Remember all those limp-wristed liberals who demanded that Bush be tried for “War Crimes”?

Where are they now to do the same to Barack Hussein Obama?

Hmmm, not even the crickets in their necks of the woods are chirping over this one…

Oh, I forgot — these are the same pieces of dung who can be seen wearing Che Guevarra tee shirts. Brutality, terror and murder are quite alright as long as it’s their people committing them.

Perhaps there should be a tee shirt with Obama’s face on it over the slogan, Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.

That’s right, they have out-stayed their welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last three years and eight months has been one long party for the Obamas, and all we seem to be getting in return is a few lies.

Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others sure did paint a different picture of the events. Obama blasted the Internet video, Clinton said the attacks were not planned, and Obama dispatched his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the Sunday talk shows to pitch the Obama talking points. Here’s a report from almost a week after the murders in Libya:

But now, as more information leaks out, the true story emerges.

The question to ask is “Why?” Why did Barack Obama lead a story line that he knew was false and misleading? Why?

Could it be that Obama just can’t bring himself to stand up to radical muslim terrorists? If that’s the case, then he has absolutely no business being president.

A great big Amen to that!

Was the above the only lie we can lay on President Obama’s doorstep?

No? You’ve got to be joking. This president has lied to us before?

You mean, there’s a whole list? A list of… Year by year, you say… You can’t be seri…

Oh, that list!

We have to agree with various fellow right thinkers and, no doubt, a few of the less sanity challenged Democrats out there that Obama did indeed look sort of foolish campaigning on The View while SecState Hillary Clinton was going tooth and nail, so to speak, with the Mohammedans at the U.N.

But what can you do, right?

Here’s a president that, in our opinion here at Hard Astarboard is far and away the worst choice the American people have made in the entire history of our great nation, even surpassing the “worstness” of the former holder of that mantle, Jimmy Carter.

This one’s all about lies, capitulation in the face of the most insanely ruthless enemy we’ve ever faced as a country, the trampling underfoot of the Constitution, coverups…

Did I say cover-ups?

How’s this one grab you?

From Breitbart.com:

Cover Up: Report Says U.S. Knew Al-Qaeda Behind Libya Attack Within 24 Hours

If these reports are true, and I suspect we all know they are — what we have here is nothing more than a scandalous White House cover up and Obama’s Media Palace Guards so terrified of Obama losing, they refuse to give it the coverage it demands, the attention it deserves, or to make Obama pay a political price for his role and responsibility.
According to Eli Lake of the Daily Beast, 24 hours after the assassination of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, and a four full days before Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows to blame what happened on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video, the American government had already concluded al-Qaeda was behind the attack:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that fearing headlines that screamed “Al-Qaeda Assassinates American Ambassador,” the Obama administration and the media colluded to push the narrative about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video.

Moreover, the media aided and abetted this cover up by turning Romney’s valid criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology into a week-long narrative meant to distract from Obama’s collapsing foreign policy in the Middle East, the ignoring of direct threats from al-Qaeda in advance of the attacks, and not beefing up security on the anniversary of 9/11..

As a result, thus far, the Obama Administration has gotten away with outright lies, likely security lapses that proved fatal, and the trotting out of our UN Ambassador to look Americans and the media in the eye and say what she and the government knew wasn’t true.

We expect this from politicians.

What we don’t expect is for the media to be such a willing a co-conspirator.

My emphasis there.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that bit about the media, not in light of their performance in recent years as more a propaganda outlet for the far left than a legitimate source for fair and impartial reporting. They got Obama elected, for example, by duping a lot of Americans whom, we believe, should now be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for casting votes for good ol’ Barry O, though not nearly as ashamed as the media themselves ought to be for sticking to their guns even after seeing what the current administration has wrought in the last painful 44 months of “hope and change”.

In their war on America and all it stands for, I suppose that the liberals’ Hope & Change is their version of “Shock & Awe”.

Meanwhile, back at the raunch, the Obama administration’s scapegoating of “the film that rocked the Islam-Once-Again-Offended world” for what they knew darn well was organized well beforehand by al-Qaeda opened the doors for the Muslim Brotherhood Islamofascist now running Egypt to call for restrictions on Americans’ — yes, our — First Amendment rights.

