Testifying!

 Amen!

Obama's record

From Drudge:

8.1%
+96,000
FED SET TO PUMP
368,000 DROPPED OUT
88,921,000 'NOT IN LABOR FORCE'

I'M NOT DONE YET...

Need anything more be said?

Response From RPV Chairman To McAwfullest/Dear Leader Fundraiser

"It's fitting that Barack Obama would have a fundraiser with Terry McAuliffe. Terry is a self-proclaimed salesman, but it's going to take more than a great salesman to make Virginia buy another four years of Obama, or another dose of Tim Kaine. Between 8 percent national unemployment, billion-dollar tax hikes, Solyndra, and $4 gas, Virginians aren't buying what Terry, Tim, Bill, and Barack are selling.

While it hasn't been announced publicly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Tim Kaine show up tonight as well. President Obama is doing his best to get his own personal U.S. Senator elected, and Tim Kaine has made it clear he'll stand with Barack Obama, even if the President's positions are contrary to what is in Virginia's best interests.

Each of these Democrats offer the same failed vision of the future - bigger, more intrusive government, higher taxes, and and more expensive, less abundant energy. Government as the solution to all problems, while freedom is slowly but surely eroded away. Virginians deserve better - and will vote for better in November.

With Terry hosting this event tonight, it is clear he fully embraces the extreme agenda of Barack Obama and his liberal policies that are hurting Virginia. What a way for Terry to kick off his 2013 campaign than with his political soul mates - Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tim Kaine."

The Candidates STILL suck. Pick one.

And vote for him.

Last December, 16th, I wrote "All The Candidates SUCK. Pick One."

The readers at REDSTATE were gracious enough to put it on the front page and add 231 comments to it.

Apparently, from what I've been reading across the web.....Conservatives ARE STILL NOT GETTING IT!

Unless there is a miracle, Mitt Romney will defeat Rick Santorum in the primaries.

THAT SUCKS. Obama winning the election.... that SUCKS MORE.

But, Mitt Romney is who people are choosing..... for whatever reason. Even Marco Rubio endorses him.

And yet........ I still read that conservatives are going to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney if he's the candidate because he's too progressive/rich/a flip-flopper/just like Obama, (fill in the blank).

Let me give you something to look at that describes Obama better than I can. Here's Bill Whittle.





Does the above describe Mitt Romney? Is a Mitt Romney presidency WORSE than an Obama that does not need to be re-elected? Can you imagine Mitt Romney telling a freaking Soviet Russian Premier President that he's going to help them out on getting rid of OUR defenses....just let him get through his LAST election? If you are not going to vote for Obama's opponent because of principle..... because you believe that there's no difference between the candidates or the parties...... that sitting out this election will teach someone a lesson...... Really? Like a pacifist that refuses to defend himself, yet relies on the efforts of others, those that refuse to fight, that surrender, that take their balls and go home because their team captain wasn't picked.... Go. And if Obama wins, know that you are the reason.

Remember this. Evil triumphs because good people do nothing, not because of actions on evil's part.


cross-posted at RedState

What's a good Obama campaign song?

In answer to Concrete Bob's question....how about this one?



or this one:



Now THIS song should be OUR song about King Obama

President "PRESENT" Panders to the Environuts

President Obama, having already delayed his decision for months, is voting “Present” again on national security. Energy security that is.

The Keystone XL pipeline is in danger of being canceled. The company has deadlines and contracts to fulfill. President Obama is pandering to the environmentalists that want this delayed or canceled under the mistaken idea that they are helping the earth by doing so. If the pipeline does not come south to provide the US with oil, the Canadians will just route it westward and sell the oil to China, while we will have to have oil shipped in from overseas, a greater danger of pollution.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A64O920111110

All this only to be able to get votes. And then, he will approve it. IF its still available.

http://news.investors.com/Article/590518/201111031841/Obamas-Keystone-Dilemma.htm

Excerpt: An increasingly peeved Canada may not wait for the U.S. to remain its best customer, a promise Obama made Brazil as it pursued offshore drilling we were curtailing. “What will happen if there wasn’t approval — and we think there will be — is that we’ll simply have to intensify our efforts to sell the oil elsewhere,” Joe Oliver, Canada’s natural resource minister, told Reuters .

