Both Obama and Bill Clinton tried to hide the threat and Americans died

As disturbing news trickles out about the numerous requests from the American diplomats in Libya for more security to protect them from the impending terrorist attacks, we are starting to see a pattern of behaviour from Democrat Presidents.

When you take in to account Obama's attempts to pretend we are not at war and convince the media to throw a blanket over any terrorist attack that comes along, it is interesting to note parallels with Bill Clinton's attempts to try to take credit for the end of the cold war and convince people there is no longer a threat from Nuclear Weapons.

Here are some examples of Clinton's remarks. There are 130 in this link, but I will only supply 20 here. It should be noted that in the 1990s, a Nuclear arms specialist was asked about missiles being pointed at our children and he said, if they are not currently pointed at us, it takes about 15 seconds to re-target them on us:

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 (House of Representatives - June 20, 1997)


Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

One Hundred Thirty And Counting: President Clinton Assures Us No Nuclear Missile Threat Exists

President Clinton has assured the American people on at least 130 separate occasions that Russian nuclear missiles no longer threaten the United States. On dozens of those occasions--including his October 6, 1996 debate with Senator Bob Dole--he said that no nuclear missiles of any kind threaten America. The following quotes are excerpted from his speeches, interviews, and radio addresses, as downloaded from the `White House Virtual Library' on the World Wide Web and other electronic databases.

1. `I was proud to go to Russia and sign an agreement where we agreed that for the first time in decades we would no longer even point our missiles at each other.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of Atlanta, May 3, 1994.

2. `* * * there are no nuclear missiles pointed at us from the Soviet Union [sic], but there are other countries trying to develop nuclear programs.'--President Clinton, Remarks at the Small Business Person of the Year Announcement, Old Executive Office Building, May 4, 1994.

3. `And now, for the first time, our nuclear missiles are no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs ours [sic].'--President Clinton, Remarks on CNN Telecast, `A Global Forum with President Clinton,' May 4, 1994.

4. `* * * the nuclear arsenal in Russia is no longer pointed at the United States, nor are our missiles pointed at them.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of Warwick, Rhode Island, May 9, 1994.

5. `* * * the United States and Russia at last no longer aim their nuclear weapons at each other.'--President Clinton, Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Ceremony, May 25, 1994.

6. `* * * for the first time since the dawn of the atomic age, the United States and Russia no longer have nuclear missiles pointed at each other.'--President Clinton, Remarks at Swearing-In Ceremony for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Rose Garden, May 31, 1994.

7. `We are reducing nuclear stockpiles, and America and Russia no longer aim their nuclear missiles at each other.'--President Clinton, Address to the National Assembly, Paris, France, June 7, 1994.

8. `For the first time since World War II * * * Russian and American missiles no longer target each other's people. Three of the four nuclear members of the former Soviet Union have agreed to remove all nuclear weapons from their soil.'--President Clinton, Address to the 49th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 26, 1994.

9. `Our missiles no longer target each other's people for destruction; instead they are being dismantled.'--President Clinton, Remarks at arrival ceremony for Russian President Boris Yeltsin, South Lawn, the White House, September 27, 1994.

10. `We've got Russian missiles that are no longer pointed at the United States for the first time since World War II.'--President Clinton, Radio interview with Eileen Ratner, October 7, 1994.

11. `* * * Russian President Boris Yeltsin came to further the partnership between our two nations so well
expressed by the fact that now Russian and U.S. missiles are no longer pointed at each other's people, and we are working to reduce the nuclear threat even more.'--President Clinton, Address to the Nation, The Oval Office, October 10, 1994.

12. `. . . for the first time the missiles of Russia are no longer pointed at the American people. . . .'--President Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of the Bridgeport Area, Stratford, Connecticut, October 15, 1994.

13. `The United States and Russian missiles missiles are no longer targeted at each other.'--President Clinton, Saturday Radio Address, October 15, 1994.

14. `Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United States.'--President Clinton, Speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 17, 1994.

15. `I know that this country is a safer and more secure place because Russian missiles aren't pointing at us and we're making peace in Haiti, the Middle East, Northern Ireland.'--President Clinton, Interview with WLIB radio, New York, October 18, 1994.

16. `We also clearly are working to make the world a safer and a more democratic and a freer place. For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United States.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the Governors Leadership Conference on the Future of the Economy, New York, October 19, 1994.

17. `Is the fact that Russian missiles are not pointed at your children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age an abnormal thing? I think that's pretty good.'--President Clinton, Remarks at dinner honoring Kathleen Brown, San Francisco, October 22, 1994.