The sooner we can get this veritable enemy of the state out of the White House, the safer we’ll be and the quicker we’ll be able to start making our country look more like America again, rather than the third world country the left is turning it into.

It’s difficult to know where to begin here, perhaps the following should comprise more than one post, but we’ll put it all together since it basically sums out to the relationship between “our” president, the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates and the threat so-called “radical” Islam poses to both the United States and the rest of the civilized world.

From the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a brief interview with Steven Emerson:

From the lips of Barack Obama to YouTube video:

From Freedom Outpost:

As world leaders gather at the United Nations building in New York, one can expect the… expected. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a turn at the podium on Monday and wasted no time blasting Israel and saying the country would be “eliminated.” Israeli representatives walked out of the speech, but what about the Americans?

As reported by Reuters, “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be ‘eliminated,’ ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.”

Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran’s threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president’s comments as “disgusting, offensive and outrageous.”

Isn’t that what Barack Obama and his administration said about the Internet video that they blamed for initially causing the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens while doing little else to protect him?

Just how outraged were U.S. representatives? Not enough to walk out of the speech in protest. As reported by Breitbart.com, as Israeli envoy Ron Prosor left Ahmadinejad’s speech in protest, the U.S. delegation hung around to listen.

Emphasis mine.

Of course the U.S. Delegation, part of Obama’s State Department
hung around to listen. After all, they have to be polite to kindred spirits.

too bad Barack Obama thought it was more important to be on The View than to be in New York with other world leaders. There are real issues going on around the world, Mr. President. Maybe you should be involved.

Of course he should.

Also of course, there’s this…

It seems that even if there were no other reason Barack Hussein Obama is so pro-Islamist, his indebtedness to one Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal might have tipped the scales, though we doubt it: Being as he is so anti-U.S. Constitution, he might also have sought out Islam because, even more than communism, it is the direct antithesis to the freedoms made available through the tenets of that great document.

The boost from the weed Al-Waleed bin Talal was probably just icing on the cake.

This video from Glenn Beck is just too funny, and speaks completely (with the help of Beck and friends) for itself.

Well said!

I suppose Obama & Co. believe that dhimmi dollars are tax money well spent.

Obama Pays For Apology Ads In Pakistan With Taxpayer Dollars

The Obama administration is now running “apology” ads in Pakistan. The ads include both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama apologizing for an obscure YouTube video that is blocked in Pakistan.

Fox News reports,

The television ads in Pakistan feature clips of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video. Their words were subtitled in Urdu.

“We absolutely reject its content and message,” said Clinton in the advertisement.

A caption on the ad reads: “Paid Content.”

The advertisements end with the seal of the American Embassy in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

Knowing as we do that all this plays right into the hands of the Islamists who seek to dim down non-Muslim aawareness of their goals for a global caliphate, complete with the death or subjugation of all us infidels, we have to wonder how it is that the president and his merry lefties, all of whom are supposedly intelligent people who are well briefed on goings-on in the world, can be so ignorant.

There’s no other explanation than ignorance, at least none that could define their actions as anything other than wilful treason.

At our expense, even…

Yes, taxpayers pick up the bill for an otherwise useless waste of money.

.Read the rest of the article

This from Oliver North:

The storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the brutal murders of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, produced chaos this week in the so-called mainstream media. Instead of asking about how the heck this could happen in the aftermath of the Obama administration’s Arab Spring euphoria, “reporters” started looking for scapegoats.

The potentates of the press first focused their ire on something few of them even had seen — a puerile Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims” — and then they turned their guns on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. As usual, the O-Team’s media cheerleaders got it all wrong.

As Americans in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania participated in solemn ceremonies honoring our nearly 3,000 countrymen killed in the terror attacks 11 years ago, angry crowds were gathering around our embassy in Cairo. The U.S. Embassy responded by issuing an apologetic statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Instead of defusing the situation, the crowd swelled and stormed the embassy, tore down the U.S. flag and replaced it with a radical Islamic banner.

