Another Obama Administration Cover-up?

by Tom Fitton 

There’s something fishy going on over there at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And Judicial Watch is trying to get to the bottom of it.



On April 14, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DHS to obtain records detailing its investigation of Carlos Martinelly-Montano. This is the illegal alien who is charged with striking and killing a Virginia Benedictine nun in a drunk driving accident on August 1, 2010.

Judicial Watch obtained an internal DHS report on the Martinelly-Montano investigation in response to a previous lawsuit. But now we want to get our hands on all communications between the DHS and the Obama White House, as well as internal DHS records regarding the investigation and the report.
Specifically, here’s what we’ve asked for pursuant to a February 16, 2011, FOIA request:

• Any and all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence with the White House and/or Executive Office of the President concerning a report/memorandum prepared at the direction of the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, related to Carlos Martinelly-Montano, an unlawfully present alien charged with killing a Benedictine nun and injuring two others in a August 2010 drunk driving incident in Prince William County, Virginia for the period of October 1, 2010 through February 15, 2011.
• Any and all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence within the Department of Homeland Security concerning a report/memorandum prepared at the direction of the Unite States Secretary for Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, related to Carlos Martinelly-Montano for the period of October 1, 2010 through February 15, 2011.

In a letter dated February 24, 2011, DHS indicated that it received Judicial Watch’s request on February 17, 2011. DHS was required to respond by March 17, 2011. However, to date, DHS has failed to produce responsive documents or indicate when a response is forthcoming. In other words, the typical Obama stonewall.


And why are we exploring contacts between the Obama White House and DHS over this report? Because of the suspicious manner in which DHS handled the report release. Let’s backtrack and I’ll show you what I mean.

On March 3, 2011, we obtained an edited “final” DHS report detailing the agency’s investigation of Martinelly-Montano. The DHS had promised a federal court that it would release the report earlier in the year. And, in fact, Judicial Watch received word via email from DHS that the document had been cleared and would be released per a court order.

But that’s when DHS pulled an “about face,” claiming the document was in “draft” form and therefore would not be released. (Reporting by The Associated Press suggests that DHS political appointees have improperly delayed FOIA requests on politically sensitive topics.) And then when we did get the “final” report last month, it was curiously dated November 24, 2010.

The report, which supposedly was produced for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, details the policies and actions of the Obama administration and local governments that allowed Martinelly-Montano, an illegal alien who committed a series of crimes, to remain on the streets despite being subject to deportation. Even in its edited form, the report confirms that the Obama administration decided not to detain the illegal alien after he served his jail sentence for drunk driving, and released him onto the streets.

But the suspicious manner in which DHS handled the release of this report definitely merits further investigation. There is no question the “final” report released to the public was edited and polished by DHS.
This all smacks of a cover-up.

Of course, we know why the Obama administration has been playing the stonewall game. The facts show Obama’s lax approach to illegal immigration enforcement most certainly will lead to the deaths of innocents at the hands of illegal aliens. Illegal alien sanctuary policies led to the release of Martinelly-Montano and likely therefore the death of Sister Denise Mosier. That is something the Obama administration would rather you not know. But we also want to know who was involved in keeping the report from being released. That’s the reason for this lawsuit.

By way of review, Carlos Martinelly-Montano, who entered the country illegally as a child from Bolivia, allegedly killed Sister Denise Mosier and critically injured two other nuns while driving drunk in Prince William County, Virginia. He has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunk driving, but he never should have been on the road in the first place. Martinelly-Montano had previously been arrested in October 2008 for another drunk driving incident, and was placed in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Though he was scheduled for deportation, his hearing was delayed three times, and deportation never occurred. And now an innocent nun is dead.

Big Government

Gold Markets Slam Bernanke Speech

by Larry Kudlow

Fed head Ben Bernanke, at his first-ever news conference on Wednesday, slammed the door shut on any new QE3 pump-priming. The $600 billion QE2 program to purchase bonds will end on target at the end of June, and that will be that. Mr. Bernanke also suggested that the Fed’s “extended period” for the near-zero federal funds target rate could end in a couple of meetings. Perhaps these announcements suggest a bit-less-easy monetary policy. Perhaps.





But Mr. Bernanke had no defense of the sinking dollar, or the inflation it brings, or the drop in middle-class living standards it causes. So it’s little surprise that gold prices surged $24 to $1,526 during the Fed chairman’s press conference. Silver jumped sharply as well. The markets clearly don’t see any King Dollar shift by the Fed.