That elsewhere is China. As we’ve noted, Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia. Alberta’s finance minister met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China’s other big oil company, and representatives of China’s banks.

Obama supports HAMAS on Israeli borders

Israel is a thorn. Its existence irks the Arabic world. It was created out of whole cloth in 1948, out of British controlled territory. The State of Palestine was also created in 1948. The Arabs rejected it. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 700,000 "palestinians" fled or were ejected. They were the enemy.

Today, the Arabs of the Palestinian territories demand a state, something that they rejected twice before. They demand a "right of return to settle within ISRAELI borders, though they and their ancestors can be considered enemies of Israel. They left to allow attacking armies to kill Israelis. They are treated as refugees in ARABIC countries and are not allowed to assimilate and yet they blame the Jews for their situation. The current situation is of THEIR making.

In 1949, Israel signed an Armistice, almost derailed by the Muslim Brotherhood, with the warring Arab states, delineating the lines of control of the various participating countries. Lebanon withdrew behind its recognized border. Egypt withdrew, but kept control of Gaza. Jordan kept control of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949. This, however, was rejected by all nations, except Great Britain. The US State Department also recognized the extension of Jordanian sovereignty.

So, how was Jordan's stewardship of East Jerusalem?

Jordan, although mandated by the UN to let Israeli Jews visit their holy sites, refused access to them. They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues. Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites. The Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated, with gravestones used to build latrines for Jordanian army barracks, and almost every synagogue was demolished in the period from 1948 to 1967.

Palestinian Arabs continued to cause trouble during this "peaceful" period, including the assassination of King Abdullah I of Jordan because they believed he was seeking a formal peace treaty with Israel.

And thus matters stood until the Six Day War in 1967, caused by Egypt's hostile blockades and the removal of peacekeepers. Jordan, instead of remaining neutral, attacked through the West Bank, and was pushed back. The Arab nations lost again. Israel occupied the West Bank as a protective buffer. Jordan ceded all claims to the West Bank in 1988, handing it to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, recognizing them as the sole representatives of the "Palestinian" people.

The PLO has conducted thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Israel. They have rejected any peace treaties and walked out on a treaty formalizing a state in 2000. Do you think that they would be any better at allowing access to East Jerusalem than the Jordanians? Today, Christians and Christian holy sites are in danger in the West Bank. The Christians in Bethlehem have been terrorized into fleeing the town. Churches have been desecrated.

To the north is Syria and Lebanon. The KEY location on the border of Syria is the Golan Heights. From there, Syria was able to shell villages inside Israel with impunity. Seized in the Six Day War, the Heights provide a defensive buffer against further Syrian aggression.

The situation in Lebanon is complex. The terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is a major political and military power in the country. Repeated terrorist and military strikes by Hezbollah continue. Inside Lebanon, those that oppose Hezbollah politically are killed. Christians inside Lebanon are continually persecuted or attacked.

And then we come to the terrorist organization known as HAMAS.

Based largely on the principles of Islamic fundamentalism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Remember them?). Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Syrian-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders," provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation's capital.

These are the principle of HAMAS. This and their charter have NEVER been changed.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

And so, now we have a president of the United States agreeing with terrorist organizations that want to wipe the nation of Israel from the map. President Obama states,

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

What "core issues" can be negotiated with the PLO and HAMAS? How does one negotiate with someone whose stated purpose is your death? ITS IN THEIR CHARTER! What "mutually agreed swaps" can be negotiated when Israel is supposed to unilaterally retreat to the pre-1967 borders? When Israel gave up control of the Gaza, the world was told that there would be "peace in our time." HAMAS uses that land to launch rockets. They celebrate the murder of children.

Israel withdrew from "contested" territory to appease Hezbollah. The rockets still rain down.