Truncating, as they say…

Gutting our defense budget, Obama’s “apologetic diplomacy,” kowtowing to foreign potentates, abandoning our ally Israel, delaying the installation of ballistic missile defenses and “leading from behind” have not worked. Nor have “harsh sanctions against Iran” deterred the ayatollahs in Tehran from the race to acquire nuclear weapons.

It’s now up to the Romney campaign to explain how he would do better. He has six weeks to do it. That’s no surprise.

C’mon, Romney, let’s please, please hear it!

The entire column by our favorite former U.S. Marine is here.

From The Investigative Project On Terrorism:

Anti-American violence throughout the Muslim world, ostensibly over a cheap Internet film denigrating the Muslim prophet Muhammad, may be misguided, but it’s a result of “the lack of dignity, the lack of respect that they’re being shown.” And it’s up to America to change policies to calm things.

That’s right. We’ll just scrap the First Amendment altogether and get with the program, because this heinous offending of the Religion of Peace has got to stop.

McGoldrick could have told his Iranian network interviewer that such a perception is not only wrong, but dangerous. He could have pointed out that Muslims in America, especially Shia, are freer to practice their faith than in most Sunni Muslim nations.

But he didn’t. Instead, he raised doubt over the most fundamental American freedom.

Americans enjoy “allegedly a freedom of speech, a freedom of expression –political expression and religious expression,” he explained. “And of course, that comes with it some rights, but also, of course, some responsibilities.”

The recent violence, including the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, might have be seen as “the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of Muslims’ patience with American and Western intervention,” McGoldrick said.

That puts the onus on the United States “to very critically think about how much more weight will we put on the Muslim world? How many more attacks? How many more drone strikes? How many more coups … until we realize that we need to take a principled stand, and a just stand, to make sure that we respect human rights, sovereignty and dignity all over the world.”

respect human rights, sovereignty and dignity — meaning kowtow to Islam, never, ever tell the truth about that “religion” unless it is pure positive hype.

Right.

That being the Mohammedan attacks on everything U.S. in various Mideast countries in response to a video that — surprise, surprise — offended Islam like so many things do. They are, after all, the “Religion of Peace”.

A novelist I read pointed out in one of his books that technically, peaceful, moderate Muslims are the ones who are not embracing Islam according to Mohammed’s directives (see the 9th Sura, or chapter, of the Unholy Koran, which orders all good Muslims to kill or subjugate all infidels), and that were Mo to return today, he’d be lopping off millions of heads, as a result, of “moderate” Muslims.

That said, what really takes a front row perspective is the response of the Obama Administration to the anti-American violence taking place the last few days as the result of a film made by a private citizen that, Allah forbid, has once again offended Islam.

From Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson, in an interview with Sun News.

Host: “Now this latest wave of violence in the Middle East has brought intense focus on American foreign policy. In fact that very topic seems to have supereceded the economy as the biggest issue in the presidential election, at least for now. Election issued aside, how the President handles this latest crisis is a topic for much debate. For more o0n this we’re joined via Skype by Steven Emerson. Steven is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Thanks for taking time to speak to us today Steven.”

Emerson: “Good morning or good afternoon, whatever time it is up there. ”

Host: “Well it’s both actually. It’s the middle of the day so we’ll call it both. First question I guess, what do you think of the Obama administration’s reaction to the attacks and the internet video?”

Emerson: “Well I’m going to be perfectly honest. I thought it was the lowest point in his career and I was embarrassed by what they said. First of all the initial response was they condemned outrageously this video and to apologize for it when it wasn’t the US government that produced it; it was a private US citizen. Number two the second statement that was made by Secretary Clinton was almost like a regret that we had the First Amendment. And third, the fact that the President actually contacted Google to take it down betrays the whole bedrock of Western civilization, free speech. So the problem here is that we acted as if we did something wrong, the US government, and two we reacted as if free speech was a curse that we should try to limit. That’s why I thought that the response was craven, we should have stood up for free speech, and I think it also reflects on the fact that the new Arab Spring was intended to basically show that democracy in the Muslim world would allow new movements to emerge and use politics as a way of expressing themselves democratically. What it turns out is that they’re using it to basically impose autocratic or totalitarian rules. That is, they insist that free speech should not be allowed in the US and that criticism of Islam should be actually criminalized.”

Read the rest.

Emerson’s response is spot-on.

