Well, close to it, if even a major player in the LDQ (Liberal Democrat Quagmire) is to be believed.

The video below comes courtesy of Conservative Byte.com

Perhaps Mr. O ought to just put together a daily terrorists’ briefing package to make things a little easier for America’s enemies, for whom he seems to hold a great deal of affection…

In a recent post, one of our favorite fellow bloggers, Always on Watch, commented on President Obama’s entertaining Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood terrorist leader at the White House.

Hmmmm…

Now we also see where, well, our government under Obama’s “leadership” evidently has a problem classifying a terrorist organization…a terrorist organization.

In the past three years, over 1,000 Christians in Nigeria have been brutally murdered by an extremist Islamic group known as Boko Haram and the United States has refused to classify the group as being a terrorist organization.

Nigeria’s Christian leaders had asked the United States government to place Boko Haram on the list of terrorist organizations. The radical Islamic group has vowed to eradicate all Christians from Nigerian soil and will continue to murder men, women and children in the process unless something is done to stop them.

Instead of declaring Boko Haram a terrorist organization, the U.S. government only placed three of the group’s leaders on a terrorist blacklist and then said that it was more important to address social inequalities in the country first. Christian leaders in Nigeria said the actions or perhaps lack of action by the United States has only served to make the group bolder and more aggressive in their pursuit to exterminate the remaining Christians.

Appearing before House Foreign Affairs Committee, Christian Association of Nigeria President Ayo Oritsejafor said the decision was:

“The equivalent of designating (Osama) bin Laden a terrorist but failing to designate Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization.”

“By refusing to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, the United States is sending a very clear message, not just to the federal government of Nigeria, but to the world that the murder of innocent Christians and Muslims who reject Islamism — and I make a clear distinction here between Islam and Islamism — are acceptable losses.”

Of course, and par for the course given whom we’ve got in the Oval Office at present:

However, Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Johnny Carson told the committee that designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization would be counter-productive in trying to improve the governing of Nigeria, especially in the Muslim dominated northern region.

Carson testified,

“Boko Haram thrives because of social and economic problems in the north that the government must find a way of addressing.”

“A coordinated government effort to provide responsible, accountable governance to all Nigerians, while creating opportunities for economic growth, will diminish the political space in which Boko Haram operates.”

From everything I’ve read, Boko Haram is just like so many other Muslim groups that have vowed to cleanse their lands of Christians and Jews. In reality, they are not any different than Hamas or al-Qaeda.

What concerns me about Carson’s comments is that it sounds like he wants the U.S. to start pouring millions of dollars into northern Nigeria to ease their financial strain in hopes that Boko Haram will stop murdering Christians. This is a typical Democratic response to any problem – throw money at it and hope it fixes the problem, which it never does.

Amen to that!

At least we know that in his own roundabout way, Barack Hussein Obama is protecting his kindred spirits, the Boko Haram, which I suppose proves a kind of loyalty… just not to anyone we’d assume a U.S. president might be loyal to.

Get a load of this!

It appears that the Obama administration is not only getting in the face of the American people with their immigration policies, but they are also running a little private campaign of their own when it comes to the border patrol. Instead of the border patrol doing their job in an aggressive case in public, they are now being taught to run away and hide and only as a last resort are they to open fire. Wait! No! They can’t do that. They are supposed to become “aggressive” and “throw things.

Why, you may ask, am I not surprised? I mean this is indicative of an administration policy that could present more than its share of danger to both the American People and those tasked to defend our borders.

In another nauseating series of “Virtual Learning Center” brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an “Active Shooter” course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to “run away” and “hide”. If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become “aggressive” and “throw things” at him or her. We are then advised to “call law enforcement” and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to “hide” from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of “if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out”. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

…inexcusable and pathetic.

Hmph, just like the Obama Administration and those who support it, be they media or private citizen.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.

Welcome to the New Patrol.

Indeed…

This is the kind of thing that makes you want to pull your hair out. We are in the middle of an investigation where this administration used an operation, which was called Fast and Furious but should have been called Dumb and Dangerous, that put thousands of weapons into the hands of some of Mexico’s most dangerous drug cartels. Some of these weapons were used to kill American and Mexican citizens, including border patrol agent Brian Terry. They want their people to be weak and cut off at the knees while the real criminals face no handicaps. This is a demonstration of absolute stupidity on the part of the Obama administration who provide such non-sensical training.

It’s not bad enough that the federal government, under this administration want our guns, but now they don’t seem to want border patrol to use theirs either. What kind of fantasy world do these lunatics, who are running the asylum, live in?

They live in Liberal La La Land, THAT’S WHERE!