Mr. Bernanke just doesn’t get that inflation-sensitive market-price indicators — like rising gold, oil, and commodity indexes, and the falling dollar exchange rate — are trying to signal higher future inflation. Instead of listening to markets, he is determined to fight them. This is a losing battle. Instead of a market-price rule (anchored by gold) we have some sort of Bernanke fine-tuning rule. It’s not working.


While Mr. Bernanke slightly downgraded the central bank’s economic outlook and slightly upgraded its inflation concern, the Fed still holds out “hope” that the sluggish 2 percent first-quarter GDP will give way to 3 percent or more growth later this year, and that the commodity-based bulge of inflation will come back down as commodity prices somehow sink. This seems to be a triumph of hope over experience.

With the CPI running about 6 percent annually in the first quarter, the real inflation-adjusted fed funds rate is deeply negative. Under similar circumstances in Europe, Jean-Claude Trichet raised the ECB target rate by a quarter of a percent last month. By that benchmark and others, the Fed’s so-called return to normalcy is way behind the curve.

Look, the economic emergency dating back to the fall of 2008 has long been over. And the alleged deflation threat has completely dropped off the radar screen. In the absence of these risks, the Fed’s ongoing emergency policies — including the zero target rate and the $600 billion QE2 — make no sense at all and should be withdrawn.

I recall how President Reagan often argued in the 1980s not simply that a strong dollar was in the nation’s interest, but that a great country, by necessity, needs a strong and reliable currency. Link to gold — that was Reagan’s argument. Paul Volcker and then Alan Greenspan (during the first three of his four Fed terms) essentially agreed with Reagan. The 20-year collapse of gold prices that ensued was associated with a remarkable non-inflationary prosperity and a huge stock market rally that generated unbelievable volumes of new wealth for investors and entrepreneurs.

Today, this hard-money thinking is nowhere to be found in official Washington. Yes, the Fed can produce new money. But no, it can’t produce new jobs and growth in any permanent sense. What does? Limited spending, flat tax rates, minimal regulation, and stable money.

Now where’s the next great American leader to revive and restore this pro-growth model?

Big Government

Teachers Unions Working Feverishly to Organize Charter Schools

by Kyle Olson 

One of the things I’ve always liked about charter schools is they aren’t bound by onerous labor agreements that hamper innovation.  Traditional public schools get boxed in with union contracts that literally stipulate when a teacher arrives in the morning and when he or she must depart.  And that’s just the beginning of union-imposed regulations.

In charter schools, the interest of the students comes first, so adults oftentimes find themselves going above and beyond to ensure that students succeed.  In the documentary “Kids Aren’t Cars,” the story was told of Tindley Accelerated School in Indianapolis.  The principal said his teachers stay late and work Saturdays if necessary because they do not accept failure.

That’s why it is disturbing to watch labor unions organize charter school after charter school, with little being done about it.  Their intent is clear.  Consider what United Federation of Teachers Vice President Leo Casey said at the recent socialist Left Forum, courtesy of EAGtv:

“If we do not figure out how to organize charter schools and if we are not successful in doing that, we will end up in the same place as the auto workers. So there is no more key question before us as a union and a broader labor movement with regard to education than how we approach charter schools and our ability to organize them.”

What he’s saying is that the United Auto Workers unionized Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and ignored foreign competitors.  As foreign market shares grew, the UAW’s membership rolls suffered.  Casey’s envisioning a similar scenario with school employee unions.

He doesn’t care if charter schools benefit students. He just knows that they hurt his union, so they must be changed as soon as possible.


“Organizing a charter school is like organizing WalMart.  This is not traditional public sector organizing,”

Casey went on to say,  pounding his fist on the table. To say Big Labor has a distaste for WalMart is an understatement, so the comparison is all the more insulting to charters.

He continued on the WalMart theme, which would make one wonder if the union campaign to organize charter schools is because they believe charter teachers want their representation, or because a unionized charter school will soon turn into a run-of-the-mill, substandard school.

“The battle has to be to organize those schools.  If those schools are organized, do you think WalMart is going to be pouring money into them?”

Casey’s strategy is a political one, not one born of a desire to create quality schools.

Stanley Aronowitz, a professor, union activist and former Green Party candidate for governor, also spoke at the event and concurred with Casey, “I’m for the position that charter schools are ratty and should be abolished yet at the same time we should organize them – I agree with that position.”