The First Amendment endorsed right of a private citizen to express his or her opinion, whether anyone else finds it offensive or not, is nonetheless a right, and as the government belongs to the people rather than the other way around, an individual’s expressed opinion is not the intellectual property of the government or, for that matter, the rest of the country, it is just that: An individual’s opinion.

So where does the Obama Administration get off apologizing on behalf of our entire country for the film made by one private citizen?

Where do they get off using Federal Law Enforcement to run the film maker down and the justice system to pursue ways to “get him”, so to speak, on probation issues, in order to appease a whole bunch of violent animals who follow a satanic cult mistakenly referred to as a religion?

From Wes Pruden:

Free speech takes a licking

President Obama and his men (and particularly his women) are having a tough time standing upright in the fierce wind blowing from the east. The troops are leaderless and the leader is rudderless. Their strategy, unique in American history, is making a wish for the barbarians to be nice.

The news from Libya gets darker, and the worst of the bad news for the president is that if everybody at the White House is “on message” it’s because everyone gets to make up his (or her) own message for nobody to believe.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who obviously needs a good night’s sleep, got in a war of adjectives with some of the caliphs of the Arabian knights. She fired the first volley of adjectives at the infamous video about the Prophet Mohammed, which the White House, against all available evidence, insists is the sole cause of the deadly riots. The video is “disgusting and reprehensible,” she said, “and it appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage.”

SNIP!

The White House keynote of distraction was sounded first by Jay Carney, the president’s press agent, when he insisted the riots were not aimed at his boss, the government, or even at “the American people,” but only at the video. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., sounded even sillier when she insisted the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi was not planned and organized as a deliberate assault on America and its diplomats, but was a “spontaneous” happening against the movie. In her telling, it was probably a bunch of guys in Benghazi, loitering on the corner talking about the what was under the chadors the girls wore, and just happened upon a cache of automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, and when one of the good ol’ boys suggested they attack the American consulate from three directions, they thought, well, why not? Guys, you know, like, will be guys.

The Libyan government’s insistence that the riots were not spontaneous, but highly organized and led by outsiders from Yemen and Mali, sounds like special pleading – blaming outsiders is always tempting for governments under siege. But it comports with what everyone so far knows.

If the president wants to find someone to blame, he should look at the face in his mirror. He imagined that a few honeyed words would make the Islamic world love him (and maybe even tolerate the rest of us) merely by making goo-goo eyes at those who want to kill us. We’ve had three years of goo-goo and the Muslim red-hots are still killing American soldiers, occasional civilians and selected diplomats.

Now the government is playing movie critic. The video is not likely to win an Oscar this or any other year, but criticizing the religious faith of others, and not just the faith of Christians and Jews, is well within what Hillary Clinton calls “the outer limits of free speech.” Apologizing, whether by word or deed, for America is asking for trouble. Nobody does apology for America better than Barack Obama, but now we see what he gets for it, even if he doesn’t.

Well said.

As we observed in an earlier post here at Hard Astarboard and as others have said before, the problems posed by so-called “militant Islam” (which part, if the Koran is to be believed, is not militant?) aren’t new, are not even rooted in our lifetimes or even in recent centuries. The violence that began under Jimmy Carter, intensified under Clinton and now flourishes during the watch of Barack Hussein Obama, despite what liberals and other collaborationists would have us believe, is not in response to anything America or the west has done in recent years, that is all an excuse intended to force us, through political correctness, to cede ground, as it were, to the Islamofascists so they can press an attack, with more and more impunity, that has been incubating since The Great Pedophile…

…

Was Mohammed a pedophile?

The literature “Sahih Al-Bukhari” comes in nine volumes and contains thousands of Hadiths describing Mohammed’s life. It talks about “Aisha” the girl in Volumes 5 and 7. Since taking a child bride was so unusual, it seems Mohammed claimed Allah had spoken to him in order to overcome the strong protests of the child’s father. Thus, the marriage ceremony occurred when the girl was 6 and finalized through intercourse when she was nine.

…walked the earth centuries ago, not since any American or European made any remark or performed any action “offensive to Islam” anytime in the last 1500 years.

Islamophobia, right.

