President Barack Obama – The Lying King … “My Credibility Is Not On The Line” … “I Didn’t Set a Red Line. The World set a Red Line … “Congress set a red line …”

THE LION LYING KING: Is Barack Obama capable of telling the truth, or taking responsibility for anything?

President Barack Obama actually had the audacity to say that he did not set a red line. Instead, the buck stops with everyone else but President Obama. It is unbelievable that this man cannot take the accountability and responsibility for admitting to what he has already said. Obama says that his “credibility is not on the line” and that he “didn’t set a red line”, it was the world and the Congress that did so. Hmm, really? If the world had set a red line when it came to chemical weapons in Syria, why does Obama have a Coalition of None when it comes to military action against Syria? And Congress also set the red line, the same Congress that Obama had no intention of getting military approval from until he was forced to. So instead, on a world stage a US president threw the International community and US Congress under the bus. UNREAL. What else should be have expected from a community agitator?

Can you say: MISLEADER!

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Real Clear Politics:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

How does Obama words above that he did not draw a red line contrast with Obama’s words from an August 2012 statement? It would appear that he most certainly did have a red line for us. The me, me, me, I, I, I president said “us” which most likely meant his administration, not the United States. Remember, Obama had no intention of asking for Congressional approval until the British Parliament said “NO” to PM Cameron and the US polls were so negatively opposed to a military strike against Syria.

VIDEO Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection

Charles Krauthammer Slams Obama … “It’s Amateur Hour” … “Obama Boxed Himself into a Corner and Now He’s Looking for a Out

Barack Obama, the Amateur in Chief …

Charles Krauthammer ripped President Barack Obama a new one in his analysis following Obama’s Rose Garden presser this after noon where he said he would wait until Congress comes back from vacation on September 9th and ask for approval to strike Syria. Krauthammer called it “AMATEUR HOUR” in the White House. Well, it’s been that for 5 years and counting.  Krauthammer was most astonished by the speech was the “lack of any urgency” Obama and his minions have been railing that the attack on Syria had to be immediate, even before any one was sure who actually was responsible for the gas attack.

“But the idea that you make the case, you leak the details, you tell the world that this has to be done and then you say, Well, I will take my time. I’ll go to Congress and we’ll see. This should be done in three days.”

Looks like the UK Telegraph agrees with Charles Krauthammer: Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush.

From The Daily Caller:

Krauthammer criticized Obama for the way he has handled the unfolding of events surrounding the crisis in Syria.

“[T]he most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency,” Krauthammer said. “As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There is a war going on. Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms, step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?

“Look, I think he should go to Congress,” he continued. “I think it is absolutely necessary. But he has done no preparation. What they should have done — I mean, this is sort of amateur hour. When there were the first attacks six months ago or if you like, when we had the current attacks, he should have immediately have called in the Congress the way the prime minister of Britain had called in the parliament, had a debate and got a resolution and then went out and told the world we are going do x or we are not going to do x.”

Barack Obama Hears the Cries of Hypocrisy and Reads the Polls … Obama Says He Will Wait for Vote and Ask for Congress’s Approval to Take Military Action Against Syria … What Happened to the Urgency to Attack?

UM, WHAT HAPPENED TO OBAMA’S URGENCY TO ATTACK SYRIA … LIKE PASSING OBAMACARE?

Talk about your 180′s? This afternoon in a 35 minute delayed Rose Garden White House presser, President Barack Obama stated that he had has decided to use military force against Syria, but will ask Congress for approval to do so. So what made Obama change his mind on going it alone without any approval, could it have been the cries of HYPOCRISY were so loud that even the Obamamessiah could not ignore?  So Obama will wait until Congress comes back on September 9 to debate and vote on approval to use military force. HUH? What happened to the immediacy of having to attack Syria? Obama and Kerry had stated we had to do this sooner rather than later. Now Obama is willing to wait at last another 9 or 10 days, maybe two weeks?  That line in the sand appears to have been washed away by the ocean waves. Or was it the vote by the British Parliament and the fact that Americans want no part of another war in the Middle East? However, one thing is certain, Obama has handled this entire thing so poorly, he looks like a weak, rank amateur.