18. `I wanted you to be safer. And that's why I'm so proud of the fact that these little children are the first generation of Americans since the dawn of nuclear power that do not have Russian missiles pointing at them. I'm proud of that.'--President Clinton, Remarks at the Washington State Coordinated Campaign Rally, Seattle, October 23, 1994.

19. `...we've had the success in no Russian missiles are pointed at American children for the first time.'--President Clinton, Interview, Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 24, 1994.

20. `For the first time since nuclear weapons were developed, no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of Ohio and the United States this year.'--President Clinton, Reception honoring Congressman Thomas Sawyer, Akron, Ohio, October 24, 1994.

National Review provided some examples of Obama trying to disguise and distract from the "Global War on Terror", which by the way, they prohibited the use of that term and the term "Long War" upon taking office. It is clear the "Democrats are now better at foreign policy" meme the left was trying to peddle during that one week after the DNC, but before Sept. 11 was built on a house of cards, propped up by the state run media.

Four Cases of Administration Untruths About
al-Qaeda Terrorism
By Jim Geraghty
September 26, 2012 12:20 P.M.

Notice the strange pattern when this administration discusses the issue of terrorism with the American people:

In the attempted bombings of the Detroit flight and Times Square:

On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.

The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”

In the Fort Hood shooting, Obama’s comments the following morning:

This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women. We don’t have all the answers yet. I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.

The government’s later assessment Fort Hood shooting:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

“The documents attached illustrate how the Department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence,” read the letter, which was obtained by Fox News.

Despite Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s e-mail conversations with al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, the FBI did not classify the shooting as terrorism.

Now, in the administration’s accounts of the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. “We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

Four attacks by radical Islamists against Americans, and four statements from the administration mischaracterizing the nature and scope of the threat. It is harder and harder to believe this is just a series of innocent mistakes.

It has been mentioned by some that Obama's initial response to the Fort Hood shootings and that of his media allies centered on 4 themes.

* Hasan is a lone gunman

* Multiple tours of duty in this misguided war on terror have pushed soldiers to the breaking point

* We are working hard to avoid an anti-muslim backlash

* Soldiers should not become paranoid about being on duty next to an armed US soldier or allied soldier who happens to be a Muslim

So the translation is:

* This was not terrorism, there is no war on terror being waged against us

* He was a victim of Bush's war for oil, we should feel sorry or him, not hateful

* These dead people, although they are merely a bump in the road could be a catalyst to a REAL crime, Anti-Muslim hate crimes, which is about as prevalent as Big foot captures and about as much of a threat

* You soldiers are quick to jump at racist emotional responses because you are slow witted, but don't ever suspect that here or in Afghanistan that the Afghan soldiers you are training will turn their guns against you just because they are Muslim. That will never happen so just lower your guard, I know these things.

It was interesting that in 2010, Obama briefly tried to pitch the idea that he felt strongly about the idea of rogue nukes getting in to the hands of terrorists, not because he was warning that terrorists exist, but because he was trying to scare people to side with him on his attempts to eliminate all nukes.

The official said the administration appears to be inflating the danger in ways similar to what critics of the Bush administration charged with regard to Iraq: hyping intelligence to support its policies.

The official said one likely motivation for the administration’s new emphasis on preventing nuclear terrorism is to further the president’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. While the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be useful in retaliating against a sovereign state, it would be less so against a terrorist group. But if the latter is the world’s major nuclear threat, the official explained, then the U.S. giving up its weapons seems less risky.

So there are no nukes. There are no Terrorists. But if there were, they might get together and that could be bad, so please lower all shields to show the world we mean them no harm. Let's see how well that worked out in the past.

Obama, Al Qaeda is just not that in to you

Is Barack Obama's foreign policy simply a failed version of those self help books on how to get men to fall for you? That hot guy in the gym can be yours,...guaranteed!!!

You've seen them before. Why does he hate me? Why doesn't he call back? Is it my hair? What can I do to impress him? I especially love the subtitle of the above book, "How to be so irresistible, You'll barely be able to resist dating yourself". Isn't that what it's all about? Narcissism as opposed to confusing the kind of self love that is really self respect.

The problem those books never address is that the problem is not about making yourself in to someone else that THEY fantasize about, its about you not having a stable core that you are confidently sure of and you crave affection from others that do not have a stable core either. That's the answer to "why do I wake up in the bed of some jerk?".

