Both Obamas Belong In Prison
Jul 2, 2013 Political
Michelle Obama said that she loves her job (I was not aware she had one) but that living at the White House can be like living in a prison, albeit a nice prison.
With the Obamas in the White House the only people that are prisoners are those in the American public. We are prisoners of the Obama socialist plan and the country he is transforming us to is not a nice prison.
The only prison the Obamas belong in is a federal prison. I am real sorry for Michelle Obama feeling like she is in a prison. I must have missed how tough that prison is when she is routinely jetting off on vacations that cost the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars.
If there is any justice in this world she and Barack Hussein Obama will spend time in the small confines of a federal prison where Michelle can tend to the prison garden and Barack can decide on whether he wants to be the husband or the wife…
Laura Bush was at the forum and reminded people that the First Lady has a chef.
She will have one in prison as well…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: laura bush, michelle obama, prison, white house
Commander In Chief Visits Fort Hood Wounded
Nov 10, 2009 Political
The only problem is that it was the former Commander in Chief and not the current one. While Fort Hood is picking up the pieces and soldiering up, while the FBI is finally investigating the shooter’s ties to terrorism (and yes, there are ties), Barack Obama has not visited the wounded. He has yet to even visit the post (he is scheduled to saunter in today).
President George Bush and his wife Laura went to Fort Hood for a private visit with those wounded by the first Islamic terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. George Bush always cared about the troops and often visited with them at Walter Reed.
The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News. Fox
I know that running this country is a full time job but it seems to me that Obama could make an effort to get to Hood quickly to visit with the wounded and reassure the families of the dead. Let his Chicago thug buddies call up and ask him to make a pitch for the Olympics and he is on Air Force One jetting halfway around the world. When Michelle decides it is time for her date he hops on our plane and takes her to New York.
Let an Islamic terrorist kill American soldiers at the largest military base around and he fails to post.
And people wonder why the military has little use for this guy. The military, by and large, loved George Bush because he respected them and led them. He certainly did not leave them hanging for reinforcements while he stuck his wetted finger in the political wind to see what to do.
Bush was genuine and this idea is just reinforced by his visit to the wounded at Hood.
There should be no doubt by now that Hasan had ties to radical Muslims (who are praising what he did) and that he was making contact with al Qaeda sympathizers (and possibly members). His murder spree was motivated by his religion which makes him an Islamic terrorist. Yes, the government and the media tried to steer everything away from that fact but the evidence is mounting up and that can only mean the biggest terrorist attack on a US military base, in the US, happened on Obama’s watch and it was conducted by a guy who supported Obama.
The guy who did it was not a right wing conservative, or as Napolitano would put it, a domestic terrorist, but instead by a radical Muslim.
We are being told not to jump to conclusions (like say, Obama saying the police acted stupidly) and that there is a worry about backlash against Muslim soldiers. I don’t see that backlash taking place. The only soldiers who were targeted were non Muslims.
And they were attacked by a radical Muslim.
George Bush has been out of office for 11 nearly 11 months but he went to visit the wounded.
Maybe Obama had a tee time that kept him from paying a visit…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, fort hood, laura bush, Muslims, Obama, radicals, terrorist, visit the wounded
Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
Nov 17, 2007 Political
I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:
“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,†she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.†FT.com
She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.
Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.
As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.
She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.
Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.
Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.
Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.
Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?
Oops, did I just pile on the girl?
Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house