Obama Administration Caught Deleting State Dept. Memo After Benghazi Attack

AP

Bombshell: Obama Administration Deleted State Dept. Memo From Internet After Discovering Al-Qaeda Was Behind Benghazi Attack
Yesterday there were reports that the Obama Administration found out that Al-Qaeda was behind the Benghazi consulate attacks within 24 hours of the assault that killed four Americans.
Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–
On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.

But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

Via: The gateway Pundit

Continue Reading...

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Former Senator: America’s Security Will Weaken Under Second Obama Term

The security of the United States will further weaken under a second term of President Barack Obama if he continues the same policies, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview, and said that radical Islamists sense weakness in the White House and are acting on it.

Thompson said that Obama is continuing down a road of appeasement that only emboldens America’s enemies.

Story continues below the video.



 

“We’ve had a history for several decades now of trying to demonstrate to the world that when things get tough, we become absent,” he said. “You can go back to the Khobar Towers, the Iranian hostage situation, you can come on down to our embassies in Mogadishu and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole, all of those things were done pretty much with impunity. The big change in our policies was after September 11th. The radical Islamists were stunned when we reacted the way we did but now we’re back to Obama.”

Thompson continued, “The first thing he did in office was go down to Cairo and apologize for the West’s past misdeeds toward Islam and since that time, he’s been determined to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible for political reasons, not based on the facts on the ground or the fact that he’d be giving up hard-won gains in both of those places.

"And now, you can look at Syria, you can look at Iran and what they’re doing. It’s all been rhetoric. It’s all been United Nations related. It’s all been international community. It’s all been finally about sanctions, which are inconvenient for the Iranians but have nothing to do with their nuclear weapons program, so why wouldn’t [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or anyone else in the world, the terrorists in the world, think that they could pretty much do what they want to do with impunity as long as this man is president?”

Via: NewsMax

Continue Reading...

HOW TO DEBATE PRESIDENT OBAMA

The upcoming Presidential debate on October 3 is the most important single event in Mitt Romney’s political career.

The elite news media is doing everything they can to convince Romney’s supporters that the election is lost.

Americans will be tuning in that evening to see if Governor Romney turns this media narrative on its head.

This will be the first time Americans will see President Obama and his challenger side by side.

This will be the largest audience to watch the two men side by side without editing or distortion by the media. If Romney wins this debate, the next debate will have an even larger audience. If he loses it, the elite media will be giddy in its intense reporting of an Obama victory and the Obama team will be giddy and energized by the proclamation of victory.

The media will attempt to pounce on a strong Obama debate and try to bring back up Bain Capital, 47 percent, income tax returns and a host of wounds as perceived by the left.

On the other hand, a Romney victory will destroy the false media narrative that is determined to avoid President Obama’s failure. Suddenly, unemployment over 8 percent, gasoline rising from $1.89 when Obama was elected to $3.89 today, massive deficits, Obamacare, weakness in foreign policy and a host of other failures will rush to the forefront.

Obviously a lot depends on this debate.

And much of the outcome depends on events and actions which are not part of normal debate preparation.

I have been observing Presidential debates since the very first debates in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Sometimes the outcome of a debate can turn on the most trivial thing.

Richard Nixon vs. John Kennedy

In 1960 then-Vice President Richard Nixon turned down professional makeup.

Television was still black and white and the lights were often harsh. Nixon thought a light application of a roll on makeup stick would suffice. His judgment was further flawed by two realities he ignored. First, Nixon naturally had a strong beard and the absence of makeup would give him a five o’clock shadow even if he shaved just before the debate. Second, he had hurt his leg, gotten infected, spent several days in the hospital and lost weight. The result was that he looked gaunt.

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading...

GOP SENATORS ASK STATE DEPT FOR 'ALL COMMUNICATIONS' WITH AMBASSADOR LEADING UP TO ATTACK

Two GOP Senators are demanding clarification on what security measures were in place for U.S. personnel there after reports that those who attacked the Libyan consulate may have had inside help.

Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) have sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which stated that they were "extremely concerned" over news of how security may have been handled in the days leading up to the attack.

Isakson and Corker have read reports that indicate the State Dept. not only failed to bolster security at the Libyan consulate as threats mounted but actually sought a waiver to circumvent their duty to so.  

