Don’t ask Barack Hussein Obama, he doesn’t seem to know.

The U.S. goal in Afghanistan “is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban,” President Obama told Americans Tuesday night in a prime-time address from Bagram Air Base in Kabul.

(My emphasis above)

Tell me then, Mister President, if it’s not our goal to eradicte the Taliban, root and branch, why are we even over there? Didn’t you listen when George W. Bush briefed you prior to his moving back to Texas and you moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

If we don’t completely and summarily kick the Taliban’s butt, they and their al-Qaeda pals will only fight their way back to the status quo they enjoyed before we invaded post 9/11, and the Afghanis will once again be enslaved by an oppressive fundamentalist regime while we, once again, have a homeland security threat poised to commit terrorist acts just like they did that terrible morning in New York and at the Pentagon, headquartered in a country on the other side of the world.

Wolf, who has been to Afghanistan, once told me that while there are a lot of Afghani tribes “in country” who subscribe to the stone-age fundamentalism espoused by the Taliban, there are many more in Kabul and other, more “civilized” areas that prefer to exist in the modern world with the kind of freedom to which every human being is entitled.

We can neither pull out completely while there are Taliban cells left intact, nor “negotiate” any kind of truce with that evil entity.

To do either would be to have wasted all those U.S. and allied military lives and all that treasure, only to find the same threat to us lurking in Afghanistan shortly thereafter.

Hours later, Taliban fighters — reportedly disguised in burqas — attacked a compound housing foreign contractors in Kabul, killing at least seven people. The Taliban said the attack was a response to Obama’s surprise visit.

This was the second major attack in Kabul in less than three weeks, and it demonstrates the Taliban’s continued ability to strike in the heavily guarded capital even at a time of heightened security because of President Obama’s visit, the Associated Press reported.

See? As soon as you announced that you weren’t ready to wipe these terrorists out to a man, they showed how naive you really are.

You are as much an embarrassment to we, the people as president, Mr. Obama, as Jimmy Carter was.

Yet another indicator of our president’s real agenda, or what?

“Hope and Change” was the campaign slogan of the President Obama’s 2008 campaign. The 2012 campaign moniker is “Forward.” Many Americans would add “. . . Over a Cliff.” Obama’s colors may be showing . . . the color red. Fox News reports the following:

“The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, ‘Forward’ — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

“Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name ‘Forward!’ or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called ‘Forward (generic name of socialist publications).’

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,’ the online encyclopedia explains.

“The slogan ‘Forward!’ reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.”

Our President, what Lenin would have called just another “useful idiot”.

Everything he’s done since he was elected has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and, at the same time, a healthy regard for socialism, now he’s even adopted a communist slogan.

What next?

The ignorance comes on the part of all those who support Obama yet purport to believe in America and our constitutional system.
these are ignorant people — not necessarily ignorant in all things, but certainly politically, economically and to some extent where character judgement is concerned; Obama lies through his teeth every time he gets in front of a microphone and these people who praise him and/or plan to vote to reelect him haven’t a clue.

Many of these, I am sure, are those young people who never go anyplace without headphones on and their eyes locked onto small portable wireless devices, completely oblivious to the world around them — Wolf calls them “deaf, stupid and blind”.

Others are the uninformed lame brains who wear Che Guevara tee shirts and those liberals who immerse themselves every waking minute in liberals-only social lives, read only lefty publications like the NY Times and the Village Voice, listen to NPR and generally tend to remain as centralized as they can in “progressive” preaching-to-the-choir environs.

Still others are the liberals of the 1960s and 1970s who never managed to progress into the 1980s, ’90s and the present century.

“Forward!”, indeed…

I sincerely hope that when the one minute video spot shown in this article is aired, people pay attention and keep it in mind when they head for the polls in November.

Finland? Mexico? China?

Obama. The best U.S. president nearly every country except the U.S. ever had!

At least that’s what they seem to be thinking at that big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue these days.

From Conservative Byte (above link) and Breitbart:

Today, the National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, “The war on terror is over.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.

This, of course, is utter foolishness. Islamism is a religious ideological movement that brooks no real alternatives – so while the State Department proclaims “a legitimate Islamism,” it fails to acknowledge that Islamism, “legitimate” or not, is deeply intolerant of any other modes of expression. Not only that, but Islamism works hand-in-glove with terror groups around the world. Simply because a regime does not openly house al Qaida does not mean that the regime doesn’t support al Qaida; just because a regime pretends at democracy doesn’t mean that it has real democratic values.

Obama has created the brave new Middle East – a Middle East that assumes that every human heart has the desire to vote, but not to be truly free; a Middle East that oppresses women and gays and minorities, but pretends at liberalism; a Middle East that despises America but hides that hate behind a façade of multiculturalism, even as it disposes of its internal dissenters.