I am still not sure how Assad gassing his people is a risk to the United States national security. Sorry, by Syria using chemical weapons against its people, whether they be men, women or children is hideous. But Syria did not use them against us or are they planning to.  Also, does it really matter how a dictator kills his own people? Is it more outrageous is a dictator kills 500 people with chemical weapons or a firing squad?

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, calling last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there “an attack on human dignity,” but said he would seek congressional authorization for an attack.

The announcement puts off an imminent cruise missile strike, a prospect that had put the region on edge and stoked intense debate in the United States, where many dread getting dragged into a new war. It is not clear what the Obama administration would do if Congress declines to authorize a military operation.

“We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus,” Obama said during an address at the Rose Garden. “This has implications beyond chemical warfare.”

Congress is in recess until Sept. 9, and it was not immediately clear whether lawmakers would try to convene earlier for an emergency vote. Leading lawmakers who had called on the administration to seek congressional approval were pleased by Obama’s announcement.

The Hill: Rep. Peter King: Obama ‘abdicating responsibility as commander in chief’.

In a scathing statement that differed sharply from the reaction of House GOP leaders, King said Obama was making a mistake that would undermine future presidents.

“President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” said King, a former Homeland Security Committee chairman who has flirted with running for president in 2016.

“The president does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the president is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date,” King said.

Question 1: What happens if Congress does not give Congressional approval to attack Syria, much like the British Parliament denied UK Prime Minister Cameron? Obama has to sell his war against Syria and to date has not done so. Lobbing a couple of cruise missiles is hardly worth the headache. Obama has said that an attack would not be for regime change. So then what would it be for? Any attach against Assad will be in support of the opposition backed by Al-Qaeda.

Question 2: What happens if what Obama does creates regime change in Syria and we replace a dictator with Al-Qaeda?

Obama’s Shot Across Syria’s Bow, Limited Military Operation … But What is the Point of Military Action … Does He Realize he is Siding with Al-Qaeda and Now Great Britain, France, German and Arab League Say Not So Fast

Obama claims he has not made a decision on Syria.

President Barack Obama calls for a shot across the bow and a limited military operation in a strike again Syria for their use of chemical weapons. Obama has called for a  “Decisive but limited” military action. WHAT? Does this chicken hawk have any idea what he is talking about? So he wants to strike Syria, but does not want regime change. Does Obama realize that helping the rebels actually means that the United States is aiding Al-Qaeda? Yes, the very folks that killed nearly 3000 individuals on 9-11 in NYC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. President says Syria’s use of chemical weapons affects US interests. How, exactly? One might say that an attack on Syria by the US, especially standing alone, would have a greater consequence on US interests.

Obama claimed he had support from foreign countries in the strike against Syria, not so fast. Great Britain calls for restraint and a political solution through the UN. And upon further evaluation, France changes its tone and seeks a political solution the ultimate goal for Syria. Germany not on board either.

Barack Obama, the community agitator has backed himself into a corner. This is why you do not draw a line in the sand that you are not willing to back up. Don’t play a game of chicken with people who do not care and do not respect you. Speaking of playing a game of chicken, Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean.

President Barack Obama promised Wednesday that any U.S. military strike at Syria would be a “shot across the bow” that avoids seeing America pulled into “any kind of open-ended conflict.”

Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with PBS Newshour, Obama insisted he has not made a decision on how best to respond to the alleged massacre of civilians by forces loyal to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad using chemical weapons.

But “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict — not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about — but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” the president said.

That would send the Assad regime “a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again.”

Obama, making his first public remarks on the crisis since a CNN interview that aired Friday, rejected claims that rebels fighting to topple Assad were behind the Aug. 21 attack.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” he said.