This squares perfectly with the scenario Libyan militia leader Fawzi Bukatef described when he claimed the Obama administration left all security measures in the hands of his militia, the February 17 Brigade. And it is feared that because of Bukatef's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist factions, the February 17 Brigade may have actually stood down and allowed the attackers to reach Ambassador Stevens.

Isakson and Corker are seeking clarity on these things. To that end, they have asked for "all communications" between the State Dept. and the U.S. consulate in Libya that dealt with security "in the period leading up to the attacks."

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Congress Still Using Commemorative Coins to Get Around Earmark Ban

House and Senate Republicans have introduced legislation that would prevent Congress from using commemorative coins to fund pet projects as a creative workaround to the earmark ban.

In April, The Heritage Foundation’s sister organization, Heritage Action, first wrote about the commemorative coin process. Currently, Congressmen can introduce commemorative coin bills depicting national icons in their districts, such as the Pro Football Hall of Fame or Future Farmers of America. The bills are easily passed by bipartisan majorities, because it’s pretty difficult to vote against a Mother’s Day or March of Dimes commemorative coin.

It is important to note that many of these organizations are non-profits that already receive federal funding and are perfectly capable of raising their own funds through various activities such as souvenir sales or—gasp—even making their own commemorative coins.

The congressionally approved coin is then minted by the Treasury, which is completely reimbursed for the cost of the coins as coin collectors purchase them. Of course, if a coin doesn’t sell very well, the upfront cost of the minting could, in theory, not be recouped. But the Treasury is the first to be repaid upon the sale of the coins. 

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading...

MSM Tipping Point On Obama in the Middle East?

The repercussions from 9/11/12—the day the roof fell in on the Obama administration’s Middle East policy—continue to rumble across the diplomatic and political landscapes. Before that day, much of the country’s political and media establishment had been studiously ignoring signs of trouble in the Middle East or, when problems were too serious to ignore, studiously refraining from drawing conclusions about the overall state of US policy in the region.

The anti-American riots that have been rocking the Muslim world since 9/11 have shaken the establishment out of its complacency. Increasingly, even those who sympathize with the basic elements of the administration’s Middle East policy are connecting the dots. What they are seeing isn’t pretty. It’s not just that the US remains widely disliked and distrusted in the region. It’s not just that the radicals and the jihadis have demonstrated more political sophistication and a greater ability to organize and strike than expected and that the struggle against radical terror looks longer lasting and more dangerous than thought; it’s that the strategic underpinnings of the administration’s Middle East policy seem to be falling apart. A series of crises is sweeping through the region, and the US does not—at least not yet—seem to have a clue what to do.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are both thoroughly alarmed by the state of the region after 9/11/12 and the reporters if not the editorial pages have moved on from the “Blame Bush” approach. The latest article by Helene Cooper and Robert Worth in the Times cites some pretty biting criticism about the President’s approach to the Arab Spring from (unnamed) top aides and associates. It even quotes an Arab diplomat who sounds nostalgic for the good old days of W to illustrate a criticism of the President made by an (unnamed) State Department official who said, speaking of the President:

Via: The American Interest

Continue Reading... 

Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: ‘Probably Unlikely’ That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew

Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: ‘Probably Unlikely’ That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew

By Matthew Sheffield

With no manufactured outrage to hammer Mitt Romney at the moment, liberal journalists are now eagerly touting a series of polls which appear to show President Obama pulling away from the GOP nominee in several key states.

Unfortunately, these polls are relying on sample sizes which are skewed tremendously leftward with far more Democrats than Republicans and as such, they are unlikely to be good predictors of actual Election Day turnout. Do the pollsters themselves actually believe in their own sample sizes though? At least one appears not to.

Interviewed last month by conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac polling operation was particularly squeamish about sampling under tough questioning from Hewitt about a poll which Quinnipiac had released showing Democrats with a 9 percentage point advantage in the state of Florida.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Postal Service Prepares for Second Default in Two Months

The U.S. Postal Service will default this week on a $5.6 billion congressionally mandated obligation to pre-fund retiree health benefits, marking the second time in two months the cash-strapped agency has done this.

The Postal Service last month failed to pay $5.5 billion for its fiscal 2011 prepayment obligation, which originally was due in September 2011 but was deferred by Congress until Aug. 1. That was the first time it ever defaulted on a payment to the Treasury Department. The $5.6 billion due this week, on Sept. 30, represents this fiscal year’s obligation.