It must be a nice surprise when, in the course of trying to subjugate a strong country, you find their leader to be sympathetic to your cause.

I say “gone” because “come a long way” depicts a positive, and where the Democrats have gone is anything but positive from any viewpoint invoking love of country, honesty or, for that matter, honor.

The corruption within the ranks of the Democrats can probably be laid at the feet of the liberals who bought out their party in the last two decades or so, but still, the deeds that can be attributable to these people are anything but acceptable in America, where we’re supposed to be a nation of laws.

“Sure,” some will argue, there are crooked Republicans, but for every one of those there seem to be fifty bent Democrats.

New York, a Democrat run state, is teeming with corrupt politicians, but other states wherein Democrats are prominent have their own share of criminal Democrats as well.

From JP Attitude:

On Monday, Trenton Mayor Tony Mack was arrested by the FBI for corruption. Tony Mack represents the blight that has destroyed the great cities of America, the blight of crooked Democrat mayors who have systematically raped and pillaged the cities they were elected to lead.

If you don’t live in a major urban area, you don’t know how bad it is. Travel across America and you will find city after city with the same feature: a rotten core of disintegrating infrastructure, dysfunctional schools, and violent crime. Detroit looks worse than Kabul or Baghdad, recent war zones. East St. Louis sends kids to school in buildings where sewage is backed up in the hallways. Vast areas of Los Angeles are run by gangs playacting like feudal lords from the Middle Ages. Chicago had 52 shootings over Memorial Day weekend, ten of them fatal – you’re safer walking around Baghdad with a big silver cross than walking around in Chicago.

What do all of those cities have in common? Decades of Democrat mayors.

If you think Tony Mack is an exception, maybe I should list other examples. What do you think? Can I list ten examples of corrupt Democrat mayors since the year 2000?

Read on…

What about honesty in elections, wherein eligible American citizens get to choose our leaders?

From Godfather Politics:

As we draw closer to the elections in November, we are learning there are numerous ways to win an election other than by the ballots cast by legal registered voters.

In several state primaries, it was discovered that dead people and non-U.S. citizens had voted. In some states, there are still thousands of dead people and non-citizens on the voter registration rolls. Why, we’ve even read where a guy’s dog that had been dead for two years received a voter registration card in the mail.

And through it all, the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to prevent states from cleaning up their voter registration records and removing dead people and non-citizens. They have also fought long and hard to prevent states from enacting voter ID laws and in some instances the DOJ has declared such laws discriminatory and illegal.

I always have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Democrats on claiming the voter ID is discriminatory and will prevent poor black people from voting. Those same poor black people have to have some form of ID in order to receive all of the government aid and handouts they get, so what makes a voter ID any different? Besides, thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives and limbs to secure and maintain the right to vote, but not to secure and maintain government entitlements.

Snip!

Chicago, where Obama started his political career has a long history of corrupt elections. The cities motto for years was if you can win an election legally, steal it any way you can.

In 2008, Obama won Virginia by seven points. At the moment, the polls show the race between Obama and Romney to be much closer. That means that Obama is going to need the vote of every dead person, non-citizen, pet and convicted felon, along with the voter intimidation of New Black Panther members if he wants to secure his victory in November.

Yes, the Democrats of today could sure give the likes of their like-minded soulmates, this one for example, a run for their money….

Nothing like having a President who is completely unqualified to protect and defend us against our enemies. No, nothing like it.

…Bargisi isn’t sure yet what, if any, relationship the revolutionary toughs have with the Islamists. “It was organized by the jihadis, like Zawahiri’s brother. But that’s not who’s dominating the crowd right now. This Salafi guy I know comes over to fix stuff in my house. He’s a carpenter. He says, ‘Why care about this movie anyway? Have these people watched every movie ever made? I am quite sure this happens often. What’s new? America sucks, nothing new.’”

But to hear the media talk, it’s all Romney’s fault for talking out of turn. Melanie Phillips though, has another idea: what people are witnessing is a policy failure.

The Arab Winter has not brought forth democracy but unleashed anarchy and religious fanaticism, with Islamic mobs hitherto kept under control by Gaddafi and Mubarak now empowered, strengthened and rampaging out of control throughout the region.