FATAH, the political arm of the PLO controls the West Bank. It is only the conflict with HAMAS that has driven FATAH to peace talks.

FATAH and HAMAS are now agreeing to cooperate.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by a Nazi sympathizer, is poised to greatly influence Egypt, if not gain control. They wish to cancel the peace treaty with Israel and declare war. President Obama wants to cancel $1 billion dollars in debt and give them billions more. President Obama cheers peaceful coexistence and yet wants to finance an organization known for killing Christians and burning churches. They are infamous for terror attacks throughout Egypt. Offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood include Al Quaeda.

And he wants to give them billions.

Furthermore, either President Obama is delusional or incompetent. Or he's just talking for election cameras:

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

"Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security." Is he serious? Israel cannot do this NOW. If they agree to his terms, security will be impossible. Obama is essentially relying on the "good will" of terror organizations that have never wavered from their stated intent to destroy Israel. And why did he insert and emphasize "by itself" into the speech?

Of course, all of this is just theater. Obama will say anything to get elected. Proof? Here's his speech in 2008 when he was seeking the support of AIPAC. Some telling excerpts:

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

Its a shame that they didn't heed those emails.

But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

And he wants to hand Israel's security to those people that draw those maps.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.

Except, of course, when there is.

And then, he lied. If we had only known then, what, "Let me be clear...." meant.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Undivided.

Still believe him? Maybe those emails were right.


Remember, if peace was truly desired, all it would take would be for the enemies of Israel to lay down their arms. Peace would ensue. If Israel lays down THEIR arms, another holocaust would result.

Shalom.

Obama- Still Bad At Math

First it was 57 states.

Now, 670 miles equals 2000 miles.

Apparently, the only math that Obama understands is that connected to fund raising. Because he didn't want to pay for the trip, Obama attached a quick side trip to pander to illegal aliens in El Paso while he went to Texas to raise money for his re-election campaign.

I was going to write something up, but, I couldn't match Katie Pavlich's take on the pandering and the lies that were contained in his speech. This is why Ms. Pavlich writes for Town Hall and I don't. Some excerpts:

Obama took credit for confiscating 64 percent more weapons than ever before. Well, that's what happens when the federal government sends thousands of guns into Mexico in the first place through Operation Fast and Furious under the Obama Justice Department and ATF, of course it becomes easier to confiscate more guns when you put more into an area to begin with.

His geography is as bad as his math....

On another note, Obama asked the audience if he needed to build a moat on the border to make republicans happy. There is already a moat on the border Mr. President, it's called the Rio Grande.

He mentioned the previous amnesty bill, the DREAM ACT, again, where the children of illegal aliens would gain citizenship through going to college or joining the military. Ms. Pavlich reports,

Or as Obama put it, "Stop punishing children for their parents' mistakes." "

I wonder how President Obama correlates THAT statement with his position on abortion.......

Oh. No. He. Didn't.

Obama opposed the war on terror.

Obama opposed the surge in Iraq, in fact the entire theater action.

Obama opposed Bush's policies.

Obama declared an END to the War on Terror.

Obama attempted to treat terrorists, unlawful combatants, as common criminals and close Guantanamo Bay.

Obama is STILL prosecuting those possibly involved in enhanced interrogations, actions that resulted the killing of Bin Laden.

Obama ignores the current troops STILL in Iraq, saying HE brought the troops home from Iraq, ignoring that it happened on BUSH'S timetable and plan.

Obama dithered about reinforcing Afghanistan, reluctantly agreeing to a piecemeal "surge" far smaller than requested.

Obama surrendered in Afghanistan, telling the Taliban our exit date, regardless of developments on the ground.

Obama, THANK GOD, realized that HIS plans were idiotic, and have reluctantly continued President Bush's policies.

If we had followed Obama's stated policies, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today.


And yet, President Obama has the gall to use the killing of OBL as an fund raising tactic.

At a fund raising speech in Austin, Texas, following a hypocritical illegal amnesty speech in El Paso, Peter Nicholas of the LA Times, reports: (emphasis mine)

Early in Obama's appearance, someone shouted out, “Thank you for getting Bin Laden!’’

