Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement 8/9/14 – Rips Obama on Iraq ISIS Situation … “This is a reverse crusade, Muslim extremists looking to kill Christians and Jews. Today, it’s different. They are coming for us.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro hammers Barack Obama on ISIS in Iraq and his feckless foreign policy as he heads off for yet another vacation.
Pirro said Obama’s incompetence is on display for all the world to see as the country’s enemies conduct a “reverse crusade.”
“I’m not going to blame the problems of the world on Barack Obama – though it wouldn’t take much to get me on a tear at this point,” she said on “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “But the problem is, President Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too out of touch and too disengaged to protect us.”
His news conference Friday didn’t help, Pirro said, noting that “the backdrop was his helicopter, on which his bags were packet for yet another vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.”
“This is a reverse crusade, Muslim extremists looking to kill Christians and Jews,” she said. “Today, it’s different. They are coming for us.”
TOO LITTLE AND WAY TOO LATE …
President Barack Obama has finally authorized US air strikes, if necessary, against ISIS. If necessary? Obama said that he approved “targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.” Obama said, “Today America is coming to help.” Seriously? It was Obama’s inept military withdrawal that has created the problem. And his refusal to pull the trigger in stopping ISIS before they ever gained traction. Maybe if this dithering president had acted many months ago Iraq would not be in complete chaos as ISIS has taken over many stronghold cities. They should have been stopped when they were crossing the Syria border into Iraq. Then again, Obama does not believe in borders.
So why now Barack Obama, are there no fundraisers or golf outings planned? Just another example why Obama gets poor marks on foreign policy, including more recent one’s that show a 60% disapproval raring.
President Obama authorized airstrikes “if necessary” against Islamic militants if they move toward Erbil in northern Iraq where American military, diplomats and civilians are stationed.
During a late night statement Thursday from the White House, the president said he’s okayed “targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.”
Mr. Obama explained that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in recent days has “continued to move across Iraq and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces to stop the advance on Erbil.
The Washington Free Beacon reports on Obama’s inaction against ISIS.
Obama said he would not be “dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” saying combat troops would not return to the country since no American military solution existed for Iraq’s larger problems. He has been sharply criticized for the deteriorating situation and essential partitioning of Iraq since pulling troops out. The city of Fallujah, site of one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraq War for American troops, fell in January, and since then the entire nation has fallen into chaos as ISIL continues to seize key cities and facilities.
In January, Obama dismissed ISIL as the equivalent of a junior varsity team putting on a Kobe Bryant jersey and considering itself on par with the Lakers.
Obama also said Thursday he had ordered humanitarian assistance to the minority Iraqis stranded and dying of thirst on Mount Sinjar, who are facing threat of extermination by ISIL if they try to leave.
Could Liberals just stay the hell out of our lives?
Now bake sales for school fundraiser are public enemy number one for liberals. Thanks to the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by first lady Michelle Obama, school kids will no longer be able to have cupcake bake sales to raise money. Thanks Michelle, because apples, celery and carrot sticks are not quite the money makers as brownies, cookies and cupcakes. So what does Michelle Obama have against school children raising money for school trips or band and athletic equipment?
Good grief, what ever happened to the America I grew up in where kids could have a bake sale to raise money for their class trip right after playing a game of dodge-ball?
Maybe Michelle should start with you own husband first?
But the sales won’t be so sweet starting this fall. Campus bake sales—a mainstay of school fundraisers—are going on a diet. A federal law that aims to curb childhood obesity means that, in dozens of states, bake sales must adhere to nutrition requirements that could replace cupcakes and brownies with fruit cups and granola bars.
Jeff Ellsworth, principal of the kindergarten through eighth-grade school in Chapman, Neb., isn’t quite sure how to break the news to the kids. “The chocolate bars are a big seller,” said Mr. Ellsworth.
The restrictions that took effect in July stem from the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by first lady Michelle Obama and her “Let’s Move!” campaign. The law overhauled nutrition standards affecting more than 30 million children. Among the changes: fatty french fries were out, while baked sweet potato fries were deemed to be fine.
The law also required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set standards for all food and beverages sold during the school day, which includes vending machines, snack carts and daytime fundraisers. It allowed for “infrequent” fundraisers, and states were allowed to decide how many bake sales they would have that didn’t meet nutrition standards.
Bill Clinton Tells Sky News on 9/10/01: “I Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden but Didn’t” … Guess What Took Place the Very Next Day?
WHAT DID BILL CLINTON SAY JUST ONE DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 …
The day before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, former President Bill Clinton spoke in Australia to about 30 business leaders during a lunch and stated on having passed on a chance to kill Osama bin Laden. A tape of Clinton’s comments were presented to Australia’s “Sky News” channel.
