May 26th, 2015
Breaking: Fifth Circuit upholds injunction against executive amnesty. Maybe this will be the harvest of tons of straw that breaks the Big Media back and forces open a discussion of Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats.
For so long we have been one of the few outlets that has reported with seriousness on the ramifications, treacheries, and lies which led a brave Texas judge to oppose Barack Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats by issuing an injunction against them. The reason proffered by Big Media for scant grudging coverage of such a big story has been that the actions of a federal district judge don’t amount to much. Big Media refused to cover the story saying that maybe if the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court weighed in then maybe the public would be informed by Big Media about Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats. “Maybe” has just arrived:
Appeals court refuses to lift hold on Obama immigration action
A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to lift a temporary hold on President Obama’s executive action that could shield from deportation as many as 5 million immigrants illegally living in the U.S.
The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Texas judge who agreed to temporarily block the president’s plan in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama’s action was unconstitutional. But two out of three judges on a court panel voted to deny the government’s request.
It wasn’t immediately clear if the government would appeal, either to the full appeals court in New Orleans or to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]
Justice Department lawyers sought a stay while they appealed the injunction. They argued that keeping the temporary hold interfered with the Homeland Security Department’s ability to protect the U.S. and secure the nation’s borders. They also said immigration policy is a domain of the federal government, not the states.
But, in Tuesday’s ruling, 5th Circuit judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod denied the stay, saying in an opinion written by Smith, that the federal government lawyers are unlikely to succeed on the merits of that appeal. [snip]
The Justice Department has also asked the 5th Circuit to reverse Hanen’s overall ruling that sided with the states. A decision on that appeal, which will be argued before the court in July, could take months.
Not only has the Fifth Circuit refused to allow Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats to continue, the Fifth Circuit has signaled that the entire legal underpinnings of Obama’s illegal immigration diktats are, well, illegal and not likely to prevail.
It’s a 42 page decision (which may be read in full HERE) which will likely prevail even if Obama foolishly asks the Fifth Circuit to hear the case en banc. As we predicted, the wheels of justice grind slowly and the courts are finally moving against Obama as he walks the short green mile away from his treacherous occupation of the White House.
May 24th, 2015
Great national holidays, such as the Fourth of July, usually remind citizens of great victories or focus attention on valiant leaders, such as former presidents, long gone. More than any other national commemoration, even more so than the Thanksgiving holiday, Memorial Day invites us to cover ourselves in the blanket of memory. Memory – which can be pain-filled or awe-inspiring.
Memorial Day is a time to recall darker days and armor ourselves with memory for battles to come even if all we see is a future of despair:
On Memorial Day 2008 we explained the origins of the holiday. The day to remember the fallen began during the Civil War.
Since then on the last Monday in May the nation remembers. From the Civil War to Afghanistan, the nation remembers.
This Memorial Day 2015 we draw inspiration from our cousins across the sea.
At a time of trial, a great pivot point in history, not just for Great Britain, but for all of Western civilization, the British throne was occupied by a vain and treacherous beast. Along with his ambitious nasty concubine whose main concerns appeared to be garish fashion and spectacles for herself and the man who would be King the loyalties of both were in question.
Many believed that the coronation of that King would lead to a traitor on the throne. A traitor whose sympathies were more to the pagan religion of the almost fully grown military threat English speaking peoples would soon face on the battlefield was soon to sit on Saint Edward’s Chair.
A weak uncertain stutterer and the might of British history saved the empire in 1939. In 2010 the story of King George VI who overcame his disability to rally the nation and the world of freedom loving peoples became the cinematic The King’s Speech.
Eventually the broadcast speech by King George VI became available via YouTube.
On this Memorial Day we remember that even in the darkest hour a candle can be lit even if that candle is far from perfect.
May 18th, 2015
Today we recall the rotted corpse of Elizabeth Edwards. We all remember Elizabeth don’t we? In the 2008 election cycle we rarely wrote about the John Edwards campaign other than to toss compliments to Mrs. John Edwards. We lived to realize how wrong we had been in our compliments to Elizabeth Edwards. We lived to begin to understand how toxic a schemer Elizabeth
Warren Edwards was. We learned that few schemers and scam artists match Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards.
But in 2008 there were many idiots who loved John Edwards. Years earlier we had attended some John Edwards speeches so we realized how charming a weasel he was in person. Even as we admired Edwards for his suave personality we knew there was something very wrong with him and we fled.