Well, the Supreme Court have rendered their decision on Arizona’s Immigration law.

Amid all the pronouncements of liberal victory against Arizona’s immigration law since the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it struck down three of four provisions of SB 1070, there’s an important point that some in the mainstream media are overlooking.

Obama lost. Big time.

The court, in 5-3 votes with Elena Kagan recusing herself, struck down three provisions having to do with state criminal penalties for immigration violations.

The fourth provision gives police the right to stop and demand to know the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

Of course, they’re dealing with The Obama here.

It’s the fourth provision at the heart of the law that really had the administration worried, and that’s the provision that the court upheld unanimously.

Historically, a unanimous Supreme Court decision on anything seals the deal. Challengers need not bother. Adios. Hasta la vista, baby.

And, as we’ve been learning, even the Supreme Court can’t usurp the power of our king, you know, that guy up there in the White Castle House.

But the justices didn’t realize they were dealing with King Obama. Instead of accepting the decision of the court with good grace and committing himself to upholding the ruling as is the president’s duty, Obama immediately set about finding ways to get around it.

First came the promise that Attorney General Eric “Blind Eye” Holder was going to watch Arizona very closely for any signs of “racial profiling.” I give it two weeks before he sues Arizona again.

Then, just to hammer home the point that His Majesty was not pleased, almost immediately following the court’s decision came the announcement that Homeland Security was suspending existing agreements with Arizona law enforcement regarding immigration, meaning they would ignore most immigration calls from Arizona.

With a president like Obama, who needs a supreme court or, for that matter, even a congress, anyway, when that one man there in the Oval Office is, evidently, all the government we need?

We all know that liberals are capable of some pretty farfetched things, and that Barack Hussein Obama’s probably one of the most shameless of the bunch, BUT THIS!?

When it comes to the 2012 campaign, team Obama has made more than their fair share of embarrassing gaffes. Chronicling them would take thousands of words, though certainly such hits as Attack Watch and the Life of Julia stand out. However, those gaffes, idiotic though they may have been, at least had a rationale behind them that was discernible, if stupid.

This is most unequivocally not the case when it comes to the Obama team’s most recent fundraising initiative. It is impossible to dream up a rationale for it without sounding silly. It can‘t really be set up in any way that softens the incredulity you’ll feel looking at it. So we’ll just repost an image below and let you see:

OBAMA EVENT REGISTRY

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you - Register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the president on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate - and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy - so get it started today.

Is this real? Is this even believable, or are we about to be contacted by a white rabbit in waistcoat, bearing a pocket watch?

So many questions abound after reading this short message, “Why” being chief among them. Why should a wedding correlate with donating to the President? Along with “saving jobs,” is the President now claiming credit for every wedding officiated on his watch? How does he statistically measure “wedding creation” if he is? If you divorce, does that mean you can ask for your money back? Why do anniversaries correlate to donating? Why do birthdays? Why, why, why?

Oh, and did you notice that creepy “It’s a gift we can all enjoy” part, as though by giving money to the President, you’re giving a gift to the entire country? Talk about a sinister idea. No matter how much of a patriot you are, we doubt you want the entire country crashing your wedding party, asking for a gift they can “all enjoy.” It’s your anniversary/wedding/birthday, after all, not theirs. If you want a gravy bowl instead of four more years of gravy for lobbyists, that’s your right.

Sheesh!

The Good.

The Supreme Court dealt a chastening blow to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and organized labor Thursday, ruling 7-2 to reverse a decision that would force nonmembers of public-sector unions in California to pay a fee that would help to finance the unions’ activities.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush nominee, delivered the opinion of the court, with a concurring opinion by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and dissent were given by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

The case centered on a California regulation that allowed unions to charge employees in a particular “agency shop” annual fees to pay for union activities, even if the employees opted not to join the union.

In June 2005, a local branch of the Service Employees International Union sent out a notice telling employees in its shop what the monthly dues for the year would be, but also gave notice that the fee could be increased at any time without additional notice. Shortly after, SEIU would propose a temporary increase of 25 percent in employee fees in order to fund a pro-union political campaign.

…in order to fund a pro-union political campaign.

Isn’t this what’s known as a union getting a bit cavalier with its members’ hard earned money?

Of course, we are talking labor unions.

While SEIU would later refund the fees, Alito said that nothing would stop the union from attempting to collect similar fees in the future, and maintained that a “live controversy” based on the strictures of the First Amendment, remained to be resolved.

“The First Amendment creates ‘an open marketplace’ in which differing ideas about political, economic, and social issues can compete freely for public acceptance without improper government interference,” he wrote. “…Closely related to compelled speech and compelled association is compelled funding of the speech of other private speakers or groups.”