Obama said that was a “case in point’’ – a reason for voters to let him “finish what we started.’’

....Obama ticked off what he described as his administration’s accomplishments: lifting the ban on gays in the military; bringing troops home from Iraq.

"FINISH WHAT WE STARTED?" Finish what WE started? Who is this "WE" that you speak of, President Obama? YOU don't even believe we're IN a freaking war! Its not "terrorism." Its "man caused disasters." Its not Islamists or Jihadists. Its...well, actually, you don't say...because your people never admit to motivations behind the attacks. And what's this about YOU bringing the troops home from Iraq? The troops that came home, did so on a timetable previously arranged by President Bush. THERE ARE STILL TROOPS IN IRAQ IN HARM'S WAY. Twenty-one soldiers have died IN COMBAT since June of last year. But YOU brought the troops home....ok, then.

Thanks for joining the game, but, remember, YOU refused to be a starter on the team. You rejected and reviled American actions. President Bush was a criminal in your eyes. Giving you credit for getting anything done on the War is like giving credit to Richard Nixon for getting us to the moon, AFTER he campaigned on closing NASA.

President releases a long form birth certficate

Glenn Beck has just closely examined the released long form certificate of live birth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

They have discovered Obama may be a former conjoined twin or set of triplets, that the record is a theoretical certificate, that it has the mark of the beast upon it if you add and subtract the right numbers, and that its also a forgery, drawn in Kenya by traditional artists, proving that Obama was born in Newfoundland. That his mother is NOT his mother, and that, furthermore, that the President is really George Bush in a mask. Oh, and of course the hospital and the street address are OBVIOUSLY fake, as who spells that way? Waaaay to many vowels.....



Why didn't the President just do this earlier?

FISKING OBAMA'S SPEECH SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

The Country We Believe In

The George Washington University

Washington, DC

April 13, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially (POTENTIALLY? HE CAN'T EVEN COMMIT HERE?)profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government. (AND YET HE WANTS TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA.)

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. (TOO BAD HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THIS QUOTE: Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. --July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago) And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads(PRIVATE) and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers (WHO DID COLT, EDISON, AND WHITNEY WORK FOR?) whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to (TO CHARITY. WE ARE TAXED TO SUPPORT) programs like Medicare (WHICH DROVE OUT PRIVATE INSURANCE) and Social Security (WHICH IS A PONZI SCHEME), which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work (EXCEPT THAT ITS BROKE OR YOU MAY DIE BEFORE YOU GET IT); unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens (AND MASSIVE BORROWING). As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally (BEEN FORCED TO BEAR SINCE 1913) born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money (THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN EVERY YEAR BESIDE THOSE) to pay for some of our priorities (WHEN HAS CONGRESS EVER PRIORITIZED?). And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary (TEMPORARY IS THE KEY WORD. WE'VE BEEN IN DEBT FOR HOW LONG?)

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation. (AND YET YOU CONGRESSMEN STILL DID NOTHING)

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future. (REALLY, WHAT AGREEMENTS. OUR DEBT CONTINUED TO GROW EVEN DURING THE SO-CALLED SURPLUS).

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade. (TAX CUTS DON'T NEED TO BE PAID FOR. IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEND WITHIN YOUR MEANS. AND CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T LIKE THAT LIBERAL DRUG PLAN EITHER. AND PAST CUTS DON'T FORCE FUTURE SPENDING.)

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years. (IF YOU HADN'T SPENT ALL THIS MONEY, WE'D ALSO BE IN GOOD SHAPE, STIMULUS BOY.)

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office (AS A SENATOR? OH WAIT, YOU VOTED PRESENT.), we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion (PROPOSED BY NANCY PELOSI AND NOT SUBMITTED TO BUSH SHE WAITED FOR YOU.). On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved (BUT DIDN'T CREATE?) millions of jobs (9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT. REALLY?), kept credit flowing (NO ONE CAN GET LOANS FOR BUSINESSES OR HOMES...OH,YOU MEANT FOR GOLDMAN SACHS.), and provided working families extra money in their pockets (THAT THEY HAD TO PAY TAXES ON). It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.(SHORT TERM? OUR DEFICITS ARE EXPECTED TO BE 1 TRILLION FOR YEARS TO COME.)