But in 2008 many people were taken in by John Edwards and listened to the testimony on his behalf by his wife Elizabeth Edwards. Eventually as the Edwards campaign collapsed (we provided the reasons for that collapse in our analysis from years ago) most of those supporters ran into the lying arms of Barack Obama. Some fools will never learn.
But in 2008 many people believed and trusted Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards. The toxic waste dump called Elizabeth Edwards used her disease and the public sympathy caused by her situation to attack Hillary Clinton in the most personal terms. The shameless Elizabeth Edwards who was aware of her hubby’s wandering penis even dared say that her marriage was happier than the Clinton marriage.
Whether the Edwards marriage was or was not as happy as the Clinton marriage it certainly was not as long lasting. We don’t particularly care about the happiness level of married couples or what goes on in the private life of others. If Elizabeth Edwards had restricted her public comments to delusions about her husbands fidelity we would not be writing about her sordid life today. But toxic Elizabeth Edwards had much more to say:
Elizabeth Edwards offers sharp critique of Hillary
John Edwards would be a better women’s President than Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards said yesterday, trashing the New York senator as too quiet on feminist issues and too muddled on abortion.
Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of White House hopeful John Edwards, took her shots at Clinton in an interview yesterday before she, Clinton and another 2008 competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, spoke to a Planned Parenthood convention.
“Keeping [the] door open to women is actually more a policy of John’s than Hillary’s,” Elizabeth Edwards, a lawyer, told Salon.com.
But she said she was sympathetic to Clinton and understood, from her own dealings with male lawyers, why Clinton might not focus on women’s issues.
“You want to reassure them you’re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues,” Edwards said.
Edwards, who is fighting terminal breast cancer, said that Clinton, aside from being a woman, has offered no reason for people to vote for her.
“When she announced her candidacy she said, ‘I’m in it to win it.’ What is that? That’s not a rationale,” Edwards said.
She also slapped Clinton for what the senator does say on women’s issues, particularly on abortion. Clinton has tried to soothe religious voters by focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies and describing her stance as keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare.”
“I don’t think we should muddle the language,” Edwards said. “The wiggle room in what she says makes me feel uncomfortable.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment, although Clinton herself promised during her campaign rollout that she’d “deck” any opponent who attacked her. She also has declined to counter Rudy Giuliani and Obama. [snip]
Obama, who campaigns on the theme of change, suggested the country has moved beyond the “culture wars” that dominated politics in the Clinton years.
“I am absolutely convinced that the cuture [sic] wars are just so ’90s,” he said. “It is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America.”
Obama’s promise to “turn the page” is certainly a laugh today but when we mocked his “turn the page” crap then it was we who were mocked. Likewise the Clinton campaign refusal to attack Obama with the vigor we suggested is lamentable when viewed from today. Hillary’s rational voice in 2008 as compared to the Obama style nonsense emitted today is a head scratcher which will be paid for in blood during the general election. But the most startling of all the statements from that 2007 article belong to Elizabeth Edwards.
Today, something called Quinn Mulholland puts on Elizabeth Edwards’ dusty dress, and in Harvard Political Review asks Why Not Martin O’Malley?:
Both reflect a deep concern that all Americans don’t have an equal shot at prosperity. Both demonstrate a growing opposition to the centrist Democratic policies of the Clinton era—the trade policies and the welfare reform—that seemed to mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Yet it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who has a proven record of accomplishing real progress on these issues on a state level. It is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who became the first major Democratic politician to endorse a national $15 minimum wage at the Institute of Politics on Thursday. And it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who is seriously considering challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
So why have political pundits come to the consensus that Elizabeth Warren is the only one who could give Hillary a run for her money in the Democratic primary? Perhaps it is O’Malley’s lack of name recognition. He is currently polling at around 0.3 percent in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, compared to Clinton’s 58 percent, and Warren’s 17 percent. But that number is increasing, and O’Malley received a warm reception in recent trips to New Hampshire and Iowa.
Not content to only wear Elizabeth Edwards’ old dresses, this Mulholland character puts on her lipstick and makeup as well. As if a fowl-like transvestite character from the film Psycho Mulholland speaks the words in the voice of Mrs. John Edwards:
Perhaps it is because O’Malley is not a woman. While a first female president would certainly be a symbolic victory for women, it is unclear that a Clinton presidency would produce many tangible benefits for women. In fact, in terms of policy, O’Malley seems to have proposed just as many, if not more, policies to help women as Clinton has. At the Harvard Institute of Politics, O’Malley declared, “We must recognize that policies that are good for women and families, like paid leave and safe and affordable child care, are also good for our national economy, and for economic growth, because when women succeed, our American economy also succeeds.”