It is also the answer to "Why did the Ayatollah take those hostages after we helped sack the Shah for him?" or "Why was I negotiating with Egyptian members of Al Qaeda last month over the release of the Blind Sheik and last week offering to give them two attack subs and $2 Billion in cash, but they attacked our embassy and murdered our diplomats and made me look like my entire "Obama Doctrine" was a farce and an Epic Fail?"

This is the essence of the Left's view on Foreign Policy since the emergence of the New Left. Jimmy Carter was the first, but Obama is the most disastrous adherent of this ideology. LBJ and JFK were not members of this club. Carter, Obama and even Clinton based their Foreign Policy on the premise of what Kenneth Minogue called "Olympianism" and in their gut they suffer from severe Oikophobia. This is like the Presidential equivalent of "Girls with low self esteem."

When a terrorist attack occurs, a protest in the Arab street or a European celebrity clinching his fist against America, the first thing the left think is, What did we as Americans do wrong?. Why don't they love us? We are despicable, It's true, but we can change, really!

Oikophobia is an impulsive urge to ignore obvious motives and causes for disastrous events if the the obvious data bolsters the idea of American exceptionalism and in reaction to blame America as exceptionally evil and deserving of punishment for its sins. This Old Testament scenario then blames the sins on conservatives and the solution is to turn to the left.

Olympianism is the notion that western civilization is in need of an enlightened elite that is the anointed judge of the church of Oikophobia:

Olympianism is the project of an intellectual
elite that believes that it enjoys superior enlightenment
and that its business is to spread
this benefit to those living on the lower slopes
of human achievement.... Olympianism
burrowed like a parasite into the most powerful
institution of the emerging knowledge
economy--the universities.

Remember how they mocked George Bush when he said, "Why do they hate us? They hate us for our freedom"

Here is an example:

Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America. There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!

Here is a video of Bush making his anti-Oikophobia point:




Obama ran on Olympianism. Obama ran on Oikophobia. What we are seeing in the Middle East in the final months of his administration is the result of his failed policy.

Why don't the guys at the gym like me? Why can't I make people love me for who I am, since I wore all the right clothes and did all the right things?

Obama ran his 2008 campaign on the idea that the world hates us because of George Bush and Americans of his ilk. As Dinesh D'Souza's movie 2016 explains, the anti-colonialism model is one of the west robbing the rest of the world. The left doesn't understand wealth creation. They believe wealth is not created, it is organic and whoever snatches it up first or steals it is rich and powerful. The world is full of natural resources and people who are not necessarily smarter or more industrious than others travel around the world to steal that wealth. These thieves justify their sins by claiming the uncivilized residents of that land were less than human and did not deserve that wealth. Obama portrays himself as the enlightened Olympian who understands their pain and the anger they have towards the US. He believes he has been anointed with certain charms and insights that will help him conduct a giant teach in to these child like third world simpletons and convince them that he is banishing the bitter clingers responsible for their injuries and that he is building a new paradise and he will be generous and kind with them and after having given them trinkets and beads they will fall to their knees and convert the Arab Street to Haight Ashbury. This is why Berliners rallied to see Obama and why he won the Nobel Prize before doing anything. There are a lot of Olympians in Berlin, the Nobel Prize has turned in to the Olympian prize and they all believed if the most powerful man on earth is willing to bow down, apologize and promise to be flexible, then the angels will descend on the Brandenberg gates and the "undesirables" will be cleansed from Germany and the West.

What we are seeing now is the fact that our enemies are very, very clever and acutely aware of the weaknesses of the leaders who adhere to Olympianism. They know they can roll Jimmy Carter. They know they can roll Obama. The Ayatollah did not release the hostages because he feared the bombs, but because he believed he could not manipulate Reagan's administration. It is unfortunately true that even Reagan's people fell for their efforts at manipulation when they sent envoys to Tehran with a cake and a plan to release the hostages in Lebanon. These people have been trading hostages, killing diplomats and slitting throats for centuries and Obama thought he could make them love him with a bow?

Military Historian John Keegan explained, you win wars by removing the means for enemies to wage war on you or by breaking their will to wage war on you. Iran is building the means to wage nuclear war and Obama either believes trinkets and charm will do it or he really doesn't care. Breaking Al Qaeda's will for Obama is a charm offensive, but they have no interest in his charms. Worse yet, we are going broke so we will soon have no trinkets.