Especially striking, Alito said, was the fact that the fees the unions were forcing employees to pay went to combat a ballot initiative that would have allowed them not to pay those fees if they chose.

“Thus, the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights,” Alito wrote.

Snip!

(Surprise, surprise)

A concurring opinion by Sotomayor and Ginsburg, two of the court’s most liberal justices, agreed that the First Amendment would allow non-union members a chance to opt out of political contributions, but said the majority had addressed constitutional issues outside of the scope of the case and regarding the unions’ charging nonmembers in general.

Well, fancy that, constitution based fairness, rather than the usual left wing politics, coming from the likes of those two. Go figure…

The Bad

From Charles Krauthammer:

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations (of immigrants brought here illegally as children) through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” — President Obama, March 28, 2011

Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations — granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits — thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing.

Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal.

“Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats?

Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’ exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.

This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for.

The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons — a class of 800,000 — who, regardless of individual circumstance , are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria.

This is not discretion. This is a fundamental rewriting of the law.

His majesty B. Hussein Obama Rex, being King, evidently has that right. I guess he must have decided that such things as the Declaration of Indendence and the U.S. Constitution were nothing but a bad dream he’s awakened from having.

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes, and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)

It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention.

Nor is cap-gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that Congressional Democrats should be applauding such a brazen end-run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and pre-empts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness.

Well put. Very well put.

And last but not least, The Ugly.

A day after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of targeting Attorney General Eric Holder because of his department’s crackdown on state voter ID laws, GOP lawmakers dismissed the claim yesterday as “hogwash.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) called the claim “mind-numbingly stupid.”

“I could not believe it when I heard her saying that,” Gowdy told Fox News.

“Hogwash. That is the most ridiculous comment I’ve heard so far,” Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) also told Fox.

On Thursday, Pelosi linked efforts to require photo IDs for voting to Republicans’ campaign to call a contempt-of-Congress vote against Holder for allegedly failing to cooperate in their probe of Operation Fast and Furious.

A House committee voted Wednesday along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, with Republicans claiming his department has not turned over subpoenaed documents pertaining to the botched anti-gun-running operation.

Yes, the ugly mind of Nancy Pelosi fits right in with the rest of those communistas who have taken over the Democratic Party.

We’ve been getting Roger Simon’s Pajama’s Media in the Hard Astarboard in box every day, and I have found it to be a daily must-read.

Today, Mr. Simon had rather an intriguing take on the effect on our nation it has when a liar is at the helm.

How many lies does a man have to tell before we can call him a liar?

The Ancient Romans said only one, when they gave us the legal dictum Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

That was a pretty stringent requirement. Most of us are not George Washington and one wonders if even George was perfect in his honesty, the cherry tree fable notwithstanding.

However…

Barack Obama is another matter. According to Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith (normally a loyal member of the administration’s media claque), no less than thirty-eight documented falsehoods in the president’s memoir Dreams from My Father were revealed by David Maraniss’s new book Barack Obama: The Story.

What’s interesting about those falsehoods (can we call them lies?) is that they were unprovoked. We are used to presidential lies, most notably from Nixon and Clinton, but we know full well why those men were lying. In fact, in their cases it was obvious. In Obama’s, we do not.

Why was he lying? Self-aggrandizement? To sell books? For political purposes? Dreams from My Father was written before Obama supposedly had presidential ambitions. Or was there a hint, dare I say it, of pathology?

Great analysis of an ongoing threat to the future of our country, posed by our Liar-In-Chief.

Read the entire article here.

Despite President Hopenchange’s herculean efforts to kow tow to his fellow Islamist, he doesn’t seem to be doing too well on the popularity front in Muslim countries.

A Pew Research survey released on Wednesday showed that President Barack Obama’s popularity has reached record lows among Muslims.

Okay…

The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey found the approval of Obama’s policies in Muslim-majority countries plummeted from an average 34 percent to 15 percent. In Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was killed, approval is the lowest — coming in at 7 percent. Muslim attitudes toward America and confidence in Obama also decreased.

More than 26,000 people from 21 countries took part in the survey, taken between March 17 and April 20.

As an aside, though, Ol’ Barry’s popularity doesn’t seem to be reaching any sort of pinnacle elsewhere, either.

Worldwide approval of Obama has also declined significantly, especially with regards to foreign policy, and overall confidence in Obama and attitudes toward America have declined modestly.

Obama focused much of his early foreign policy on improving what he called America’s global standing, saying in 2008 that he wanted “to go before the world community and say ‘America is back,’” and “send a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says: You matter to us, your future is our future, and our moment is now.”