O’Malley also proclaimed his support for a federal $15 minimum wage, which would give a much-needed raise to the 3 million Americans who work at or below minimum wage, 62 percent of whom are women. Clinton has voiced her support for fast food workers striking for a higher wage, but she has yet to establish how much of an increase in the minimum wage she would support. Despite his gender, O’Malley could be the candidate that would make the biggest difference for women. [snip]
Clinton will be nowhere near as “inevitable” in the general presidential election as she was in the Democratic primary, assuming—perhaps prematurely—that she wins it. She will have to face voters on the left concerned with her ties to Wall Street and her flip-flopping on gay marriage and immigration, as well as voters on the right who will have been inundated with anti-Hillary attacks for months. Perhaps America is ready for a genuinely populist Martin O’Malley campaign. O’Malley certainly appears to be ready.
Martin O’Malley is scheduled to announce he is running for president at the end of this month. Thus far Martin O’Malley has made two contributions to the 2016 debate.
The first Martin O’Malley contribution to the 2016 discussion has been to dredge up every horrible consequence of left wing kook control of America’s cities. We call him “Baltimore O’Malley” as those initial letters befit O’Malley’s Barack Obama style boobery.
A different type of boobery is Martin O’Malley’s second “achievement” this early in the 2016 campaign cycle. Martin O’Malley can’t seem to keep his shirt on.
Barack Obama showed America his flabby man-boobs while dirtying up the waters of Hawaii late in 2008. Martin O’Malley has taken pec pictures to a new low. Doesn’t he own a shirt?
Baltimore O’Malley will do to America what he did to Baltimore. As to those man-boobs, at least John Edwards never inflicted America with man-boob pictures.
May 15th, 2015
Killer Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death today. The great B.B. King died today. This week there was a train derailment in Pennsylvania. Next week something will happen. The next month something else will happen. The month after that there will likely be more Obama disasters because you can always bet that incompetent and treacherous boob Barack Obama will always boob it up. The month after that there will be more Obama disasters and more news. About all these events Hillary should shut her mouth.
Every kook on the left wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on what they want her to opine. Every smart Republican, every smart conservative wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on anything. As the old proverb has it, the tongue is the enemy of the neck.
We strongly advised Hillary not to announce until July at the earliest. Our advice was not taken. So we won’t whine when we hear attacks against Hillary. In one real sense she deserves the attacks because her early announcement was strategically and tactically stupid.
To her credit though Hillary attenuated her foolish early announcement by mostly keeping her mouth shut, avoiding Big Media interviews, and otherwise conducting a “listening tour” in which she pretends to listen to voters and shakes her head up and down in acknowledgement of the noise emitted by the participants in these listening tour events. If anything we think Hillary should nod her head more and move her jaw less.
Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign an angel gets his/her wings. It’s like the bell that rings in that Christmas movie with Clarence the angel.
Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign the hearts of her political opponents, on the left and the right, break a little bit.
On the left Hillary’s closed mouth elicits Monica Lewinsky jokes. The left kooks can’t help it. The kook left sees their Cambridge Cherokee, Lie-a-watha, Fauxcahontas, Wig-Wam Warren, afraid thus far to declare herself as the next Mess-iah. Without Warren the left has nothing left. There is only beanie Sanders. Soon Baltimore O’Malley will enter the lists but, well… he’s just another B.O. The left has the freedom of, to quote Janis, nothing left to lose. The last hero of the kooks has proved to be a treacherous boob who has destroyed the party from top to bottom.
For those on the right, Republicans and conservatives, the tactic of trying to get Hillary to slit her own throat has some costs. Actually, there are considerable costs.
Republicans and conservatives have a big, varied, field of candidates who will run for president. There might be two dozen presidential candidates on the Republican side. There are so many Republican candidates for president that once all of them declare officially it will be a problem for any of them to get attention.
Republican candidates for president will hold their first debate in August. Who will be invited to participate in this and later debates? Will all of them be invited? Will there be a limited number invited to participate?
All Republican candidates have a right to be heard and to participate in at least the initial debates. But there are so many candidates that Big Media will be tempted to winnow the field without benefit of the voters.
So think about this: there are tons of Republican candidates for president but Big Media outlets and Republican/conservative websites are too busy mocking Hillary (so badly they mock themselves) they do GOP candidates a disservice. Every time Megyn Kelly amps up the volume on Hillary in order to beat Bill O’Reilly to the first interview with Hillary and/or get attention/ratings for herself, Megyn hurts Republican candidates who want to get some attention.
