Friday, July 16, 2010

Another Presidential Cheap Shot;

Hoekstra: Hey That Was A Cheap Shot
U.S. Rep. Pete HOEKSTRA (R-Holland) today said a call out in Holland by President Barack OBAMA was, well, unpresidential.

The congressman reports that the President during his remarks said "some made the political calculation that it's better to obstruct than to lend a hand . . . Now that doesn't stop them from being at ribbon cuttings -- but that's OK."

Hoekstra said he' spent his career fighting against "wasteful federal spending" and against government picking winners and losers.

"I voted against the Democrat's $862 billion stimulus legislation because I knew it was not the right solution to put our economy back on track," Hoekstra said. "But today, as the U.S. Representative for the Second Congressional District of Michigan, I welcomed President Obama to West Michigan. Unfortunately, in my home district, the president did not reciprocate that respect and instead chose to take a cheap political shot."  {Obama said something about those who voted against Stimulus funding and then show up at ribbon cuttings - as usual, in a snarky - I'm so cool - demeanor.  The comedian-in-chief once again...]
According to the Washington Post: An al-Qaeda magazine aims to recruit Americans to launch attacks in the United States with such articles as "make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom," a senior U.S. lawmaker said Monday.
The first issue of Inspire was posted online late Sunday by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The English-language publication includes an article by Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric based in Yemen who is wanted by U.S. authorities. Awlaki writes:
"The tables have turned and there is no rolling back of the worldwide jihad movement. On the eve of 9/11 it was Afghanistan alone. Today it is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the list is growing."
The Wall Street Journal writes:  Just a few months ago, amid populist anger at the Fed for failing to prevent the financial crisis of 2008 and bailing out Wall Street, Congress was talking of stripping the central bank of its supervisory oversight of banks or forcing it to submit to congressional audit of its interest-rate decisions.
Instead, the new law gives the Fed more power and a better tool box to help prevent financial crises. It will become the primary regulator for large, complex financial firms of all kinds, such as American International Group, the insurer which built a massive derivatives portfolio that regulators didn't see until it was too late.
In the end, the Fed's emergency lending during the 2008 crisis will face a one-time audit to be published by Dec. 2010 and it will be required—with a two-year lag—to reveal which banks borrow from its discount window. With lobbying from several presidents of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, the Fed also fought off proposals to remove it from supervision of the large number of smaller banks.
"Basically, they ended up winning almost on everything that counts," says Laurence Meyer, a former Fed board governor now with economic consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers LLC.
From ExposeObamanow: The last time the president held a press conference to talk about the Gulf Coast oil spill it was all about BP. . .they did this, and they did that. And he was making it clear THEY WOULD PAY. There was no sense of WE.. we were not going to assist them in shutting off the flow. WE were not going to bring in the skimmers. WE were not going to clean the beaches.

Today’s press conference was very different. WE closed the spill. WE succeeded. WE did this and WE did that. Today was all about Obama’s victory. Only at the end, when he said; And BP is going to have to pay not only for the clean up, but to reimburse the people and businesses for their losses, that BP was mentioned.

To this president…. all problems belong to someone else … and all successes are a result of his action. [He once again proves that he in no way is a leader.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reports:  Former top terrorism prosecutor chides the national media for failing to investigate Barack Obama’s "borderline criminal" activities in Kenya as a U.S. senator.
Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who investigated the American embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya, charges that Obama interfered in Kenya’s internal politics possibly in violation of the Logan Act.
The centuries-old law bars Americans who are "without authority of the United States" from conducting relations "with any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States."
Obama spent six days barnstorming the Kenyan countryside in support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the presidency. Appearing with Odinga at campaign stops,Obama gave speeches accusing the sitting Kenyan president of being corrupt and oppressive, leaving the masses in poverty.  [Perhaps our "brilliant", but ignorant, President really didn't know that this is against the law, as he doesn't bother to actually read laws nor put those who do around him.  Ignorance of the law, however, is not a legal defense.]
According to
“There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the ‘yes’ campaign in Kenya,” [Rep. Smith] said. “By funding NGOs charged with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the Administration has crossed the line."
"Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other," he added.
According to a chart of USAID received by the three congressmen pursuing this investigation, two organizations have been given over 150,000 dollars to push the Yes Campaign and many other groups have been given smaller amounts, including, but not limited to:
Aim Organization reports: On “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Vice President Joseph Biden called the exchange [giving up 10 Russian spies and getting only 4 back from Russia] a “good deal” and said that he would have preferred keeping the good-looking Russian woman spy and giving Rush Limbaugh to the Kremlin. [Aren't we so lucky to have a President and Vice President who are both so entertaining, so outspoken against good American citizens, and so smug?]
Writing on the website of World Affairs, Vladimir Kara-Murza says that Yelena Bonner, the widow of academician Andrei Sakharov and a prominent advocate of human rights in Russia, “called the swap a missed opportunity and denounced the Obama administration not only for agreeing to an unequal exchange (ten for four) but, more importantly, for not requesting the freeing of more political prisoners, of whom there are scores in today’s Russia.”
The hastily-arranged “spy swap” ended any chance of finding out in detail in a public forum what kind of information the Russian intelligence service had been collecting and who in the U.S. Government had possibly been recruited or used as assets and contacts.
The book, Comrade J, identifies Strobe Talbott, a former high-ranking Clinton State Department official  and the current president of the Brookings Institution, a major liberal think tank, as having been a trusted contact of the Russian intelligence service. Talbott has denied serving as a Russian agent, but when he was up for his State Department job in the Clinton Administration, he admitted a relationship with Soviet “journalist” and KGB agent Victor Louis.
Holder had no real answer to CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer’s question of why, after spending so many years following these agents, they were not prosecuted. Holder could only claim that the 10 were somehow not as valuable as the four we got. In terms of math alone, it just doesn’t add up.
Documents in the case, as we have reported, demonstrate that the Russian agents were seeking information about the proposed arms treaty with Russia and other nuclear weapons information. That treaty, the New START, has now been signed and submitted to the Senate for ratification. It is being criticized by conservatives for giving Russia a strategic and tactical advantage in nuclear weapons.
One document says four Obama Administration officials were specifically targeted in the intelligence-gathering effort. But their names were omitted from the Justice Department documents about the case. If they actively conspired with the Russians, shouldn’t they be identified and arrested and prosecuted?
However, there is another possible reason for the quick release of the Russian agents. It is that powerful U.S. business interests told the Obama Administration that an unfolding spy scandal—and a public court case—could damage their business dealings with the Russian government.

No comments:

Post a Comment