We know who are the real guilty men here. Even now, Obama is stroking the enemies of the west while kicking its allies in the crutch. “Too busy” to see Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu when he comes to Washington later this month to beg for American help in preventing Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons which it will use to achieve its declared aim of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, Obama will nevertheless meet Morsi, who has so far issued only qualified regret for the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, demanded that the US government take action against the maker of the anti-Islamic film — and who last spring released from an Egyptian prison Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda’s current leader and who led the mob who stormed the Cairo embassy this week.

SNIP!

…But even NBC’s foreign correspondent in Egypt is scratching his head over an Obama pronouncement that Egypt is “not an ally or an enemy.”

I almost had to sit down when I heard that. For the last forty years, the United States has had two main allies in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other ally in the Middle East being Israel. For the President to come out and say, well, he’s not exactly sure if Egypt is an ally any more but it’s not an enemy, that is a significant change in the perspective of Washington toward this country, the biggest country in the Arab world. It makes one wonder, well, was it worth it? Was it worth supporting the Arab Spring, supporting the demonstrations here in Tahrir Square, when now in Tahrir Square there are clashes going on behind me right in front of the US embassy?

That’s because Romney “shoots first and asks questions later.” But the NBC correspondent left out the best part. President Obama may not know who his allies are in the region at all. He’s pulled out of Iraq and refused to stand up to Iran. And the way things are going, it is increasingly unclear whether he’s sure that Israel — that other main ally in the region — is an “ally or enemy” either. The president has achieved the remarkable (possibly the historic) attainment of getting both the Islamic world and Israel mad at his policies. James Lewis at American Thinker tries to make sense of it.

In Egypt, Coptic Christian churches have been burned, and priests killed. Egyptian tanks — US-made main battle tanks — have been sent into the Sinai Desert near the Israeli border. Turkey is now run by a neo-Ottoman gang of thugs. Insanity is running amok again, and the New York Times can’t see anything wrong. But that’s the New York Times for you.

Obama has just publicly refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu while he is in our country attending the UN General Assembly. Too busy, says our hero. It’s too hard to schedule.

The Democratic Convention surrendered to American Muslims with an elaborate prayer meeting, while dropping God and Jerusalem from their official platform. American Jews are fast losing power and influence, and radical Muslims are bringing Shari’a to America. You can see it happening.

Most American Jews are still brain-locked, because they are liberals. Half of American Jews will still vote for Obama rather than admit they were wrong — disastrously wrong — about liberalism ever since the radicals took over in 1968.

Obama’s surrender signals are understood all over the world, except at home.

“Obama’s surrender signals are understood all over the world, except at home.” That is where Lewis gets it wrong. The surrender signals aren’t understood abroad either because the president is surrendering to everybody so indiscriminately that he’s got everyone confused. The very same chief executive who sends letters of condolence to the families of deceased SEALs with a form letter and an electric pen is engaged in the same promiscuous white-flag waving everywhere he goes. The message is: “To whom it may concern: I give up. I confess to Romney’s guilt and express regret for everything he has done in advance. Yours, the once-in-a-generation president.”

It’s not like such a “brilliant” scholar as himself, our president, isn’t aware that we’ve been at war with Islam since Jefferson’s time.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

On the other hand, President Barack Hussein doesn’t seem to care much, one way or the other, if his lack of attendance at those pesky intelligence briefings POTUSes are expected to have daily is any indication.

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s right! Campaigning to get reelected is definitely more important than some piddling duty like keeping the country and Americans abroad, including those serving U.S. (we, the people’s) interests overseas safe?

This is not to say, of course, that Misseur Obama doesn’t have his priorities straight in some areas.

The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

SNIP!

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.

Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,

“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, ‘So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.

Moving on, what about a general rehashment of the incumbent administration’s Middle East policy in general?

Obama’s Mideast Policy? What policy?

From Heritage’s The Foundry:

The breaking news keeps breaking when it comes to revelations surrounding the attacks and protests aimed at U.S. embassies going on throughout the Islamic world. Protests have spread to at least eight countries. Reports indicate that four people have been arrested relating to the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff there. That offers at least the promise of getting more information about the deliberate attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., government authorities identified the man behind the controversial film purported as the cause for the protests as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Californian with a shadowy past including many aliases and a criminal record.