It is a shame teachers unions, principally the American Federation of Teachers, are unionizing charter schools simply as a power play – not because those teachers are seeking to organize or because unionizing creates a better education.  It’s further proof that teachers unions look out for the adults instead of the children.

Big Government

Telling Us Who They Fear: Left-Wing Journo Attacks Rep. Allen West

Posted by Warner Todd Huston Apr 27th 2011 at 1:37 pm in CNN, Democrats, GOP, Old media, Print Journalism, conservatives, journalism, media bias 

Brandon K. Thorp, a gay activist from the alternative weekly Broward-Palm Beach New Times newspaper, is only the latest left-winger to launch into a verbal assault on Lt. Col. Allen West, now a Representative from Florida’s 22nd District. Like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, Rep. West is one of the many conservatives that leftists fear the most. We know this because the left’s constant, fevered, overwrought attacks tell us so.



 Thorp’s first offbase criticism is over whether West should have been addressing his comments to mothers or fathers.

If he’d had more than ten minutes to think about it, West probably would have realized that his riff about Spartan mothers was a little less than empowering. Given some reflection, West might also have realized that it’s the American father, not the American mother, in need of a good pep talk about child-rearing.

And who is it, might I ask, that allows these men to roam from baby-momma to baby-momma? Why, yes, that would be women. Sorry, Thorpster, but women set the tone for a marriage and a family. It has always been thus. Does it absolve men for their roaming around? No, of course not. But to say, as Thorp did, that women are any less in need of a pep talk about childrearing is simply Thorp’s PC-ism run amuck. He is one of those castrati that can’t possibly imagine that a woman might need a pep talk about anything. In his weak-willed world, women can’t be wrong because, why, they are oppressed “minorities,” you see?

The fact is that both sexes need this pep talk, women no less than men. Still, it is women that need to be strengthened first and foremost, before the men, because it is women who are the backbone of the family.

Strong women do, indeed, make strong families and raise strong children. Men are in need of the talk, too, but to say women don’t just because they are women is poppycock.

West went on to lambaste these “Planned Parenthood women, these Code Pink women” that are “neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness.” This, Thorp asserted is “as hateful as it is stupid.”

Then Thorp tried to lull the reader into the assumption that the extremist, left-wing, anti-American group Code Pink is supported by “left of center” Americans. This is a misconstruction of how extreme the Code Pinkos are. Neither Code Pink nor its supporters are in any way left of center. They are extremists of the far left, not moderates.

Worse, this fellow tried to cast Allen West as wanting to murder his opponents.

…the left-of-center half of America is not trying to enslave the right-of-center half. If we were, the right-of-center half would have every right to murder us on sight. That is what you do with people who mean to enslave you, especially if you are a warrior.

So, what we have from this extreme, left-wing writer is that Allen West is stupid, he is a wannabe murderer, and he hates women while desirous of letting men play the field without being scolded for their adulterous behavior. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But Thorp has let his hate guide him.

Yep, that sort of absurdly hyperbolic hate tells us exactly what Thorp thinks. He is overwrought, filled with vitriol, and unable to keep his cattiness out of his writing.

Big Journalism

Obama Lashes Out, Birth Certificate Release Spurs Questions

Posted by William J. Kelly Apr 27th 2011 at 3:38 pm in Uncategorized

In the end, it took Donald Trump, billionaire CEO of Trump International and star of NBC’s “Celebrity Apprentice,” to get President Obama to release his original Certificate of Live Birth.  But, of course, the story does not end there.



At a press conference on Wednesday, the President lashed out at his friends in the mainstream media:
“I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press,” Obama said. “We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do.  I’ve got better stuff to do.”
But the question is:  why did the President seemingly “cave in” to Trump, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and why was he so “weird” about releasing this document in the first place – three years after the media-generated “birther” controversy began?


Here are a few possible explanations and some lingering issues:

#1. The President’s strategy of silence on the birth certificate controversy has been a public relations disaster. A growing number of Americans continue to be distrustful of him, leading to a continued downward spiral of his approval ratings in the polls.

After months of controversy, then Presidential candidate Barack Obama released a digitally scanned copy of a Certificate of Live Birth from the State of Hawaii in June of 2008. Unfortunately, the failure to produce the original certificate only created more suspicion about the President. In a CBS/New York Times poll released this week, one in four Americans said they thought Mr. Obama was not born in the United States. However, the public’s distrust of President Obama extends far beyond the birth certificate controversy.