“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” the former president reportedly says on the tape, to laughs. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
Just a reminder to Bill Clinton, you were the President of the United States and supposed to protect the lives of Americans, not worry about how the world would feel about you had you taken out Bin Laden with possible collateral damage.
Hmm, He would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan? You mean the one with a population of 1,151,100? So what would you have had to do again Mr. President? BTW, Clinton did not just have one chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, he had many.
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Because the IRS is a Non-Partisan Govt Agency … Emails Reveal Former IRS Official Lois Lerner’s Disdain for Conservative Calling Them “Crazies” & “A**holes”
But of course the IRS and Lois Lerner was not operating in concert with the Obama administration in an effort to support the president and attack his political enemies. Latest Lois Lerner emails reveal that she had complete and total contempt for conservatives calling them “crazies” and a$$holes”.
Read the letter from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp to the Justice Department.
Lois G. Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the tea party targeting scandal, expressed contempt for conservatives and called them “a—holes” in newly discovered emails, fueling a drive by House Republicans for a special counsel to investigate the tax agency.
The email was among a batch of evidence that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, Michigan Republican, turned over Wednesday to the Justice Department in support of an investigation into criminal wrongdoing at the IRS.
In the Nov. 9, 2012, email exchange from Ms. Lerner’s official IRS email account, she demonstrates “deep animus towards conservatives, which she refers to as “–holes,” Mr. Camp said.
In other emails, Ms. Lerner appeared to refer to conservatives as “crazies.”
In one email highlighted by the committee, she wrote, apparently referring to conservative critics of the administration: “So we don’t need to worry about alien teRrorists (sic). It’s our own crazies that will take us down.”
In another passage, she replies to a friend bemoaning the negative critiques of President Obama and administration policy on talk radio shows. Ms. Lerner responds: “Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many a—holes.”
Economist/YouGov Poll: 77% of Americans Say Illegal Southern Border Kids Need to be Sent Back Home … 64% of Hispanics Want Children Deported
RUT-ROH, looks like Barack Obama, Democrats and the MSM have misread the tea leaves badly…
A funny thing has happened on the way to Barack Obama and Democrats trying use self-created humanitarian crisis of illegals pouring across our Southern border in mass and passing it off as an only unaccompanied minor issue … an unanticipated American backlash, including Hispanic-Americans that says, SEND THEM HOME!!! According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 77% of Americans say that the children who have massed on our Southern border in an attempt to get into the USA illegally need to be sent back home to where they came from. Obama and Democrats with the aid of the MSM tried to use “the opportunity” to their advantage to pass amnesty. However, according to the poll 64% of Hispanics want the children to be deported as well. Looks like some one [Democrats] has misread the signs badly.
Breitbart asks, where has the wall to wall media coverage gone? Even the MSM understands that it is hard to exploit “an opportunity” when the American people are so strongly against their bias position.
Rather than convince the American people that passing a mass amnesty is what’s needed, the burst of border coverage earlier this month convinced 77% of the American people that the kids need to be sent back home. A full 42% want the kids sent back immediately regardless of what’s happening in their home countries. Add to that another 35% who want them sent back unless their home country is deemed unsafe.
Only 11% want what Obama, Democrats, and the media want — which is amnesty for everyone.
The numbers are not all that different among Hispanics. Only 22% want to give the children amnesty. A full 64% want the children deported. Of that 64%, 28% want them deported immediately; 36% want them deported unless their home country is deemed unsafe.
That puts Hispanics almost perfectly in line with the rest of country.
UNREAL, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
When is “illegal” not illegal … when it pertains to undocumented Democrat voters. Illegal immigrants demonstrated outside the White House on Monday protesting US immigration policy with no fear of arrest or deportation. Unbelievable. Individuals in the United States illegally and breaking the laws of the very country they are in, protesting against immigration policy. What has happened to the country I grew up in that used to be about the rule of law? So we have individuals that have broke the law and they have no fear of arrest. How insane have we become, under a policy that’s been in effect for several years, ICE focuses deportation mostly on serious criminals and in some cases, those caught in the act of crossing the border.
Illegal immigrant demonstrators were protesting outside the White House on Monday – but don’t expect America’s immigration officers to intervene.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official indicated that even if the protesters end up getting arrested by D.C. police, they’d have to be serious criminals for ICE to get involved.
“Unless the individuals meet ICE’s enforcement priorities, it’s unlikely that the agency would get involved in the case,” the official told FoxNews.com.
Under a policy that’s been in effect for several years, ICE focuses deportation mostly on serious criminals and – in some cases — those caught in the act of crossing the border. The agency prioritizes deportation for felons, repeat offenders, gang members and others with a serious criminal record. But the agency largely gives a pass to other undocumented residents.
This is why illegal immigrant activists can protest outside the White House without worrying too much about ICE.