We here at public service conscious Big Pink are making the supreme effort of giving every candidate their due on the day they announce. Our Amazonian resolve to examine every announcee will be tested when Rick Santorum, our Lady of the Sweaters, announces but we will make the effort. It’s more than Republican/conservative websites are doing, eh?
One of the Republican/conservative websites we enjoy reading is run by a jammie wearing fool. Lately, their devotion is to goad Hillary into talk. Every day they so kindly advise Hillary to speak up “for her own good” of course:
‘Hide Hillary’ Strategy Backfiring as Reclusive Granny Clinton Trailing in Six Battleground States
Perhaps poll numbers that are sagging more than her face will eventually smoke out Grandma Clinton and force her to actually face the media one of these months. But it’s a GOP poll, so she’ll just shrug it off like she did the dead in Benghazi. [snip]
Meanwhile, her favorables have plummeted in a new Fox poll. [snip]
Team Grandma should be alarmed by the drop among independents, so maybe it’s time for some more staged events where the fading Clinton can pretend she’s listening to voters. GOP candidates are enjoying poking the bumbling Clinton over her evasiveness. [snip]
Watch for some orchestrated media appearances once her minions digest the bad news. Problem is she may not be able to recover.
Gee fellas, thanks for the advice. We don’t think you’d make good courthouse lawyers but your kindhearted attempts to rescue Hillary2016 from oblivion is appreciated.
At Republican/conservative HotAir the advice comes via the Washington Post and the Hillary Haters who wrote that 2008 campaign recap “game change” book which argued Obama was the Mess-iah and Hillary was never to be heard from again. How did that “game change” analysis turn out? So now these Big Media losers are back with more bad suggestions.
Gee, the Hillary Haters at the Washington Post and Bloomberg news who so loved Obama in 2008 now can’t get enough of Hillary. H&H want Hillary to hang herself with her own tongue. For them that would be a game changer for Warren for sure.
So what should
Jesus Hillary do? Should she follow the advice of the right and the left and opine on issues of the day? Or should Hillary, after not taking our advice, listen to good ol’ Big Pink and keep her mouth shut? We’ll quote from the Republican/conservative Weekly Standard:
Why Are Hillary Clinton’s Numbers So Good?
Quick: When was the last time Hillary Clinton had a “good” week? I don’t remember either.
The last big media stories about Clinton have been:
1.) She runs a shady foundation that burns a lot of money and doesn’t do much real-world good.
2.) She had exchanges that looked like pay-for-play while acting as secretary of state.
3.) Because of these problems, she’s been ducking the media like crazy.
4.) And don’t forget there’s that private email server that she shouldn’t have been running that would have totally exonerated her about everything if she hadn’t nuked it.
As Jack Reacher would say, not good.
And yet, in the face of what has been three solid months of bad news, Clinton’s poll numbers aren’t bad. Not bad at all.
Among Iowa Democrats, for instance, she’s in basically the same place she was in late February: 60 percent support today compared to 61 percent back then. Nationally, things aren’t quite as good. A New York Times poll last week showed her favorability numbers holding reasonably steady_35 favorable/36 unfavorable, compared to 37/26 in March.
What interests me most is what’s going on underneath the top-line numbers. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents several questions about Clinton’s character. The number most people paid attention to was “honest and straightforward”-where only 25 percent of respondents said they believed she was honest (versus 50 percent who said she wasn’t).
That sounds pretty grim and Nixonian. But here’s the thing: A couple questions before that, people were asked if Clinton was “effective” at “getting things done”-here the split was 44-34 in her favor. Is she “easygoing and likable”? People said yes by a margin of 41-37. The craziest response: Does she “have high moral standards that set the proper moral tone for the country?” Forty-three percent say yes versus only 39 percent who say no.
Think about that for a minute. By a margin of -25 points, people say they don’t trust Hillary Clinton, but by a margin of +4 points they say she has “high moral standards.”
Jonathan Last is a smart Republican/conservative who understands a bit of history. Anyone remember 1992? Bill Clinton was accused of just about everything except incest. Bill at a crucial moment in the campaign had a woman come forth to talk about sex with Bill all the while a clown from the Howard Stern show pickled the proceedings with inquiries as to whether the mostly unknown candidate Bill Clinton wore a condom while copulating with said piano bar singer even as charges of being a Soviet spy, a draft dodger, a pot smoker, a cocaine cowboy with an airport at Mena, a lesbian wife, undeclared black children with odd drug addled women and, and, and, um, Bill Clinton won. Yeah, he also lost crucial primaries and didn’t even participate in Iowa caucuses but Bill won.