The President and his policies have created a perfect storm of discontent. In a Rasmussen poll released on April 27, forty percent (40%) of the nation’s voters strongly disapprove of the way that Barack Obama has performed in his role as president with fifty-two (52%) percent disapproval overall.

It is not hard to understand why the President is failing in the polls: Obama’s force-fed excuse for healthcare reform, Obamacare, is still at a 59% disapproval; unemployment is at 9.2%; a record 18.4% of are dependent on Uncle Sam; oil prices are skyrocketing; and the S&P just downgraded its U.S. credit outlook.

We have been warned. But the question Americans continue to ask is whether or not President Obama even recognizes the problem. Or, if he recognizes it, does America’s decline as the world’s greatest economic superpower even concern him?

Now the dreaded “s” word comes into play: socialism.

According to a just-released Winthrop poll, seventy-eight (78%) of South Carolina Republicans and independents believe Barack Obama is a socialist. The poll also found that more than sixty (60%) percent see him as uncaring and more than seventy (70%) percent as dishonest. This is consistent with a poll released in July 2010 by James Carville’s Democracy Corps firm.When voters were asked if they thought the president was a socialist, fifty-five (55%) percent of likely voters said, “yes.”

Could this perception be rooted in the President’s  attempts to enact laws and policies against the wishes of the American people? Policies that run counter to a nation that is center-right in its philosophy and perspective? Laws that are fundamentally at-odds with concepts of free-market capitalism and that inch us toward a European model of socialism?

Yes? Of course, yes.

The third rung of President Obama’s public approval problems stems from questions about his religious affiliation. In August 2010, a survey by Pew Research Center found that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) said they believed Obama was a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009.

Could this perception be rooted in the President’s unwillingness to call soften the language of the war on terror? And his Administration’s sensitivity to “Islamaphobia?” Could it be because he supported the building of the mosque at Ground Zero? Or his “dithering” policies on the Middle East?

Yes? Of course, yes.

To recap, Americans disapprove of President Obama’s overall performance, both in his mishandling of the economy and bungled foreign policy. Americans also do not trust him and that translates into distrust of all aspects of his past – including his religious affiliation, allegiances, and, of course, that damn birth certificate.

If the President was honest and forthcoming, would there have been a controversy of this magnitude for three years? Is the controversy actually in his interest?

#2. The birth certificate controversy is one small part of a web of unanswered questions about President Obama, his background, his extreme political associations, and his campaign donations.

The mainstream media love the smokescreen of the “birther” controversy. The “birther” story was always just the tip of the iceberg.  As a candidate, Obama was not properly vetted and any attempts to ask questions about the President’s history continue to be scoffed at by the media. They say: “Why is it relevant?” or “How dare you ask that – he’s the President!”

Yet these questions have always been relevant in presidential campaigns because the past is the best indication of who a candidate really is and what he or she really believes. Regardless, the fact that – three years later –

President Obama has never addressed these questions means that most Americans would probably not like his answers.

At this point, do we really need to know why President Obama chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual mentor? Or why he sought the counsel of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers? Or why he took money from convicted felon Tony Rezko? Or about his ties to National of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Or about his history with the now-disgraced ACORN? Or his connections with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Or his latest pastor problem with radical DC pastor Wallace Smith? Don’t we know the answers already? The real issue is not whether he had these associations but how much worse is it than we know?

Last week, the FEC announced a probe into Obama’s 2008 campaign and its record $750 million in fundraising. An analysis by Newsmax indicates that the probe may uncover answers about Obama donors who contributed over the $4600 limit and 37,000 other questionable contributions. The final results may finally yield some answers Americans have been searching for. Stay tuned.

#3. The “birther” issue has proved useful to President Obama as he struggles to control his progressive base. As for the media, they have benefited from the tabloid appeal of the “birther” storyline, misusing the issue as an opportunity to portray conservatives as “racists” and “whackjobs.”

President Obama has been a huge disappointment to his left-wing progressive base. The President’s failure to close Gitmo, missed opportunity for universal health care, inaction on gay rights, failure to end the Afghan war, his military involvement in Libya, and the Gulf Coast oil disaster have left him vulnerable to challenge in the 2011 primaries.

So how does he control his liberal base? In short, by perpetuating the racism media stereotype against his political opponents. The “birther” storyline and the media’s ongoing campaign to link the issue to racism has been one of the few weapons left in Obama’s political arsenal as 2012 looms.

#4. Hopefully, the document is legit.

I had to ask because – no doubt – someone will.