When selecting Vice President Joe Biden, Obama said he wanted to put an end to failed foreign policy and “renew America’s security and standing in the world.”

But the Pew numbers show that even in Europe, approval of Obama’s policies decreased from 78 percent in 2009 to 63 percent in 2012. European confidence in Obama decreased from 86 to 80 percent, and favorable attitudes toward America decreased from 67 to 60 percent.

Pew’s survey marks a significant turning point from surveys conducted at the end of Obama’s first year. A 2010 Gallup poll found that global approval of the United States’ global leadership increased from 34 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2009.

The survey also found more than half the people in 17 of 20 countries disapprove of the use of drone strikes to target extremist leaders and groups, and clear majorities in Britain, Germany, France and Spain say China is the world’s economic leader.

In 2008, before the worldwide financial crisis, 45 percent said the U.S. economy led the world, and only 22 percent said China. Today, only 36 percent say the U.S., and 42 percent believe China’s economy is leading.

Obama for America has thus far remained silent about the recent Pew survey, focusing their attention instead on Romney’s foreign policy.

They probably figure that if zeroing in on Mitt doesn’t work, they can always go bck to blaming Bush.

But back to the Muslim angle, you’d think the Islamic folks would still love Obama. He does, after all, bend over backwards, through the workings of his administration, to give their “spokespersons” every possible advantage to express themselves.

He really does, doesn’t he?

The Department of Justice and the FBI are revising their counterterrorism training material to remove “inaccurate and biased information” at the direction of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The Department of Homeland Security, which uses the most funding for counterterrorism training, recently issued new guidelines on “countering violent extremism.” Why the sudden need for drastic change?

On Nov. 15, 2011, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National launched a coordinated campaign across the country, with its various chapters requesting records from local, state and federal agencies on their use of taxpayer dollars to fund “Islamophobic training.” The campaign involves 87 filings for records requests across 15 cities nationwide.

CAIR-Michigan’s civil rights director claims CAIR wants these records to ensure that law enforcement is using trainers who provide “objective and unbiased information” to protect Americans from “violent extremists.” CAIR expressed particular concern that tax dollars are being “wasted” on “agenda-driven, inaccurate, or Islamophobic” training and materials.

For years, CAIR has led an aggressive campaign against “Islamophobia.” In the past, its targets have included individuals and corporations whose words, actions or package designs smack of insults to Muslims, as seen through the eyes of CAIR.

Now CAIR’s target is national security. CAIR’s professed goal is to wipe out bigotry, insensitivity and “unfair” bias. So what’s wrong with that?

CAIR, which presents itself as the country’s leading American-Muslim civil rights organization, is, in fact, a radical Islamist organization that is extreme in its goals and tactics. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-funding trial in the history of the United States.

Yes, and the Obama Administration does its best to kiss–kiss–kiss CAIR’s U-KNOW-WHAT.

What a friend we have in CAIR.

Though it is expert in public relations, it cannot escape the fact that its roots stem from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Association of Palestine and that it has close ties to Hamas. Several of its former leadership members have been arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges or other felonies, and numerous others are being monitored by the FBI. Despite its claims of representing “mainstream Muslim Americans,” the FBI finally has wised up and cut all ties with CAIR.

Of course they have…

Now, CAIR’s document requests and demands for “investigations” not only pressure conformance in wiping out alleged “Islamophobia,” but hinder national security procedures. The document reproduction, litigation preparation, replies to letter and phone campaigns, and constant barrage of pressure constitute the true waste of taxpayer resources.

Whether out of political correctness or this administration’s love affair with political-Islamist organizations, a multitude of government agencies across the country on local, state and federal levels is cleansing themselves of any mention of Islamic terrorism.

Expert trainers in counterterrorism who have worked for years with the CIA, FBI, National Counterterrorism Center and local police departments are suddenly being told to stay home. Counterterrorism training material is being rewritten, as are the underlying facts.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. Although mention of Islamic terrorism should not serve to indict all Muslims, it is equally false to believe that Islamic terrorism is nonexistent.

It is somewhat understandable that individuals and corporations have capitulated to CAIR in the face of severe financial or existential threats, but there is no excuse for the government to succumb. To pretend that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all playing an equal role in the global terrorist network and the movement to undermine Western freedom from within does not constitute “fairness.” Rather, it’s flat-out false. What’s fair is placing fault where it belongs. To do otherwise is not only foolhardy, it constitutes a national security threat.

