Muslim Fanatics Ruin British Soldiers Homecoming

This is a sad reality in the EU.

Seattle Ploice Confrontation

You have seen the video now lets see how this video gets spun by the media and the community organizers.

Is The Rochester Citizen Communist

Why would The Rochester Citizen have a nice Q&A with communist Van Jones? Bruce Fealk wrote a friendly article in The Rochester Citizen,Green Jobs Advocate, Van Jones, Fires up Progressive Conference.

Van Jones Interview at Michigan Summit

I'm sure The Rochester Citizen isn't promoting communists but Bruce Fealk is. Your Source for Local News in Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township - E-mail: Editor@therochestercitizen.com Take the time and email the editor and ask them why is an interview with a communist in Landsing on this paper? It's bad enough they have radicals writing for them but to have such a friendly article and interview makes me question what this paper is all about. If I was a citizen of Rochester or Oakland I would be upset that they are letting articles like this in the paper. Will they have a friendly article about the New Black Panther Party or Nazi's? I think The Rochester Citizen didn't realize that Bruce Fealk would sneak in a communist into their paper.

The Obama Gulf Oil Spill Timeline

It only took the press 48 hrs. after Katrina hit to start bashing Bush's performance. Is this how a leader acts?

New RNC Ad Jabs Obama For Golfing During Oil Spill

ShareThis

Or is he just acting like a polotician?

WATCH: Exasperated Jindal Smacks Obama

Obama Abandons The Middle Class And They Abondon Him Back

If you make over $24,000 a year then you make too much money to vote for a Democrat. If you aren't in a union then why would you vote for a Democrat? The Democrats have cripeled the middle class by cripling the businesses that give them jobs.

CNSNews.com

Middle Class Is Abandoning Obama: He Gets Majority Approval Rating Only From Americans Making Less Than $24,000 Per Year
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

President Barack Obama, flanked by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, left, National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen, right, makes a statement on Pensacola Beach, Fla., Tuesday, June 15, 2010, as they visited the Gulf Coast region affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) earning $2,000 per month or less.

During the week of June 7-13, only 46 percent of Americans overall told Gallup they approved of the job Obama is doing as president, tying for the worst week of Obama's presidency. Two weeks ago, forty-six percent also said they approved of the job Obama is doing, and last week 47 percent said they approved.

But when the president’s approval is separated by incomes groups, it is only the lowest income bracket recorded by Gallup—those who earn less than $2,000 per month—that gives Obama a majority approval rating, with 52 percent saying they approved of the job he is doing as president.

Among those earning $2,000 to $4,999 per month (or $24,000 to $59,988 per year), 46 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. Among those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month ($60,000 to $89,988 per year), 44 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. And among those earning $7,500 or more per month ($90,000 per year or more), the highest income bracket recorded by Gallup, 47 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing.

The last time Obama’s approval topped 50 percent among the $24,000 to $59,988 income bracket was the week of May 10-16, when it was 51 percent. The last time it topped 50 percent among the $60,000 to $89,988 income bracket was the week of May 3-9, when it was 51 percent. The last time Obama’s approval topped 50 percent among the $90,000 and above income bracket was the week of April 19-25, when it was 51 percent.

Obama’s current 52 percent approval among Americans earning less than $2,000 per month is the lowest it has been among that income bracket in his presidency. In the week of April 19-25, his approval was at 60 percent in this income bracket. It has dropped eight points since then.

The week of his inauguration—Jan. 19-25, 2009—Obama’s approval was 73 percent among those earning less than $2,000 per month, 66 percent among those earning between $2,000 and $4,999, 69 percent among those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month, and 66 percent among those earning $7,500 per month or more.

Obama's Speech Ripped by Left and Right

It's about timew the mideo opened their eyes. The main stream media has been losing viewers in droves. Maybe if they stopped being so one sided and give the real news they might make a comeback. I can't wait to see how the thin skined Obama and his admin handle the media if they start treating him like they did every other president. I have to say only the far left idealogue anarchist type liberals still back this admin and the Democratic party.