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here (OF COURSE, NONE OF IT WAS YOUR FAULT). And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength (PROVE IT. INFLATION IS UP, JOBS ARE GONE, AND HOUSING IS A BUST), Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s (YEAH, NOW THAT THE GOP IS IN CHARGE ITS ALL ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP. WHERE WAS THIS LAST YEAR WHEN YOU REFUSED TO SUBMIT A BUDGET?). We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt (YOU GO FIRST.). And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future. (SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO CUT DEFENSE. AGAIN.)

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?” (NO, I'M WONDERING HOW YOU CAN LIE LIKE THIS WITHOUT LIGHTENING STRIKING YOU DEAD.)

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments. (I'M GLAD THAT YOU FINALLY READ THE TEA PARTY FLYERS WE LEFT ON YOUR CAR.)

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse (THAT WOULD BE MEDICARE). By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. (2025? YOU ARE LYING. WE BORROW 42%. HEALTHCARE/SS/ETC ARE 56%. WE ARE THERE NOW.) That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. (OR...YOU COULD CUT OUT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS. WHAT AN IDEA!)

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. (HAS NO ONE TOLD YOU HOW STUPID THAT PHRASE IS? STOP SPENDING IF ITS THIS BAD.) We won’t be able to afford good schools (LOCAL TAXES OR PRIVATE), new research (PRIVATE OR NONPROFIT), or the repair of roads and bridges (WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STIMULUS?) – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America (WELL, EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES. THEY'LL STILL BE THERE.). Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books (STILL READING THAT TEA PARTY FLYER). And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit(SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START BEING HONEST?). You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys (THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE POLITICIANS DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO STOP THE FREE ICE CREAM.). Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense (COULD HAVE FOOLED ME. DIDN'T YOU SEE YOUR PARTY DURING THE LAST 20 YEARS?). Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research (AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE DOES QUITE WELL). Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare (MOST AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE THERE.). And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse (THAT WOULD BE YOUR PARTY) –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table (I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU.), and take on excess (THAT'S JUST IT. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EXCESS. IT IS THE BUDGET) spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. (YEP. A BETTER ONE.)

A 70% cut to clean energy (THAT WOULD BE THE UNICORN FARM). A 25% cut in education(THAT WOULD BE THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). A 30% cut in transportation (AMTRAK). Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed (OH, YOU REMEMBER THAT, EVEN THOUGH YOU IGNORED IT.). These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic. (BUELLER? BUELLER? WE'VE BEEN PESSIMISTIC SINCE YOU SHOWED UP WITH PELOSI.)

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them (UH, NO. IT SAYS THAT YOU PRIORITIZE TO THE BASICS AND NECESSARY, IE, NO EDUCATION DEP'T). If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them (THEY CAN JOIN THE MILITARY,WORK, OR GET SCHOLARSHIPS.). Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels.(YEP BECAUSE THOSE COUNTRIES DON'T HAMSTRING THEIR BUSINESSES. AND BRAZIL HAS A FRACTION OF OUR CARS AND ALMOST ALL OF THE SUGAR CANE. BUT, YOU SURE ARE WILLING TO LOAN THEM MONEY TO DESPOIL THE EARTH FOR OIL AND BUY SOME, AREN'T YOU?) And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this. (UM, NOPE. 1.5 TRILLION IN DEFICIT SPENDING ON YOUR CRAP MEANS THAT WE CAN'T.)

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it. (WELCOME TO MY WORLD. EVEN IF YOU DO KEEP IT, WE'LL BE BROKE. BY YOUR VERY WORDS ABOVE. DON'T YOU REMEMBER?)