The most recent moves by this administration seemingly in capitulation to a terror-affiliated entity are unprecedented and must be stopped. Those who truly care about national security should keep these facts in mind when election time rolls around in November.

Did anybody mention OBAMACAIR?

Well, we did say that for any blogger critical of Barack Hussein’s personal little dynasty, this is one administration that is truly a target rich environment, right?

I don’t think there’s ever been a bunch of thugs people in the White House at one time that featured even one tenth as many reasons to “vote the bums out” at the first opportunity which, in the present case, is coming up in just under five months (yippieeeeeee!).

In addition to the myriad reasons we’ve posted on, here we have Obama Rex looking to slip past Congress and be all the monarch he can be by issuing lots and lots of executive orders.

President Obama has signed 127 Executive Orders to date during his Administration. Includes a Free Download of the Official Executive Orders as they become available. This list was originally started here on the 1461 on January 25 2009.

Read On.

Whew, that’s quite a list!

He left out, probably an oversight, an executive order whereby the president (at least him , at any rate) should be issued a diamond and jewel encrusted sceptre and matching crown.

I never thought I’d use this term to describe a President of the United States, but this Obama character, who has absolutely no shame and is singularly unqualified for the office he holds unless one believes that the entire purpose of being POTUS is to act out ones narcissist fantasies while campaigning for reelection, but B. Hussein Obama is…contemtable.

But then, so are his attorney general and the rest of that cabal over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

All in all, what we have is the proverbial “sad state of affairs”, one which needs desperately to be corrected by right thinking (for that matter, all thinking) Americans this November.

I’ll say one thing for the Obama Administration: It’s definitely what Seth and Wolf would agree is what’s referred to as a Target Rich Environment.

If this cluck is somehow reelected to the presidency for a second term it will make the American voter, as a whole, look pretty bad, like Mr. Magoo meets Dumb & Dumber.

To add to everything else (what, like four or five things a week, minimum?) we now have a “Leak-Gate”!!!?

President Obama takes umbrage at the idea that a spate of leaks of highly classified national-security information is somehow purposefully intended to bolster his leadership credentials. His resistance to an independent investigation will only make things worse for him. The Obama White House is leaking like a sieve. Trying to cover it up will only make the scandal bigger.

Never mind what these “birthers” are trying to say about POTUS not being U.S. born, this Obama character is, like, from another planet!

If he were doing to some other country, say Zimbabwe or someplace, what he’s doing in and to America, Barack Hussein’s exploits would make for great comedy, but unfortunately he’s doing it to us, so it’s not that funny. He’d make a really good secret weapon: The CIA plants him in an enemy nation’s political system, he gets elected president over there, and we just sit back and watch as he destroys their country from within.

Worse, yet, in view of all his strange ways of discharging his responsibilities as president, he believes we’re all even dumber than he is (the liberals said George W. Bush was dumb, but whether he was or not, Obama makes him look like an Einstein in every way. Of course, Obama even makes Jimmy Carter look good).

I mean:

On Friday, Mr. Obama took the charges of selective leaks head-on: “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national-security information is offensive,” he said. “It’s wrong, and people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office.” His protestations carry little credibility. On the previous day, the White House rejected a bipartisan call by leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees to appoint a special counsel to investigate the leaks.

What a frigging bone head!

Even very liberal legislators are worried about the brewing crisis of administration staff leaks. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, told CNN on Thursday, “I’ve been on the Intelligence Committee for 11 years and I have never seen it worse.” Mr. Obama’s high dudgeon about the temerity of accusations of White House impropriety will not be enough to save his team from scrutiny.

There have been leaks about drone strikes, U.S. special operations and foreign classified information such as Israel’s alleged deal with Azerbaijan to support a military strike against Iran. There have been leaks to newspapers, TV and Hollywood screenwriters. Some leaks have been more damaging than others. One story that broke last month detailed a CIA informant penetrating high levels of al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, making off with their most sophisticated new bomb and providing information leading to a successful drone strike on a leading militant. The information fed to the public portrayed the operation as a major success, but intelligence specialists were alarmed at the amount of detail that was leaked. Embarrassingly, it soon turned out that this was not an American-led effort at all but a long-term British-Saudi operation that was compromised by the very leaks that trumpeted its success and erroneously attributed credit to the United States. “This does seem to be a tawdry political thing,” former CIA bin Laden hunter Michael Scheur said at the time.

Yes, by a tawdry, all politics, all the time president.

Even his own party is worried, including the far left liberals within.

This guy is just too much, and the cabal of political hacks cabinet secretaries, czars, proprietary lobbyists and advisors he has surrounded himself with are right off the same bizarre comedy page he is.

Come on, November!