Obama Making More Promises on Oil spill

By Tom Raum (AP)

President Barack Obama's vow to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than before the oil spill sounds familiar. It eerily echoes President George W. Bush's pledge after Hurricane Katrina to rebuild New Orleans "higher and better."

Bush wasn't able to keep that promise. And Obama probably won't be able to keep his either.

Part of Obama's predicament may be of his own making. He has consistently set high expectations for his own performance, first in his presidential campaign and now in office.

But his eagerness to take "responsibility" has run into a wall of reality with three crises that defy easy resolution: an ocean floor oil gusher neither BP nor government scientists can stop, a nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan that Obama can't seem to end and a fragile economic recovery that isn't creating new jobs.

In each instance, Obama has responded by balancing expressions of hope with cautions that the road ahead is a long and difficult one.

Patience is running short.

A majority of Americans — 52 percent — disapprove of how Obama has handled the spill, up significantly from last month when many more Americans were reserving judgment, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Heading toward fall elections that will determine who controls Congress, the administration and lawmakers are attempting to deflect as much political blame for the spill as possible.

Obama's choice of the Oval Office for Tuesday night's prime-time address to the nation was a piece of presidential stagecraft designed to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, while projecting strength and engagement. It was an attempt to show him fully in charge and sympathetic to people along the Gulf Coast, and to try to counter any remaining impressions of aloofness and detachment.

Presidents have long used the format in times of crisis. Bush spoke from the Oval Office on the night of Sept. 11, 2001. Ronald Reagan used the Oval to talk about the space shuttle Challenger explosion. John F. Kennedy spoke from there about the Cuban missile crisis. Richard Nixon announced his resignation from the famous room.

In his address, Obama was calling for measures to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Of all the promises of U.S. presidents, the call to end the nation's "addiction to oil," as Bush put it, is the one made — and broken — the most often.

Obama was swept into office on promises of change.

As a first-term senator representing Illinois, he promised to be different. He sought to raise confidence in what government could do and campaigned against the failures of his predecessor.

He took particular aim at Bush's handling of Katrina, scoffing at the Republican president's promise to "do whatever it takes" to help New Orleans.

Obama's presidential campaign was a model of efficiency, innovation and bold can-do gestures, and he continued to raise expectations in office by putting forth an overflowing agenda — from anti-recessionary stimulus spending to health care overhaul, financial overhaul, major energy and education legislation.

He said passage of his health care bill was proof that government "could still do big things." And success seemed imminent on his proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation. Then came the oil spill.

After a fitful start dealing with the spill, Obama has worked intently to convince Americans that he and his administration are in full control in the response — and were from the beginning. He has taken responsibility for stopping the leak and for the cleanup.

Obama might be trying too hard to show he's in charge, said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. "I think the amount of fault on his part is limited. So why suddenly start taking the blame for what government doesn't do, or hasn't done in the past, or shouldn't do?" asked Hess.

Still, Obama has increasingly found himself on the defensive as he faces growing public anger over the spill. In the nearly two months since the disaster, BP and government scientists have failed at nearly every effort to plug the well.

If it's any solace to the president, disapproval of BP's handling of the spill is now up to 83 percent. That suggests that Americans have someone other than their president to blame.

Obama did concede the limits of presidential power. "Even though I am president of the United States, my powers are not limitless," Obama said earlier this month. "So I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw. All I can do is make sure that I put honest, hardworking, smart people in place." Source

MSNBC Panel Slams Obama Speech, Matthews: May 'Barf' if More 'Ludicrous' Mentions of Nobel Prize

On a special edition of Tuesday's Countdown show on MSNBC which aired after President Obama's address to the nation, the panel of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman were not impressed by the President's speech, as the group complained that it was not "specific" enough and lacked details.