Up next, bank robbers will be demonstrating outside the White House protesting US fiscal policy with no fear of arrest.
Sarah Palin’s Challenge to the WAPO to Engage in the Same Aggressive Investigative Journalism as They Did with Richard Nixon and Watergate
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin challenges the Washington Post to cover Obama’s proclamation that absolutely no wrongdoing occurred at the IRS, “not even a smidgen,” in the same manner that they did in their tireless and aggressive manner they did President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal.
Sorry, I am not sure if MSM, integrity and good journalism can be used in the same sentence anymore.
To reclaim your credibility (and the mainstream media’s, at large), I challenge you to engage in the same aggressive investigative journalism you courageously employed 42 years ago covering President Nixon. The public knows of our current president’s incompetence, denials, and cover-ups, but would be well served if we could count on your resources to dig deep for truth in all matters pertaining to Team Obama.
One example: your reporters kept tracking an obscure break-in story and that led to revealing a grave problem in the White House. The Washington Post’s reputation soared as the model of good journalism. Today, you’ve fallen like a lead balloon. Whereas you once doggedly covered the 18.5 minute gap in Nixon’s White House communications, you’ve virtually ignored the Obama Administration’s 1.2 million minutes of deleted communications by just one of the agencies under Obama’s executive branch. I’m speaking of the Lois Lerner IRS harassment-of-conservatives scandal wherein Lerner “lost” pertinent email communications. You’ve allowed Obama to skate with his proclamation that absolutely no wrongdoing occurred at the IRS, “not even a smidgen.”
The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offenses is long. I challenge you to lift a finger and help protect democracy, allow justice for all, and ensure domestic tranquility by doing your job reporting current corrupt events fairly. If not, you prove yourselves incompetent and in bed with Obama, not caring one iota about media integrity.
Those running the Washington Post’s show now, compared to those during the Nixon era, are too afraid of being uninvited to the permanent political class’ cocktail parties and petty gossip fests, making you all a bunch of wusses. I challenge you to get to work.
- Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin launches her own on-line TV channel to eliminate the liberal media news filter and speak directly to the people. Subscribers to the Sarah Palin Channel will have the ability to post their own videos to the website, submit questions to her and participate in online video chats with her and other subscribers. Palin says, most importantly, I want you to talk directly to me. Palin says, the channel is more than just news, it is a community.
Go to Sarah Palin Channel and check it out for free.
The Sarah Palin Channel, which costs $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, will feature her commentary on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Palin serves as executive editor, overseeing all content posted to the channel.
“I want to talk directly to you on our channel, on my terms — and no need to please the powers that be,” Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor, said in a video announcing the channel. “Together, we’ll go beyond the sound bites and cut through the media’s politically correct filter.”
CNN Poll Redux: If Rematch of 2012 Presidental Election Were Held Today … Mitt Romney Beats Barack Obama 53% to 44%
AMERICA’S BUYER’S REMORSE …
According to a recent CNN poll, if a 2012 presidential election rematch was held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama 53% to 44%. It would appear the the American voters are having buyer’s remorse and if they had the opportunity to redo the 2012 presidential election, they would vote much differently. In 2012 Obama won the popular vote, 51% to 47%; however, after American voters learned of Obama’s lies with regards to Obamacare, the IRS-targeting scandals of conservative non-profit groups, a continued poor economic recovery, one Obama foreign policy disaster after another and an electorate that has grown weary of this scandal ridden, apathetic, golf playing and fund-raising President … Obama now loses to Romney, 44% to 54%.
Suppose that for some reason a presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Who would you be more likely to vote for?
If a rematch of the 2012 presidential election were held today, GOP nominee Mitt Romney would top President Barack Obama in the popular vote, according to a new national survey.
But a CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that if Romney changes his mind and runs again for the White House, Hillary Clinton would best him by double digits in a hypothetical showdown.
According to the poll, if the 2012 election were somehow held again, Romney would capture 53% of the popular vote, with the President at 44%. Obama beat Romney 51%-47% in the popular vote in the 2012 contest. And he won the all-important Electoral College by a wider margin, 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206.
Last November, an ABC News/Washington Post survey indicated that if the 2012 election were held again, Romney would have had a 49%-45% edge over Obama in the popular vote.
Nice try by CNN to add that Hillary Clinton beats Romney 55% to 42% and make the comparison that it is some how the same as the Obama-Romney redo. Leave it to the liberal media to compare apples to oranges. The Clinton/Romney poll is simply a popularity contest of a hypothetical election that will never take place. However, the Romney/Obama poll numbers are from a knowing public that has seen the Obama promises, political lies and scandals for themselves. There is nothing hypothetical about the facts that Barack Obama is a failed president, who is considered the worst president since WWII and many, if they had the chance would change their vote and never have reelected him.