Before this year, Congress helped USPS defer pre-funding payments required by a 2006 congressional mandate. Postal reform has challenged this Congress. Lawmakers warn that when they revisit the issueafter the November election they likely won’t reach agreement on as major an overhaul as some deem necessary. USPS lost $5.2 billion in the third quarter of fiscal 2012, $2.1 billion more than during the same time period in 2011.

(RELATED: Is American Faith In Upward Mobility Faltering?)

Health care for current retirees is paid for from the Postal Service's general operating budget and will not be affected by the default. The agency’s inability to make its payments will not affect mail delivery or employee pay, said USPS spokesman David Partenheimer.

The Senate passed a postal-reform bill this spring and its architects have derided the House for stalling on a vote on its version of the bill. The two bills have some similarities, but would address retiree health care prepayment obligations differently. The Senate bill restructures the prepayments to make them more manageable; the House bill, which passed out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this year, requires the agency to pay $1 billion of its fiscal 2011 prepayment obligations and make up the remainder in fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading...

Hillary Clinton Admits Al-Qaeda Linked With Attack On U.S. Consulate In Libya…

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others. She was the highest-ranking Obama administration official to publicly make the connection, and her comments intensified what is becoming a fiercely partisan fight over whether the attack could have been prevented.

Mrs. Clinton did not offer any new evidence of a Qaeda link, and officials later said the question would be officially settled only after the F.B.I. completed a criminal inquiry, which could take months. But they said they had not ruled out the involvement of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — an affiliate of the international terrorist group with origins in Algeria — in an attack the administration initially described as a spontaneous protest turned violent.

Her remarks added to the administration’s evolving and at times muddled explanation of what happened on the evening of Sept. 11 and into the next morning. Republicans in Congress have accused President Obama of playing down possible terrorist involvement in the midst of a re-election campaign in which killing Osama bin Laden and crippling Al Qaeda are cited as major achievements.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks at a special United Nations meeting on the political and security crisis in the parts of North Africa known as the Maghreb and the Sahel, particularly in northern Mali, which has been overrun by Islamic extremists since a military coup helped lead to the division of that country this year.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has long operated in the region, she said, and was now exploiting a haven in Mali to export extremism and terrorist violence to neighbors like Libya.

Via: NYT

Continue Reading...

Weekly Standard: How to Make 2012 into 1980

When Republican strategists like Karl Rove cite 1980 as a model for this year’s election, they usually have in mind two main elements: Ronald Reagan’s question in the late October presidential debate about whether voters felt better off than four years earlier, when they elected Jimmy Carter, and Reagan’s ability in that debate to reassure swing voters about his ability to serve successfully if elected, converting a very close race into a ten-point blowout by “closing the deal.”
Reagan toasting 1981

The premise of most GOP analysts is that because of the bad economy, Carter was seen as presiding over a failed presidency, and that to throw him out four years after he had ousted the Republicans, all the voters needed was affirmation that Reagan was up to the challenge of turning the economy around. The application of this precedent to Mitt Romney’s race against Barack Obama is too obvious to need much elaboration: establish Romney as economically qualified and the election will be his.\

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

PINOCCHAHONTAS: ELIZABETH WARREN DOUBLES DOWN ON CHEROKEE CLAIM

In her new "Family" television ad, Elizabeth Warren directly responds to the controversy surrounding her claims to Native American heritage.

Here are the three central claims Ms. Warren makes using the same phrasing she's tested out with crowds over the past several months:

1. That she has Native American heritage.

2. That her parents were forced to elope because her father's parents objected to their marriage due to her mother's heritage.

3. That she did not benefit from "checking the box" as a Native American in a law school professor directory several times during the 1980s and 1990s.

Let's analyze these three claims, one by one:

Claim #1:  "[My mother] was part Cherokee and part Delaware."

As Breitbart News and many other sources have documented in excruciating detail, there is zero credible evidence to support the claim that Elizabeth Warren's mother had any Native American heritage, either Cherokee or Delaware. The only "evidence" Ms. Warren has ever presented to support those claims are her recollections and the recollections of her brothers that her mother and grandmother made such claims while they were children.

Claim #2: "[M]y parents had to elope."