Jonathan Last unhappily gets the problem Republicans have with Hillary:
There are only two possible conclusions from this: Either (1) Voters are idiots. Or (2) As a political commodity, Hillary Clinton’s appeal is based on something other than trustworthiness.
Whichever the case, the big lesson from the last few months is that it will be very difficult for a Republican to beat Hillary Clinton by getting voters to turn against her. The Clinton cake is so thoroughly baked that there’s no new evidence that’s going to make people decide that suddenly, after 20 years, the scales have fallen from their eyes and they realize she’s something other than what they think she is.
Instead, the Republican nominee is going to have to make a positive case for something better. It won’t be enough to try to disqualify Clinton. He or she is going to have to offer a more attractive alternative vision.
(And whatever you do, don’t think too hard about the fact that one out of every four Americans still thinks Clinton is “honest” and “straightforward.” It’s just too depressing.)
Republicans/conservatives have somehow forgotten this is the primary season. This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party. Fixations on Hillary and “prep the landscape” tactics only distract from the decisions they have to make.
As to Hillary, there are tough questions she will have to answer. We thought the time for her to make the tough statements and to separate herself from Barack Obama were back in 2013. But that’s blood under the bridge. For now Hillary should keep her mouth shut.
The time for Hillary to answer legitimate questions such as why there was no preparation for 9/11 anniversary attacks such as occurred in Benghazi will come. What did Hillary do at the State Department that merits elevation to the White House? (we’ll answer that one at the right time too) will also require a substantive response. What does she really think about boob Obama and his treacherous policies that so endanger the world? All those questions will have to be answered – but not now. Let the attention addicts in Iowa and New Hampshire stew.
For Hillary the time to watch and listen is now. For Hillary the time to keep her mouth shut tight is now.
May 12th, 2015
Hey, remember Austan Goolsbee in 2008? As Obama tries to lie his way to a TPP trade deal it is useful to recall Austan Goolsbee and Barack Obama in 2008 on NAFTA:
Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama’s campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government — via the Chicago consulate general — regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA. [snip]
On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. [snip]
Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government — who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp — have reconfirmed their position.
In 2008 Obama lied to friends and foes about the trade deal called the NAFTA. Now Obama is upset that some of his closest friends do not believe him on his latest talk in defense of the TPP trade deal. In 2008 candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA or opt out of the deal. After 2008 Obama did not renegotiate anything and certainly made no noise about opting out of the NAFTA.
Now Obama has reassembled the best liars from his 2008 campaign team to create new lies in order to pass the TPP trade deal Obama wants as his legacy. Obama lied repeatedly about NAFTA in 2008.
Change “NAFTA” to “TPP” and the picture is complete. That’s why Barack Obama is now attacking his kookiest Kooks:
Obama continued his war on Warren through the weekend, reminding Democrats that she doesn’t walk on water, that she’s a politician. Warren, he insists, is fighting an old fight going back to NAFTA, a free trade agreement signed by President Clinton in 1994. [snip]
Warren punched back in an interview with NPR airing Tuesday pointing out that American courts would not be the deciders, that “private corporate lawyers who get paid by big corporations to sit and decide” would be the arbiters. “And let’s be clear, once those private corporate lawyers make a decision, there is no appeal.”
Try and understand the level of Obama hypocrisy on TPP. Obama is accusing TPP critics of fighting the NAFTA fight all over again. Somehow Obama forgot Austan Goolsbee and Obama supporters won’t bring Goolsbeen into the debate because the memories of how they race-baited and lied for Obama in 2008 and 2012 is too painful for them in light of Obama’s latest stabs in the back:
The vast majority of lawmakers in his own party oppose him on trade legislation. Yet rather than accept that they have a legitimate beef, he shows public contempt for them — as he did in an interview with Matt Bai of Yahoo News released over the weekend.
“Their arguments are based on fears, or they’re fighting NAFTA, the trade deal that was passed 25 years ago — or 20 years ago,” he said with a laugh. Sighing, he added, “I understand the emotions behind it, but when you break down the logic of their arguments, I’ve got to say that there’s not much there there.”
