: Clinton inherited a recession left by his Republican predecessor — and that’s that.