In truth, Obama isn’t declaring an end to the war on terror – terrorism continues unabated each day in Egypt and the Palestinian territories and Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and Yemen and Syria and Lebanon and a dozen other hotspots around the globe. Obama is truly declaring an end to the war on Islamism. He has made his peace; he has surrendered. In doing so, he has condemned broad swaths of the world to darkness, and more immediately, he has condemned America to a defensive position in the world. Now there is no proactive America shaping the world to her own ends. Now there is only an atomistic world, a series of billiard balls, in which America waits to be struck before bouncing back.

To Obama, the war on Islamism may be over. For Islamists, the war on America is far from over.

Ah, the deceptively peaceful aromas and gentle breezes of the Arab Spring…

All of which goes rather hand in glove with a column by Frank Gaffney.

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than 10 years of effort - involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well over $1 trillion spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists - we are no closer to victory in the “war on terrorism” than we were on Sept. 11, 2001?

Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth is that by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. No one seems able to explain the reason.

In an effort to provide the missing answer, on Tuesday , the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free 10-part video course titled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com). This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and firsthand accounts to present a picture that has, for more than a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed.

In addition to the threat of violent jihad, America faces another, even more toxic danger - a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, that would be the same organization to which President Obama recently transferred $1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump-sum payment. For him to do so, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions born of fully justified concerns about the nature and direction of the Shariah-adherent government the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidentially directed waiver came despite the following: the Brotherhood-dominated government’s hostage-taking of American democracy activists; murderous Islamist rampages against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities; the toleration and abetting of escalating violence against Israel in and from the Sinai; and official threats to jettison the 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state. Matters have only gotten worse since the president’s largesse was made available in an unusual upfront lump-sum payment.

Read all of Mr. Gaffney’s piece here.

Whose side, one has to wonder, is Barack Hussein Obama on, anyway?

At American Thinker:

As he tries to expand and extend his extra-constitutional Imperial Presidency, Mr. Obama has devised a new gimmick to fool tens of millions of the nation’s seniors by hiding from the devastating effects on their health care insurance that will be inflicted by his ObamaCare takeover of the nation’s medical delivery systems.

And why not? From the time he first announced his candidacy for president until this very minute, Barack Obama has run one deception, one lie after another on the American people, serving up travisty after tragedy coated in what, for those who don’t read between the lines or look beyond his words, have been proverbial spoons full of sugar…

A large portion of seniors on Medicare opt to participate in programs under what is known as Medicare Advantage. Under these programs, the seniors receive broader benefits than under standard Medicare, need no supplementary Medigap policies at extra cost. The arrangement is based upon extra payments made to the Medicare Advantage providers and the limit on policyholders to choices among lists of physicians who have agreed to accept lower-than-usual fees.

Co-author of an op-ed in this morning’s NY Post is Benjamin E. Sasse, a former US assistant secretary of health and president of Midland University. Along with co-author Charles Hurt, Sasse explains that under the ObamaCare law, Medicare Advantage benefits will be significantly cut back when provisions of the law reducing the funds available to providers are scheduled to take effect just before election time:

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year - herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year - which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Obviously, this will make tens of millions of seniors participating in Medicare Advantage programs sorely unhappy with the president. His answer is through a supposed “experiment,” condemned as an $8 billion waste by the General Accounting Office, which will postpone the effectiveness date of this cutback in available benefits until after the November elections.

“It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president,” write Hasse and Hurd, ” than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

SNIP! and so…

But the president has an ace up his sleeve, they explain. “Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

No Congressional approval is required, and Obama can simply defy the GAO recommendation to scrap the costly “experiment.”

Once again, Obama chooses government by diktat rather than by law and Constitution.

In short, since the seniors involved won’t see any change in their Medicair Plus before the election, those who would otherwise vote for Obama will do so, not knowing that Barack Hussein has once again pulled the wool over their eyes until they later run into the ambush of truth.

It is so sad that such a contemptible lack of morality has finally found its way into the Oval Office…

At Conservative Byte…

Although the national debt under President Barack Obama has increased $4 trillion since he took office in 2009, as a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama criticized then-President George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, saying it was “unpatriotic” and also “irresponsible” to saddle future generations with such a large national debt.

Hmmmmm…

The flashback video is here.

Kind of reminds me of one president recalling a certain other president’s “misery index” to point out that it far exceeded that of a president Mr. Misery Index had used it to criticize.

That Obama character sure does put his foot in his mouth an awful lot, doen’t he, before the fact.

From the latest of Mark Steyn’s ever-great, fun to read columns:

In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the “war on women,” the Republican theocrats’ confiscation of your contraceptives, or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences. This week’s bit of ham-handed misdirection was “the Buffett Rule,” a not-so-disguised capital-gains tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary. If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I’d be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night. But instead every other American “millionaire” will be subject to the new rule – because, as President Obama said this week, it “will help us close our deficit.”

Wow! Who knew it was that easy?

A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean counters who project that on Obama’s current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama’s Buffett Rule will raise – stand well back – $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours. So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There’s a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I’m not making any bets.

Let’s go back to that presidential sound bite:

“It will help us close our deficit.”