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit (REALLY? THEIR INSURANCE. PAID FOR BY THEM.). And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy (ITS THEIR MONEY. HOW COME YOU STILL HAVE YOUR MILLIONS?). Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? (AND THAT TOP 1% PAYS 41% OF TAXES.) They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social(IST) compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future. (TELL ME AGAIN....YOU EXPECT TO HAVE A $1.5 TRILLION IN 2011 AND 2012 EACH, BUT YOU'RE CUTTING OUT $1 TRILLION?)

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years (ROUNDING ERROR. OBAMACARE IS 100 BILLION EVERY YEAR IF ENACTED.) We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. (GOV'T DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.) We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology (UNICORN FARTS AGAIN.). We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access (AGAIN, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT STIMULUS MONEY?). We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future. (SO, MORE OF THE SAME....)

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget (TA-DAAA! YEP. KNEW IT.). As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. (RATIONING IS COMING.)

Already, the reforms we passed in the (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion (LIE. IT DOUBLE COUNTS SUPPOSED MEDICARE SAVINGS. THAT'S RIGHT IT TAKES MONEY FROM MEDICARE.). My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need. (WHAT A LOAD OF BS. GOING TO PAY DOCTORS TO PREVENT INJURIES, STOP WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, ETC. YOU JUST SAID THAT THIS TYPE OF THING IS NOT ENOUGH.)

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023 (WE'RE SPENDING THAT MUCH EVERY SIX MONTHS.), and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that (RIIIIGHT....HOW DID THOSE MULTIYEAR PROJECTIONS WORK OUT WHEN WE HAD SURPLUSES FOREVER?). And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect (YA THNK?), this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare. (RATIONING MEDICARE...FIXED IT.)

But let me be absolutely clear (WHY START NOW?): I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit (OF COURSE IT IS, ITS PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE IT WAS RAIDED TO INVENT THE SURPLUS.), it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (IN OTHER WORDS, SAVE IT, FIX IT, BUT DON'T CHANGE A THING.)

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again. (OK. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND IF THE ECONOMY TANKS AGAIN, ITS ALL ON YOU.)

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize. (MILLIONAIRES, AGAIN. SO NO BUSINESS OWNERS ITEMIZE....YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT BUILD JOBS?)

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive. (GREAT! GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX. FAIR TAX! OR NATIONAL SALE TAX! IF WE MUST, A FLAT TAX!)

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future. (HOW DOES ONE ACHIEVE CUTS WHEN SPENDING IS NOT ACTUALLY REDUCED? HE'S PROJECTED $TRILLION DEFICITS FOR YEARS TO COME.)

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail safe. If, by 2014 (AFTER HE'S OUT OF OFFICE OR RE-ELECTED), our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code (SO...IF CONGRESS DOESN'T DO IT THE FIRST TIME, WE'LL ALL GET TOGETHER AGAIN AND LIE ABOUT IT...AGAIN.). That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road. (UM, YOU JUST DID.)

So this is (YOUR)our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means (YOU HAVEN'T STARTED YET?) while still investing in our future; where everyone (AS LONG AS THEY'RE "RICH") makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut (HE WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE ANYWAY. HIS INCOME IS $100,000). Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without (DAMN. GET RID OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIPS IF IT PREVENTS ANOTHER OBMAMA.). That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me (IF THEY DO, NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM PAYING MORE. HAVE YOU?). They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic (BS)to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December (YOU WERE FORCED KICKING AND CRYING TO IT.). It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit (WHAT PART OF SPENDING 100 BILLION A MONTH DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?) – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective. (JUST AS LONG AS IT STILL DOESN'T SHRINK.)

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations (HOWEVER, YOU'RE NO RONALD REAGAN AND PELOSI WAS NOT TIP O'NEILL. WHERE WAS THIS CONCERN WHEN PELOSI LOCKED THE GOP OUT OF DISCUSSION OR DIDN'T COOPERATE WITH BUSH, SENATOR?). The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction. (AND YET, WHEN DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! INSANE SPENDING!)