#5. The media frenzy surrounding Trump and the “birther” issue has distracted attention from other possible GOP presidential contenders. Will it ultimately help or hurt the GOP’s chances to retake the White House in 2012?

 Now that Trump has been christened the “victor” on the birther issue, will his continued presence help or hurt the GOP’s chance to reclaim the White House in 2012? Does he really plan to run? Is it about publicity? Or is it serving the President’s interest to weaken the GOP field of other potential nominees?

In order to counter Trump’s brash populist message, TV appeal, money and name recognition, GOP front-runners like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty are going to have to finally “man-up” for the challenge. (Or “woman-up” in the case of Michele Bachmann) Ultimately, the Trump factor may finally force these presidential contenders to sharpen their economic message and shed the wishy washy political persona voters have been forcefully rejecting.

Indeed, if that is Trump’s task, he is most definitely hired.

Big Journalism

The Obamas Silent in the Face of Race Atrocity

April 26, 2011

By Lauri B. Regan

 

For the average human being, it was not possible to watch the video of two black women beating the life out of a defenseless white woman at a McDonald's in Baltimore and not feel complete and total revulsion.  Adding to the horror was the knowledge that the black employees -- one who only half-heartedly attempted to intervene, one who was filming the barbarism, and perhaps others not seen on the video -- did absolutely nothing to save the white woman from her assailants.

While police investigations are focusing on whether the attack was a racially motivated hate crime, the LGBT group is also suggesting that the assault was a hate crime due to the victim being a transgender woman, notwithstanding what appears to be a lack of evidence that the woman's sexual status was known by her assailants.  In either case, it is clear from the video that the monsters beating their helpless prey were filled with animal blood lust that was completely inhuman.

One of the first thoughts that I had when trying to process this heinous assault that left the woman bleeding from her mouth and seizing violently on the ground was how it reminded me of the days of wilding, the Central Park jogger case in particular, and of all the other senseless hate crimes that occur in our cities.

But more importantly, I then thought about the fact that we have a black president who so far has remained silent about the crime.  Barack Obama was vociferously outspoken when his black buddy Louis Gates was properly and justifiably arrested by white officers in Boston two years ago.  However, when a white woman is brutally beaten to a pulp by two black women less than an hour from the White House, our POTUS has nothing to say on the subject.

And the reason that this is so offensive is two-fold: (i) Barack Hussein Obama was supposed to be our post-racial president bridging the racial divide and healing the country's wounds; and (ii) Michelle Obama has spent the better part of the past two and a half years as first lady dictating to America's youth what they should and should not be eating rather than helping them learn how they should and should not be acting.

With regard to our FLOTUS, where does one begin?  While she gallivants across the globe on the taxpayer dime eating up delicious delicacies, she has chosen attacking the nation's childhood obesity problem as her raison d'être.  And while childhood obesity may be a serious problem, I maintain that Michelle Obama is not the appropriate spokesperson for a multitude of reasons including her hypocrisy on the issue, her lavish lifestyle (that affords her the opportunity to eat as she desires and work it off the next day with her personal trainer), her lack of medical expertise, and her pathetic attempt to address the social and psychological issues underlying the problem.

Instead of telling people what they should order if they enter a McDonald's, the first lady should be teaching people how to act when they enter a McDonald's or any other public place.  This is not a racist suggestion -- the suggestion is no different from Barack Obama telling young children that they can all fulfill their dreams since, as a minority, he was able to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Perhaps Michelle Obama has not watched the video clip of two black women beating the white woman to a pulp.  If she has not, she should.  And perhaps it will move her to stop talking about food and start talking about behavior, because with her fancy vacations, personal chef, elaborate parties, and other sundry benefits of the job comes responsibility.

And while I could go on for pages on Barack Obama's failures in office, what is relevant here is just how empty his rhetoric continues to be.  For not only has he been an absentee president on multiple levels, but he has been the missing link in what was a real opportunity to bridge the racial divide that has been ailing our country.

In his famous "race speech" Obama stated:

[R]ace is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. ... And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Well it is tomorrow and our absentee president is, well, absent.  Healing the country's wounds is tough business.  One cannot have the audacity to hope but then remain silent in the face of atrocities like that which occurred at a McDonald's restaurant this week.

Obama has not hesitated to interject himself into a multitude of domestic issues including the Louis Gates arrest (in which he opined, "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately"), the Ground Zero Mosque controversy (in which he discussed "[o]ur capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us"), and the Wisconsin budget protests (in which he stated that Governor Walker's legislation was "an assault on unions").