I’m beginning to suspect that the Oval Office teleprompter may be malfunctioning, or that perhaps that NBC News producer who “accidentally” edited George Zimmerman into sounding like a racist has now edited the smartest president of all time into sounding like an idiot. Either way, it appears the last seven words fell off the end of the sentence. What the president meant to say was:

“It will help us close our deficit … for 2011 … within a mere half-millennium!” [Pause for deafening cheers and standing ovation.]

Heh heh…

{SNIPPING deeply, here}

It’s that easy, folks! Like President Obama says, all you have to do to pay off his 2011 deficit is save $3.2 billion a year for 500 years.

Read it all.

From National Review.

In October 2010, on the eve of the Islamic revolution that the media fancies as “the Arab Spring,” the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood called for jihad against the United States.

You might think that this all but unnoticed bombshell would be of some importance to policymakers in Washington. It was not. It is not. This week, the Obama administration quietly released $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian government, now dominated by a Brotherhood-led coalition in parliament — soon to be joined by an Ikhwan (i.e., Brotherhood) luminary as president.

It is not easy to find the announcement. With the legacy media having joined the Obama reelection campaign, we must turn for such news to outlets like the Kuwait News Agency. There, we learn that, having dug our nation into a $16 trillion debt hole, President Obama has nevertheless decided to borrow more money from unfriendly powers like China so he can give it to an outfit that views the United States as an enemy to be destroyed.

Now, isn’t that nice?

And some may wonder why we wonder just whose side our president is on?

Actually, we no longerwonder, we know; O has made it quite obvious since his inauguration.

This pot of gold for Islamic supremacists is the spoils of a Brotherhood charm offensive. Given the organization’s unabashed goals and hostility towards the West, it was U.S. policy, until recently, to avoid formal contacts with the Brotherhood — although agents of the intelligence community and the State Department have long engaged in off-line communications with individual MB members. By contrast, the Obama administration from its first days has embraced the Ikhwan — both the mothership, whose leaders were invited to attend Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo despite its then-status as a banned organization under Egyptian law, and the Brotherhood’s American satellites, which have been invited to advise administration policymakers despite their notorious record of championing violent jihadists and repressive sharia.

Obama has overlooked the MB’s intimate ties to Hamas, which self-identifies as the Ikhwan’s Palestinian branch and is formally designated a terrorist organization under American law. Administration officials have absurdly portrayed the Brothers as “secular” and “moderate,” although the organization, from its founding in the 1920s, has never retreated an inch from its professed mission to establish Islam’s global hegemony.

The link is here.

Yes, that’s the ONLY way to describe ANYONE who would vote to reelect Saddam Barack, that’s it, Barack Hussein Obama after the comments he made regarding the Supreme Court, in the event that they overturn Commu- ObamaCare.

For example.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

From the Washington Times:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted President Obama on Thursday, telling him to “back off” from comments earlier this week where he appeared to question the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the possibility that it could overturn his health care law.

“The president crossed a dangerous line this week,” the Kentucky Republican said to the Lexington Rotary Club, “and anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the court must be defended.”

On Monday, Mr. Obama suggested it would be “activist” and an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the nine “unelected” justices to overturn the law, prompting outcries from leading Republicans and many legal scholars that he was trying to intimidate the court.

Ann Coulter puts things in even clearer perspective, as always.

The reason tea partiers carried signs saying “Read the Constitution!” was that we were hoping people would read the Constitution.

SNIP!

…and the former law professor, Barack Obama, alleging that a “good example” of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, “a group of people”) overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

I don’t know how a court could overturn a law that hasn’t been “passed.” Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a law, it would be a bill. If it hasn’t even been “constituted,” it wouldn’t be anything at all.

Of course the courts can overturn laws — constituted and passed alike! If anything, the Supreme Court isn’t striking down enough laws.

SNIP!

On Monday, President Obama shocked even his fellow liberals when he claimed that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (Which Obamacare wasn’t.)

He added: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

I guess now we know why Obama won’t release his college and law school transcripts!

It was so embarrassing that Obama attempted a clarification on Tuesday, but only made things worse. He said: “We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care,” since the ’30s.

Except in 1995. And then again in 2000. (Do we know for a fact that this guy went to Columbia and Harvard Law?)

LOL!

This guy is shaping up to be a dictator wannabe.

It seems to me that anyone who would even consider voting to keep O in the White House for another four years is anything BUT patriotic, at least where the United States of America is concerned.

If they were, they would see some value in observing the Constitution, not in using it for a door mat as Mr. Obama certainly has for the last 38 months.

Perhaps they ARE patriotic, but just to some communist country or other, certainly not to America!

That’s right, one such bird donates her ill gotten gains to the campaign of the other.

A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama’s re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.

The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama’s re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she’s accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state — a charge her husband denies.

Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of “bundlers,” the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.

I’d like to say I’m completely amazed, shocked, even, but I’m not. Not even a little, because it seems that where President Obama’s concerned, such connections are par for the course.