Matthews complained that in the Obama administration, "meritocracy is going too far," and asserted that it was "ludicrous" that the President had mentioned that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobal Prize. He also recalled promising to "barf" if the President brought up the Nobal Prize again. Matthews:

I thought a couple of things were surprising to me. Why does he continue to say that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We had Carol Browner do it again tonight. I know I`ve mocked him for doing it, saying I`d barf if he did it one more time. But it`s not important. This meritocracy has gone too far. This, they’ve named the new guy here, the head of MMS. I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas.

Olbermann ended up complaining: "I think the President was nicer to BP and big oil than the big oil executives were to BP this afternoon." Source

Republicans Not Impressed with Obama's Oval Office Address

ABC's Z. Byron Wolf reports: First out of the gate responding to the president is Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessean who is spearheading energy legislation for his party.

Alexander was not impressed with the president's call to arms.

“The president should spend more time focusing on cleaning up and containing the oil spill and less time trying to pass a national energy tax that will drive jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. After that, Congress can enact legislation to help electrify half our cars and trucks, which is the single best way to reduce our dependence on oil."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was even more pointed.

"I am concerned the administration is attempting to capitalize on public outrage over the spill in order to push through a cap and trade bill that will significantly raise energy prices for all Americans and add more burdens on businesses," she said in a written statement. "Right now, the President’s number one priority needs to be keeping the jobs in the energy sector from going overseas and restoring the Gulf of Mexico.” Source

Obama's Curiously Flat Gulf Speech

Somewhere between Pensacola and the Oval Office, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico went from an “assault” to an “epidemic”—and President Obama went from commander-in-chief to  surgeon general. In Florida, he had referred to the disaster as an "assault" and spoke, at an Army post, in military terms, but by the time he got home he had changed the analogy to a medical matter.

And that, in short, is why his speech to the nation fell so flat even as he delivered it.

It was Obama who compared the Gulf disaster to World War Two, and it was, unfortunately, Obama who was unable to approach let alone match the specificity, combativeness and passion of Franklin Roosevelt.

Having just made a tour of the battlefieldearlier today—a two-day trip to the four hard-hit gulf states—and having scheduled a meeting tomorrow with his putative but not-to-be-trusted allies, the top officials of BP, the president should have delivered a report full of specifics and fighting spirit.

Instead, there was far too much of: a dissertation on the inscrutability of the future; a discussion of the commissions and studies he planned to set up; the fine credentials of his advisors; and a partial admission that he had been way too credulous in accepting “assurances” earlier this year that it was safe to ramp up off-shore drilling off the American coasts. Source

Obama Squandered His Oval Office Moment

Obama could have called for a “moon shot” tonight to make a transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy, and he failed to do that. He made his first-ever speech in the Oval Office, and he had all three networks at the 8 p.m. slot, and he didn’t make good use of it.

The speech was flat and uninspiring. He recited a litany of the things the administration has done to try to bring the spill under control, but it was a rehash of things the public has already heard. Yes, he’s going to make BP pay. That’s good — as far as it goes. But he didn’t use the moment to assert a resolute sense of command.

Nor did he use it to call on Americans to make the sacrifices that will be necessary to make the transition from petroleum to cleaner fuels. Yes, he said a little about it. But he didn’t even endorse the energy bill currently languishing in the Senate.

The president has wasted a crisis. Source

$20 Billion From BP What A Deal

While the Obama admin is patting themselves on the back for getting the $20 billion of BP's money in an escrow account. BP is patting themselves on the back for getting out of this so cheep. A conservative estimate is that is will cost over $60 billion if they stopped the oil leak now. We are coming up on 60 days and BP has already spent $1.7 billion. Now all that money goes to a political organization to give our money to who they deem as needy. Let's see how poorly and politically they give this money away. Let's see what unions get this and how this will cost we the people. $20 billion is a lot of money and control over that money is a lot of power. And we all know how this admin wastes money like their is no tomorrow. I pray I'm wrong but the odds are if this admin can screw it up they will. What do you think about this?