Ms. Warren repeated this claim that Breitbart News debunked in June at the debate with Scott Brown last Thursday.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Toyota Pulls Plug On Obama’s Green Car Fantasy

Toyota has scrapped plans for widespread manufacturing and sale of a new mini-car that was to be powered as electric only. Reuters reports that Toyota stated they “had misread the market and the ability of still emerging battery technology to meet consumer demands.”

We would all be a lot better off, if Only Barack Obama and Harry Reid had the same amount of guts as Toyota to admit to making gross errors in judgment. Takeshi Uchiyamada, the engineer who oversees vehicle development as Vice Chairman of Toyota, was frank in stating, “two years later, there are many difficulties.”

Takeshi is no lightweight. He spearheaded the development of the Prius in the 1990s. When Takeshi talks engineers and students of thermodynamics listen. When Obama and Reid talk, people get screwed or simply choose not to listen. 

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Good News: 60% Of U.S. Firms To Kill Health Insurance Or Charge Employees More Under Obamacare…

A majority of small business owners and manufacturers are mulling drastic changes to comply with Obamacare, with 21 percent set to drop health insurance to workers altogether and 38 percent planning to make employees pay much more.

In a poll done for the National Association of Manufacturers and National Federation of Independent Businesses, 59 percent said that they will have to consider changes once the full law kicks in because increased costs will jeopardize their operations. According to the poll, 67 percent expect Obamacare to raise healthcare costs.

The fears about spending more on health care are adding to growing concerns among small businessmen and women about staying in business, said the poll from Public Opinion Strategies.

Pollster Bill McInturff noted that the combination of a bad economy, greater regulations and increased economic uncertainty have forced 24 percent of the firms polled to lay off workers, 23 percent to tap their own savings to stay open and 11 percent to kill health coverage for workers.

"The climate in Washington is a concern to them," said McInturff. Dan Danner, president of NFIB added: "Why would I invest in this environment?"

Those polled were so down on President Obama and Congress that many said they wouldn't start a business today. Asked if they would start a new business, 55 percent said no. Among the reasons they cited were high taxes, health care costs, regulations and an uncertain economy.

Said McInturff, "The data paints a bleak picture, with a majority of respondents saying in the last three years, the national economy is in a worse position for American businesses and manufacturers." What's more, he found, businesses see little evidence that the economy will brighten soon.

THANK YOU, OBAMACARE: FAMILIES PAY $3000 MORE FOR INSURANCE; OBAMA PROMISED $2500 DECREASE

President Barack Obama promised that Obamacare would cut family health insurance premiums by $2,500 by the end of the first term--but instead they have risen by $3,000, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation study cited by Investor’s Business Daily. 

The cost of health insurance today is more than 50% higher than Obama promised it would be--and the costs are expected to continue to rise as Obamacare is impemented.

John Merline of Investor's Business Daily notes the rising costs specifically contradict a campaign promise Obama reiterated several times, including in debates with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and at events along the 2008 campaign trail. 

Furthermore, the data show that the rise in family premium costs, largely attributable to the costs of complying with Obamacare, has outpaced the rise in costs under eight years in the previous four years of George W. Bush. 

Health insurance companies have already been required to provide additional coverage for so-called “children” up to age 26, among other changes. That coverage is described by Obama as “free,” but in fact the costs are borne by other patients. 

Obamacare also does nothing to change the underlying incentives driving the rising costs of health care, and in fact makes them worse by adding mandates and reducing patients’ choices.

Over the next four years, if Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is not repealed, the federal government will have to apply cost controls, resulting in the rationing of health care by bureaucrats and/or hospitals. 

That is why the Obama administration placed such a heavy emphasis on the Independent Payments Advisory Board--and why vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has spent so much time attacking it.

Via: Breirbart

Continue Reading...

Claim: Elizabeth Warren doesn't need Massachusetts law license

Legal Insurrection's William Jacobson questioned the legality of Elizabeth Warren's engaging in legal practice from her office at Harvard Law School without having gotten a license to practice law in that state. Now a counter-argument has been offered. Mark Thompson writes:

 most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

"A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that...are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction."

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits such an attorney to have even a "systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis."

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren's actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law.

Although it is true that Rule 5.5(d) does "not authorize communications advertising legal services to prospective clients in [Massachusetts] by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions," merely listing the location of one's office in an official court filing in which one is properly authorized to appear cannot possibly be construed as a "communication advertising legal services."  

Via: The American Thinker

Continue Reading... 