Unlike a Brad Thor novel, however, we can’t just jump to the end of the story to find out what this all means for American policy in this troubled part of the world.

But (again, unlike a Brad Thor novel) without cheating we can predict how the story is going to end—because the result of the President’s Middle East policies was predictable from the start.

Obama’s strategy for this part of the world started out much the way Jimmy Carter’s did—with acts of conciliation and accommodation. The President narrowly focused his priorities on three objectives: 1) withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible; 2) engaging with Syria and Iran; and 3) transforming the U.S. into a neutral party—to negotiate peace between Palestine and Israel.

For starters, we know that all three of those objectives have met with abject failure.

Iraq was not only left a shaky state; it has become a shaky friend—defying U.S. requests to block Iranian flights that are rearming the Syrian military so they can kill more Syrian civilians.

After wasting three years of trying to find common ground with the totalitarian regimes in Syria and Iran, even the White House has acknowledged failure, calling for the government in Damascus to step down and asking for more sanctions on Tehran.

Finally, the peace process has collapsed—a blessing in disguise, because if Obama succeeded in creating a Palestinian state today, it would look an awful lot like the Syrian regime the rest of the region is trying to bring down—a corrupt state that oppresses its own people, a state sponsor of terrorism, and a tool of Iran.

The President’s policy, however, has been more than unsuccessful—the “Obama doctrine” has taken the cause of protecting U.S. interests in the region backward—because it relied on a self-imposed agenda of self-weakening. It included distancing the U.S. from Israel and playing politics with the U.S. defense budget—where even his own officials acknowledge that if the automatic cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect, they will undermine the readiness and reduce the capabilities of the armed forces.

SNIP!

The breaking news keeps breaking when it comes to revelations surrounding the attacks and protests aimed at U.S. embassies going on throughout the Islamic world. Protests have spread to at least eight countries. Reports indicate that four people have been arrested relating to the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff there. That offers at least the promise of getting more information about the deliberate attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., government authorities identified the man behind the controversial film purported as the cause for the protests as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Californian with a shadowy past including many aliases and a criminal record.

Unlike a Brad Thor novel, however, we can’t just jump to the end of the story to find out what this all means for American policy in this troubled part of the world.

But (again, unlike a Brad Thor novel) without cheating we can predict how the story is going to end—because the result of the President’s Middle East policies was predictable from the start.

Obama’s strategy for this part of the world started out much the way Jimmy Carter’s did—with acts of conciliation and accommodation. The President narrowly focused his priorities on three objectives: 1) withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible; 2) engaging with Syria and Iran; and 3) transforming the U.S. into a neutral party—to negotiate peace between Palestine and Israel.

For starters, we know that all three of those objectives have met with abject failure.

Iraq was not only left a shaky state; it has become a shaky friend—defying U.S. requests to block Iranian flights that are rearming the Syrian military so they can kill more Syrian civilians.

After wasting three years of trying to find common ground with the totalitarian regimes in Syria and Iran, even the White House has acknowledged failure, calling for the government in Damascus to step down and asking for more sanctions on Tehran.

Finally, the peace process has collapsed—a blessing in disguise, because if Obama succeeded in creating a Palestinian state today, it would look an awful lot like the Syrian regime the rest of the region is trying to bring down—a corrupt state that oppresses its own people, a state sponsor of terrorism, and a tool of Iran.

The President’s policy, however, has been more than unsuccessful—the “Obama doctrine” has taken the cause of protecting U.S. interests in the region backward—because it relied on a self-imposed agenda of self-weakening. It included distancing the U.S. from Israel and playing politics with the U.S. defense budget—where even his own officials acknowledge that if the automatic cuts required under the Budget Control Act of 2011 go into effect, they will undermine the readiness and reduce the capabilities of the armed forces.

It’s time for a different course.

Read On…

Obama, our enemies’ best friend…

*********UPDATE***********

In the “Chickens Coming Home To Roost” Department, Obama’s Chamberlainian policies toward the Islamofascists seem to getting him/us exactly where such kow-towing always gets one when done with such people, as the Muslims show their true colors.

When, if ever, will this president learn?