“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said.

UPDATE I: US, UK back down from immediate Syria strike, President Assad vows ‘victory‘.

The US and UK on Thursday appeared to have backed down from an immediate punitive military strike against Syria, even as embattled President Bashar al-Assad vowed that his country would emerge “victorious” in any confrontation with America and its allies.

A strike by western forces had appeared imminent but US allies were increasingly reluctant to act before hearing the results of a UN probe into the alleged poisonous gas attacks in the war-torn country on August 21.

President Barack Obama has said he had not yet decided whether to attack Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but a strike still appeared likely as the US stopped seeking a UN mandate.

This is why the United States was out of their collective minds for reelecting a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a misleader as President.

Pew Research Poll, The Failure of Barack Obama to Black America: Only 26% Say the Situation of Black People in US is Better Now Than It was 5 Years Ago

Barack Obama – The Phony President: Wasn’t Barack Obama supposed to be the answer for Blacks Americans … not even close, he is not the one they were waiting for.

Wasn’t everything supposed to change for blacks in America when Barack Obama was elected in 2008? Obama was supposed to part the seas, “The One” was supposed to help blacks because they helped him get elected. They were no loner going to have to worry about paying for their “gas and  mortgage” (VIDEO) because their Savior, the Obamamessiah was President. So after having elected the first black president, how is it that only 26% of black America think that their situation is better today than it was five years ago before “The One” was elected? That is correct, according to a PEW Research poll, only 26% of blacks say that their situation is better today than before Obama was elected. That is down from 39% in 2009 when they fell for the “Hope & Change” nonsense, hook, line and sinker.

Just the other day it was reported that under Obama, only the top 5% have benefited. The remaining 95% have not and are still feeling the effects of a recession. Where do you think a majority of minorities fall in the 5%-95% range?

The sense of progress black Americans felt in 2009, on the heels of Barack Obama’s historic election as president, seems to have reversed itself. Today, only about one-in-four (26%) say the situation of black people in this country is better now than it was five years ago, down sharply from 39% who said this in 2009. Nearly as many (21%) say the situation of black people is worse today, and 51% say it’s about the same.

The positive feelings registered in 2009 among blacks represented one of the peaks in this long-term trend. Even in the face of the Great Recession, blacks seemed buoyed by the promise of an Obama presidency. This poll does not provide evidence as to what caused the downward shift in opinions about black progress. However, the fading glow of Obama’s first term and the lingering effects of the recession are likely to have been important factors. [...]

In the most recent Pew Research survey, the share of both whites and blacks who see short-term progress for black Americans is down significantly from the 2009 levels. For whites, the current share (35%) saying the situation of African Americans is better than it was five years ago is similar to what it was in 2007 and lower than it had been in the mid-1980s and 1990s. For blacks, the share saying blacks are better off today (26%) has returned to roughly where it was prior to Obama’s election.

Barack Obama was not the one they had been waiting for, far from it. Obama has made promises and delivered on nothing except maybe make minorities even more dependent on government. If a white president was in office under these circumstances there would be marches in the streets and cries of discrimination. Seriously folks, how did Obama get reelected and why? If blacks think they are worse off than they were before his election in 2008, why would blacks  have voted for Obama at a rate of +90%?

We are the One’s we have been waiting for … Not even Close

What is truly amazing is that under a black president just how bad the perception is among blacks that their situation is terrible. Let’s face it Obama has been a total failure for blacks in America. Black unemployment is high, teen blacks unemployment is through the roof, and food stamps are given out like candy. Black unemployment under Obama is now once again double that of whites. Blacks have not made strides under Obama, they have regressed. Obama has done nothing economically for them, because he has done nothing for America.

Black adults are much more likely than whites to say the average black person is worse off financially than the average white person (59% vs. 39%). Whites, meanwhile, are more likely than blacks to say the average black person is about as well off as the average white person (43% vs. 27%).