MEDIA POLLS: THE NEWEST NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD

Over the years, I've generally had little patience when partisans make the "polls are wrong" argument. I've usually found it to be the last refuge of campaigns which were clearly struggling. Sure, individual polls can be wrong, and some can occasionally produce a crazy outlier, but a collective average of polling produces a roughly accurate snapshot of the state of a race. This year, however, is different. The overwhelming majority of media polling this election employ such absurd assumptions about turnout this November that they not only misrepresent the presidential race, they are actively distorting it. I also believe it is intentional. 

In 2008, the electorate that elected Barack Obama was 39% Democrat, 32% GOP and 29% Independent. This is what we call a D+7 electorate. Obama defeated McCain by 7 points, the same margin. In 2004, the electorate was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% Independent, in other words D/R +0. Bush defeated John Kerry by 3 points nationally. 

Yet, virtually every big media poll is based on a model in which Democrats equal or increase their share of the electorate over 2008. Beyond simple common sense, there are many reasons this won't happen. The Dem vote in '08 was the largest in decades. It came after fatigue of eight years of GOP control, two unpopular wars, a charming Democrat candidate who was the Chauncy Gardner of politics, a vessel who could hold everyone's personal dreams and hopes for a politician. It was a perfect storm for Democrats. 

None of the factors driving Democrat turnout in '08 exist today. Recent polls from AP, Politico and the daily tracking polls from Rasmussen and Gallup, all of which assume relatively lower Democrat turnout in November, show the race essentially tied. Only those polls showing an electorate with equal or greater numbers of Democrats show Obama with any sizable lead. 

Yet, it's these polls that are driving the political narrative. Every day the media launches a number of stories about Romney's "struggling" campaign. They cite anonymous GOP sources who wring their hands that the campaign is losing ground. The only real evidence of this, however, are the polls which heavily over-sample Democrat voters. Without these skewed polls, the media's narrative would be untenable. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Carney gets reporters talking football, not politics, during press gaggle

The traveling press corps managed to ask only seven non-football questions, according to the 1,985-word transcript provided by the White House. The gaggle’s first quarter was devoted to the president’s assessment of a disputed call during a Sept. 24 football game between the Green Bay Backers and the Seattle Seahawks.

“I have no announcements, but I do have to say that there is a pressing matter that kind of transcends all else for most Americans,” Carney said as he began the gaggle on Air Force One as it flew back from New York toward Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington.

Carney’s casual introduction prompted laughs from the attending reporters, two weeks after Carney began claiming that a little-known YouTube video prompted a lethal jihad attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

“Come on. You’re not even waiting for the question, Carney,” a reporter joked with Carney.

“This morning I watched it, and it was really astounding,” continued Carney.

“And by ‘it,’ I mean the end of the Packers-Seahawks game,” he announced, 13 days after Cabinet Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was found in violation of the Hatch Act.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Biden Accuses Republicans Of “Buying Into Extremism”…

 Makes Middle Class Appeal In GOP-Voting Virginia Suburb

CHESTERFIELD, Va. — Vice President Joe Biden made a raw appeal to Virginia's middle class on Tuesday, blasting the GOP presidential ticket for pushing what he says is a blueprint for boosting middle-income taxes while giving trillions in tax breaks to the rich.

Biden said Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan represent a radical and obstructionist brand of conservatism that would sacrifice education and Medicare to help the wealthy.

"Look, folks, this is not your father's Republican Party," Biden said, portraying Romney as out of touch with ordinary people and Ryan as willing to wreck the nation's finances to protect the wealthy from tax increases.

Virginia Republicans countered that it's Obama's policies that will hurt economic growth and kill jobs.

"The president's proposed tax increases will not make the next four years any better than the last. They will only stifle growth and eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs in Virginia alone," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican Party in Virginia. Short argued that Romney's approach would lower tax rates for all and create 340,000 jobs in the state.

Appealing directly to the moderates who decide elections in Virginia, particularly in middle-class suburbs like Chesterfield, Biden evoked his former Senate colleague from the state.

"I would be dumbfounded if former Republican Sen. John Warner said anything like that," Biden told his audience of more than 500 people in a cramped tractor barn at a county fairground. "I would be dumbfounded. I worked with him for 30 years." Warner retired in 2009 after serving five terms. He was succeeded in office by Democrat Mark R. Warner.

Via:  The Huffington Post

Continue Reading...