He said one of his Democratic critics’ arguments “doesn’t make any sense,” another is “pure speculation,” and others are “made up” or unrealistic. “There’s no logic that I think a progressive should embrace that would make you opposed to this deal,” he said, accusing those who disagree of taking the “not smart” position of trying to “ignore the fact that a global economy is here to stay” and of acting to “shrink the overall economic pie just because we’re mad about some things that have happened in the past.” [snip]
If Obama loses on trade, blame should go to the twin pillars of detachment that have underpinned his presidency: insularity and secrecy.
Where is Austan Goolsbee these days?
‘Obama attacks strongest Obama supporters’ type headlines are no surprise to us. For so long we have written the obvious:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.
Pity fat Ed Schultz. Not only is Schultz on a loser network, Schultzie is only now realizing the monumental mistake he and his fellow Kooks committed when they worshiped the Mess-iah:
“I supported you big time. I was the first liberal talker to support you. I’ve carried your water big time when it comes to health care, I’ve carried your water on the economy and defending your move on the automobile industry, but Mr. President, you can take shots at this network, but I guarantee you, you are wrong on this and you cannot prove to the American people,” Schultz said.
“American workers will suffer if this deal goes through, and Mr. President, your recovery of the economy, the automobile industry and health care will not be your legacy. It will be what you’re doing to the very people who put you in office, had you not had the unions, you would never beat John McCain, had you not had the unions, you would have never beat Mitt Romney and now turning your back on these people trying to convince them that they have to do this phony trade deal that’s going to ship jobs overseas. I’d love to talk to you face to face, Mr. President,” Schultz declared.
Alice Palmer, Ed. Alice Palmer. Obama will stab friend and foe in the back to advance himself.
Schultzie is not the only one who is whining about the knife Obama stuck in his back.
Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back. In 2008 at the Cairo speech Obama stabbed Jews and Israel firmly in the back. Obama bowed and scraped to the Arab potentates as he stabbed Israel in the back. Now, Obama is stabs the Arab leaders at the behest of his radical pals.
Israel and many Arab countries are now learning the lesson:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.
Arab leaders, like Israel before, realize now that Obama cannot be trusted and they are on letting the world in on the lesson:
Ever since he decided to chase the mirage of a “Grand Bargain” with Iran, President Obama has pretended that the only opposition comes from Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and “hardline” Republicans in the Congress.
He was to highlight that claim by hosting a summit for “key Arab allies” at Camp David this week.
Yet the exercise has instead shown the failure of Obama to sell his narrative to “key Arab allies” even before the first round of orange juice is served at Camp David.
Of the six heads of the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, only two, the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, will attend.
Even the offer by Obama of a separate tete-a-tete in Washington could not persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to attend what Riyadh sources describe as “a photo-op” aimed at hoodwinking the American public.
Obam’s snubs turn into Obama snubbed:
First Obama stabbed Israel and the Jews in the back. Then Netanyahu fought against Obama and won reelection. Now the Arabs realize they are stabbed in the back by Obama at the behest of the Persians. So the Arabs fight back in the first phase of their long war:
The goal is to reassure the king of Saudi Arabia—along with the emirs and princes of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates—that the U.S. will continue to support them despite the nuclear deal with Iran. [snip]
But at the last minute the senior Arab leaders are finding excuses not to make the trip. New Saudi King Salman pulled out on the weekend only days after confirming his attendance, and he will send lower-level officials instead. Bahrain’s king has also bowed out. These rejections can only be described as political snubs rooted in distrust of President Obama and his diplomacy. [snip]
The White House will now have to scramble to rescue its policy, and one thing we can expect is a new round of arms sales to the Gulf. The region is already awash in new weapons, including a recent announcement that Qatar will purchase $7 billion in French fighter jets. The signature U.S. contribution will probably be the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (Thaad), which can shoot down Scuds and other ballistic missiles fielded by Iran.
There’s nothing inherently destabilizing about arms sales. But the pace of Arab purchases, up 50% in the last year alone to $18 billion, along with the types of weapons they are buying, says something about their assessment of the threat they face. Why buy the multibillion Thaad system if diplomacy neutralizes the Iranian nuclear threat? What’s the sense of fielding brand new air squadrons if they are confident in traditional U.S. defense guarantees?
Mr. Obama also hopes to dissuade the Arab states, particularly the Saudis, from seeking their own nuclear weapons. [snip]
Arab leaders have already shown how little trust they put in Mr. Obama’s assurances.
Whether in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Arctic or the Antarctic, oceans – Obama cannot be trusted. In Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, or South America – Obama cannot be trusted.
Obama cannot be trusted by “friend” nor foe.