Obama Rips Oil 'Addicts,' Says We Must Accept 'Costs' of Cap & Trade

The Afghanistan minerals are looking better every day now. Obama basically said that he is going to raise the cost of gas and utilities so that we can blindly go into a green future. A green future that the Democrats and their supporters will make a shitload of money off of.  He and the Democrats are willing to make us pay more for everything and change over to a green economy. Even though we don't have the technology for a green future that doesn't matter to the Democrats. And even though nothing the Democrats have done so far have fixed the economy,they are going to add another major tax to all businesses and citizens within this country to get us where they want us. I'm sure most Americans are willing to pay $4,$5 or even $6 a gal for gas to have a green future that our leaders don't have a clue about.  But as long as Obama and the Democrats say it's all good let's go for it. What is the worse thing that could happen? I'm sure American industry and manufacturing will be as competitive as ever with these added costs. We will be exporting our goods in vast amounts thanks to this green move. They haven't told us how we will become greener other then not having any money to by fuel. But I'm sure the government will figure it out before we are all living off the land. One thing I didn't notice Obama talking about is how are they going to cap the well? He was so busy telling us he was going to make us go "green",whatever that means, that he forgot to fix the big problem we are having in the Gulf right now. But I feel much safer knowing that Obama put a lawyer in charge of the MMA.  I feel like I'm on a building and Obama and the Democrats are telling me to jump and to trust them even though the last person,the stimulus bill and obamacare, went splat. I'm sure the left wing think this is the best idea ever. And that the Democrats are doing the right thing by plunging our economy into the unknown.  But I think if we want to get off of oil and transform our economy from an oil and gas energy economy then they better have a viable alternative that is as reliable as oil. And at this point they don't have that. I also don't like the fact that the Democrats are forcing us to do something against our will again. How do you think Americans will act towards $5 a gal gas,higher gas bills, higher food bills,less manufacturing of goods,higher unemployment etc...? Do you think making energy more expencive will help the auto industry sell more cars overseas? Or do you think that Japan,China and whoever will have another edge over us? And since Obama and the Democrats don't know what form our next energy will come in let's start taking bets on what it will be. Windmills,solar,cold fusion or rainbows and lalipops?

A text of President Obama's prepared remarks on Tuesday on the Gulf Coast oil spill, as released by the White House:
Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.

On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we're doing to clean up the oil, what we're doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we're doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims – and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.

As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn't working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That's why the second thing we're focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers – even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

Obama Gives Back Major Strip of AZ to Mexico

 

The federal government is now telling American citizens to stay out of three southern Arizona counties. It is too dangerous because of armed smugglers from Mexico.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu: Quite frankly I’m telling you as a sheriff that we don’t control that part of the county. My county is larger than the state of Connecticut and we need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it. In fact President Obama suspended the construction of the fence.

FOX News reporter: Would you like to see some of the president’s outrage about the oil spill and some of the butt-kicking that he’s talked about doing applied there on the border as well?

Sheriff Paul Babeu: Even with that, you say one thing and then you’re out at a fundraiser in California and you don’t go to the funeral of the people who died in the explosion. You know its one thing to say something slick on television in a ten second soundbite but we need action. And, it’s shameful that we as the most powerful nation on earth can win wars and liberate countries throughout history yet we can’t even secure our own border. And shame on Obama for giving our country away. It sure does seem like Obama and the Democrats are on on the side of Mexico. If I remember correctly  the left wing on this blog said Arizona is a safe state. In fact they said the border cities are some of the safest cities in our nation. I don't know where they get their news but their common sense if gone if they think the counties bordering Mexico are safe when the president tells land owners and Americans it's too dangerous to go on their own land. I'm sure the left wing delutionoids will find a way to blame Bush and the Republican party for this as well. I'd like to know what you think about how our President turned our land into a Mexican give away?