In Obama's world, African-Americans, Muslims, and unions are victims who deserve presidential support.  There will be no prosecuting New Black Panthers who terrorize white voters, there will be a worldwide reach out to Islamic terrorists, and union thugs will be given carte blanche to bully members and non-members alike.  But white transgender women are on their own.

Obama went on in his infamous speech:

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods...all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Well yes they do continue to haunt us but blaming a lack of "economic opportunity" on the "cycle of violence" is disingenuous, lazy, and disgusting.  It is disgusting because Obama seemingly justifies violence in the same manner that Palestinian apologists use to justify the murder of innocent Israeli civilians.  Mr. President, violence is not a natural and acceptable consequence of economic strife in a civilized society.

In yet another Obama speech he stated the following:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

Mr. President, it is time to stop talking.  Perhaps instead of going to George Washington University to give a campaign speech justifying your abysmal economic policies, you should visit inner city schools and teach kids respect for human life and common decency.  Take on the responsibilities of office which include immediately denouncing this act of violence and begin to address the cause full steam ahead. Move past your own resentments and anger about the travails of poor black Americans since the beginning of time and take proactive steps to help them learn to value life -- not government handouts and entitlements and certainly not violence.

I am not suggesting that what happened at the McDonald's in Baltimore is the Obamas' fault.  But I am strongly advocating that they use their remaining time in office (God willing, only 19 more months) to the betterment of society.  And what society needs desperately is a toning down of the anger, racism, and class warfare that the Obamas are fomenting.

Our country needs individuals in the White House who lead by example, who teach right from wrong, and who understand that no matter how much you share the wealth, there will always be people who remain devoid of morals and values until they are taught otherwise.  The Ones who promised the country hope and change have done nothing to implement the promises they made to the black community or the country as a whole.  It is time they owned up to their responsibilities to the people.

 

American Thinker

America Deserves Libya Explanation

by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 8:20am

 Please make up your mind, Mr. President. You can’t vacillate when spending America’s human and fiscal resources in yet another foreign country without good reason. You said that Libyan leader Gaddafi has got to go. Many of us heard that as your call to action and agreed, “Okay, you’re right. He’s an evil dictator who kills his own innocent people, so enforce a no-fly zone so he can’t continue an aerial slaughter.” But then you said our mission in Libya isn’t to oust Gaddafi after all. (Or vice versa on the order or your statements. Between you and your advisers the public has been given so many conflicting statements on why we’re intervening in Libya that I apologize if I can’t keep up with the timing and rationale of your murky foreign policy positions.)

At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.

I would also ask you to better explain your thinking on Libya. We can’t afford any actions that don’t take care of crucial U.S. needs and meet our own interests at this point. You are the Commander in Chief, so please explain what you believe is our “interest” there and not elsewhere.

Mr. President, your hesitation and vacillation in the Middle East breed uncertainty. It’s symptomatic of the puzzling way you govern. See, uncertainty is one of the factors over which you have control, and I would think you’d want to eliminate that additional element that helps breed problems like higher oil prices. Higher oil means exorbitant gas prices weighing down our economy.  Consistency and strength – and greater domestic energy production – will help fix higher gas prices and help heal the economy. But only with leadership. These sorts of problems don’t fix themselves.

It’s unbelievable to me that you spent last week in campaign mode, gallivanting around the country to start raising the billion dollars for your reelection bid that is still 19 months away “while Rome burns.” Our economy is in the tank; jobs are as scarce as ever; you’re asking Congress to let you incur even more unsustainable, immoral, freedom-stealing government debt; and many of our brave men and women in uniform are shaking their heads in disbelief over your befuddled military directions. Yet instead of working with Congress and a wise multitude of advisers to fix some problems, you choose all this campaigning, already? As was recently asked: When do you ever just “roll up your sleeves, unplug the teleprompter” and do the job of governing and administrating for which voters hired you?

I know, I know, granted you will be even busier very soon. After all, golf season kicks into high gear shortly. NBA and NHL brackets await. Summer vacations and that all-consuming campaign whistle stop tour will no doubt slam you. But I would ask, while the rest of us are also busy working, saving, planning ahead, fighting to protect our Constitution, and trying to keep up with where and why you’re spending our Department of Defense funds – I’d ask that you find time to tell Americans the truth about the state of our union and what you are doing to find solutions to our challenges. Please start with explaining Libya.

- Sarah Palin