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June. (THE VP? NOW WE KNOW HE'S NOT SERIOUS.)

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. (DAMN. I THOUGHT WE'D GET THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANOTHER FAKE LETTER.) He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive… (WELL, TELL YOUR MINIONS ON MSNBC TO STOP.)

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

We miss that time when you were anonymous too.

The President had a little get together with Hearst Magazine.

"I just miss - I miss being anonymous," he said at the meeting in the White House. "I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."

Ya know....there's a fix for that....you can go back to that idyllic lifestyle anytime you want.....


Doooooo iiit.....Doooooo iiiiiiiiiit....you know you want to. DO IT.


Or he's lying again. He's running for re-election.

The Devil Is Looking For a Parka

Obama did something right!


Though, if these are the toughest sanctions we've ever put on Iran, no wonder they're laughing....

New Boss same as the Old Boss - Just a Double Standard

Remember the Cheney/Halliburton protests?

Remember the Leftists screaming about No-Bid contracts under Bush?

Even though they started under Clinton?

Remember the hypocrisy about No-Bid contracts when there are NO OTHER companies that can do what Halliburton/KBR does?


Obama Administration No-Bid Contract with KBR


Bwhahahahahaha!

Of course, the silence is deafening. Why, you can hear the crickets.......

And the press seems to be OK with the evil Halliburton/KBR deal too.....

Somebody is misinformed

From the Kenyan National Assembly Official Report pdf uploaded at Canada Free Press.

The excerpt below is from a discussion on the Approval of Draft Constitution of Kenya at page 31. And important document, wouldn't you think? (Emphasis mine)

The other thing that we are addressing through devolution is exclusion. What has
made us suffer as a nation is exclusion. Once people feel excluded, even when you want to employ a policeman or constable or you want to build a dispensary, it must come from the centre. In the colonial days, these things were being done on the ground and they could give bursaries and build roads. I commend devolution. Those who fear devolution are living in the past. They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. What has killed us here is exclusion; that once Mr. Orengo is President, I know of no other place than Ugenya. That is why we were fighting against these many Presidencies in the past. I hope that Kenya will come of age. This country must come of age. People want freedom and nations want liberation, but countries want independence.
I beg to support.

The author mentions the reaction to his original post about this here.

Someone has been misinformed. Hope its not.....us......

Quote of the Day

Legislation doesn’t create jobs, mein Fuehrer. Well, other than the kind of useless make-work you’ve been doing your whole life, I mean.

From Cold Fury


h/t Tam

Obama deprived American Children of Charlie Brown's Christmas for this?

Stephen Green drunkblogs Obama so we don't have to.....

If I had to watch Obama try to justify how he's going to lose the Global War on Terror, I'd would have shot my TV. The Amateur-in-Chief has NO clue to what needs doing. Because Obama will subordinate national security matters to domestic political matters, no ally will fully support us. Because Obama and this Congress cannot be depended upon to support our allies, the Afghani people, to defeat the Taliban, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES, the Afghani people and government will not do what it takes to win. THEY HAVE TO LIVE THERE. This speech declares that Obama's "strategy" is finite and short term. Michael Rubin shows how Obama's finite commitment is dangerous:

If Obama is preparing to cut-and-run--which, fairly or unfairly, is how Pakistani generals will read his speech--then strengthening links to the Taliban will make Pakistan the dominant player in post-surge, post-withdrawal Afghanistan. The Taliban, too, will understand that, at best, they need only lay low, perhaps bloodying U.S. troops enough to keep the Afghanistan war unpopular among the Hollywood, university and media sets Obama cares about.

HE TELLS OUR ENEMIES THAT WE ARE LEAVING THE THEATER OF OPERATIONS, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, BEGINNING JUNE OF 2011!

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

If he's going to freaking surrender why the hell is he sending any more troops at all? What the hell does he think 18 months and 30K troops will do? It took YEARS to rebuild the Iraqi military to the level they are now. And the Iraqis are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the Afghani forces.

Obama is criminally stupid.