Obama Advisor: ‘If He Met With One World Leader, He Would Have To Meet With 10’

The reason why President Obama is not meeting with any foreign leaders during this week's United Nations General Assembly in New York is, as one aide to the president explained, because "If he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10."

The reasoning was explained that way to the New York Times.

"Mr. Obama was scheduled to attend a reception for world leaders at the United Nations on Monday night. But a campaign adviser acknowledged privately that in this election year, campaigning trumped meetings with world leaders. 'Look, if he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10,' the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity," the Times reports today. 

Former deputy national security advisor Elliott Abrams

 cannot recall an occasion when a president went to speak at the General Assembly and simply refused to meet anyone. Perhaps this is the product of Mr. Obama’s fight with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, for having refused a meeting with him Mr. Obama must now pretend (for obvious political reasons) that it isn’t personal and he simply has no time for these unimportant personal meetings. So dozens of foreign leaders–presidents, prime ministers, sheiks, kings–are in New York, have serious things to say to us, want to hear about our policies, and will not be able to see the president. This is a serious failure by Mr. Obama and limits the effectiveness of American diplomacy. One can only hope that if he is re-elected, Mr. Obama will somehow recognize the costs this failure have imposed. Or perhaps in her exit interview secretary Clinton can explain it to him. Someone should.

Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the ladies of The View yesterday for a chat.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Former Navy SEAL’s To Obama: We Are Not ‘Bumps In The Road’

Former Navy SEALs are speaking out after President Barack Obama referred to recent events in the Middle East, including the deaths of two former Navy SEALs, as "bumps in the road."

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were providing security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was attacked on 9/11. They were both hailed in the aftermath of the attacks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both had gone into private security after retiring from the Navy after distinguished careers.

Former SEAL and current Montana State Senator Ryan Zinke issued the following statement:

The President refuses to admit that his policy of appeasement and apology has failed.  The murder of our Ambassador and two former Navy SEALs is more than a "bump in the road," it is a global catastrophe where America is seen as being weak and vulnerable by our enemies. This President has failed to establish a red line for Iran's nuclear ambitions and has failed to recognize the scale and implications of the attacks against us. Reagan had it right: don't negotiate with terrorists and recognize the clear and present danger of not being willing to act or lead from the front.

Zinke has been a frequent critic of President Obama's foreign policy, and started a super PAC, Special Operations for America, that has released ads to that effect, including an adhighlighting Obama's bows to foreign monarchs.

Beyond the political debate, however, Navy SEALs are also a close-knit brotherhood, and do not take kindly to disrespect when lives are lost. President Obama's "bumps in the road" comment is particularly chafing because of the credit he has taken for the success of the SEALs in the raid against Osama bin Laden. 

They are heroes when they return, and heroes when they fall--not just when it is politically convenient for those in power.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Israeli Government Tweets Article Critical Of Obama…

An official Israeli government Twitter account linked to an article critical of President Obama in a Tuesday tweet, in another sign on ongoing differences between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

"Israeli official: Obama doesn’t give us same sense Clinton did that he’ll be there if things go bad - Times of #Israel," the government press office's official Twitter account wrote.

The Times of Israel article it links quotes an anonymous government official attacking Obama's policies towards the region, while simultaneously praising former President Bill Clinton.

“Clinton made us feel like he had our back," the official told the newspaper about the 1990s Camp David accords. "When we made concessions that were greater than anything an Israeli government had ever offered, we felt he’d be there if things went bad. Would he have been there? I don’t know. But it felt that way, and it put us in a different frame of mind. President Obama doesn’t give us the same sense that he’d be there.”

In a statement, the Israeli embassy in Washington said that the tweet did not constitute an endorsement — something that the Twitter account makes clear with a disclaimer that "tweet/RT does not constitute endorsement of view."

"The GPO distributes links to various articles to members of the press community and does not represent the government policy," the embassy told POLITICO. "The quote in this article doesn't reflect the position of the government of Israel. Israel deeply appreciates President Obama's commitment to its security and the superb defense cooperation between our two countries."

Still, the anonymous Israeli official's take on the current security situation contradicts the official line of the Netanyahu government. On the record, the Netanyahu government has said that Obama has given the Jewish state every security assurance on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

"President Obama has said that he’s determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and I appreciate that and I respect that.  I think implicit in that is that if you’re determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it means you’ll act before they get nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said recently on NBC's "Meet the Press."