I have to go find the text of this idiot's speech so I can find out just how stupid he really is.

Another Anti-American Obama Advisor

Sharia Law is un-American. Based on the Koran, Sharia does not recognize the authority of the Constitution or other man-made law. Submission to Allah is all. There is no freedom, equality, or separation of church and state. Barack Obama has an adviser that seems to think that Sharia is perfectly acceptable as a form of governance.

Dalia Mogahed, Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, appeared on British television last week...
... hosted by a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This is an international organization that is banned as a terrorist group in many nations, and which is openly dedicated to the worldwide imposition of Sharia and the destruction of all governments that are constituted according to any other political philosophy -- including Constitutional republics that do not establish a state religion.

She offered no contradiction to the claims put forth on the show by the hosts that all law should be sharia. She did not promote western ideals or make any attempt to show how American Muslims successfully live in America. You see, she's not working FOR the President to convey the American message.

Dalia Mogahed described her job in the Obama administration as involving efforts “to convey...to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want.”

Apparently she's working for the Muslim community only. And agreeing with the worst, most extreme portions of that community. And she's using OUR tax money to do that.

h/t RedState

Obama Administration believes Russia

when they say that, "Of course we'll help you with that Iranian problem.....We'll get them to put away the nukes. We've only invested millions in helping them develop nuclear power....Don't worry about it. The check is in the mail. And we have a bridge to sell you. I promise not to c..."

You get the idea.

So.....Obama has betrayed two allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, by killing the missile defense idea. Russia is upset that we want to put DEFENSIVE, anti-missile systems in Europe. Why? Oh, that's right....they've already bullied two countries. Why not more? Georgia and Ukraine are screwed.

Let's see who is the wonderful negotiator for this travesty: Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher ‘The first member of her family to attend college, she graduated in 1974 from Seton Hall University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in early childhood education.

I'm sure THAT will help in international relations. (Actually, it probably would.)

Here's the news from abroad:

From the AP: Obama scrapping missile shield for Czech, Poland

Premier Jan Fischer told reporters that Obama phoned him overnight to say that "his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory."

"The same happened with Poland. Poland was informed in the same way about this intention," Fischer said.

Under the plan, which had been proposed by the Bush administration to defend the United States and its European allies against a possible missile attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East, 10 interceptor rockets were to have been stationed in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic.

So, Obama called them up like a unfaithful girlfriend and said, "Honey, I think we should start seeing other people. Its not you. Its me....."

He's doing this WITHOUT Russian guarantees of sanctions against Iran. He's HOPING that Russia will CHANGE its mind about helping the US.

Kinda of like an insecure girl putting out just so the quarterback will date her.

Alexei Arbatov, head of the Russian Academy of Science's Center for International Security, told a Moscow radio station Thursday that the U.S. was giving in on missile defense to get more cooperation from Russia on Iran.

"The United States is reckoning that by rejecting the missile-defense system or putting it off to the far future, Russia will be inclined together with the United States to take a harder line on sanctions against Iran," he said.

But what happens to her reputation? Lets see:

The decision to scrap the plan will have future consequences for U.S. relations with eastern Europe.

"If the administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it," said Jan Vidim, a lawmaker with Czech Republic's conservative Civic Democratic Party, which supported the missile defense plan.

and

Former Polish President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Lech Wałesa, has spoken out about media reports that the US has scrapped plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

“Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Wałęsa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don't like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

The Czech government stood by us against opposition in their country because they knew it was the right thing to do. Poland has always been an American ally. Too bad they trusted us. I wonder why we have such a poor reputation among allies........

And Niles Gardiner of the UK Telegraph puts it just right: Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence.

He wrote:

“if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.”

This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.

President Jimmy Carter Barack Obama is swallowing it all,.......hook, line, and sinker.

Oh, and Obama had the class to do this on the 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INVASION OF POLAND BY THE USSR.

Classy.

Quote of the Day!

It took President Obama six months to pick a dog for the White House, but he wants Congress to pass a massive health care reform bill in two weeks!

h/t SayUncle