When Gamaal Islamiya, the Blind Sheik's branch of Al Qaeda won seats in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood formed a coalition with the Islamists, meaning terrorist groups that have been killing our people for a generation, his response was to compare the new bosses as like Ghandi or Martin Luther King and he stood ready to throw his arms around them and give them the charm that makes others love you. He met with an Al Qaeda representative in the White House to discuss the release of the Blind Sheik, he offered to give them two Attack Subs, and he promised to give them Billions of dollars for no reason at all. The previous regime had provided commitments to us of value and they fulfilled those commitments and in return we kept our side of the bargain, payments. It should be noted also, one of the reasons for Egypt's economic struggles was a downturn in tourism because the terrorist groups that now hold power, went to tourist attractions and murdered westerners. So Mubarak kept the terrorists in check, the terrorists responded in part to protest the Camp David accords, the economy tanked and we paid Mubarak.

To the question why do they hate us? How do they respond when asked why does the US hate us? They are only interested in what angers us as it pertains to a strategic advantage they can find to kill us.

As Chris Christie said, it is more important that they respect us than it is for them to love us. Trotsky once said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". The first priority we have is to be willing to fight our enemies. Why they hate us is either of value for our need to understand strategically what motivates them so we can defeat them, or an esoteric question that comes after our security interests have been established.

The apology tweet in Cairo was the equivalent to apologizing for not putting out on the first date to a guy with a knife.

The evidence that Al Qaeda was planning attacks in Cairo and Libya was all over the Mid East. It was in the papers, it was on CNN, it was announced by their leaders. Obama was spinning so furiously that Al Qaeda was dead, that he either convinced himself there was no threat or he convinced his own people there was no threat, but either way, we were unprepared and our apologies and self loathing only served as an aphrodisiac for the terrorists to attack.

I ask myself how the Green on Blue terrorists must feel as they are luring our soldiers into their confidence, just before they kill them. They must either feel slight guilt, but it is more likely in order to achieve their goal, they feel the sense of superiority of a hunter over his prey. We are told this goes against the teachings of Islam, but this is a rule of the jungle and Jihadis will use any trick to exploit our generosity and use it to defeat us.

The Olympians constantly underestimate these enemies as childlike simpletons. When Saddam said Mother of all battles, the left laughed. Desert Shield did sire an offspring of 20 plus years of battles. Saddam in defeat seemed pathetic to the left, but he convinced the Olympians to buy in to Oil for Food which he used to create the greatest bribery network in history which turned our allies against each other. Clinton tossed Cruise missiles at OBL and thumped his chest, but the towers came down only 3 years later.

When confronted with the futility of Olympianism and the urge to charm our enemies, the left asks, "But War can't be the answer, isn't our aggressiveness the thing that made them hate us in the first place? Aren't American troops in the MidEast nothing more than a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda?"

Yes, sometimes war is the answer. No, they DO hate us because of our freedom. Yes, our freedom draws people to our shores and the power of an idea is a threat to tyrants and hegemonistic monsters worldwide and it always will be, so get used to it. They don't want freedom of religion. They don't want freedom of the press or freedom of speech. They don't want tolerance or respect for women. They lose sleep at night imagining ways to mass murder gay people, yet they sodomize their enemies before they kill them. They do not want the common people to vote for their leaders. They like to arm themselves, but don't believe in a right for everyone to do so. They do not believe in due process or a presumption of innocence. They do not believe in a separation of church and state. Sometimes war is the answer.

When Obama says, we are taking no option off the table. He might be considering war, but only if war benefits him personally and bolsters his enlightened status, not if it bolsters the credibility of his political and ideological opponents, even if the innocent collateral damage that occurs when an embassy is over run creates a bump in the road for his unstoppable juggernaut of charm.

When you give trinkets to terrorists and work your charms on them, and they respond by assaulting you, betraying you and using your generosity against you in a very public way, that makes you look like a fool in front of your girlfriends and your "Frien-emies", There is only one option. Lie to everybody, create a diversion, attack your accuser and try to make them shut up, then call all of your friends and spread the lie before the truth gets traction.

Then find another self help book to figure out "Why they hate us".

Bush was right. Your Ex was right. Its not about them, its about you. Get in touch with your core, your values, your traditions and look to your elders. Stop hating and blaming. Stop trying to be someone you are not. God loves you.

How can a man love you if you don't love and respect yourself and the legacy of love you have inherited.

Osama Bin Laden once said to his aides, "How can that culture be superior to ours, if they can't even agree to defend it and fight for it".

They know us better than many of us know ourselves, because for them it is a full time job not a parlor game or an Oprah Winfrey episode.

Tag Cloud of 100 Reasons to vote against Obama

Here is a word cloud from Hugh Hewitt's 100 reasons to vote against President Obama for Mitt Romney. at Tribble News.

accept act administration admit adversaries agree allies american answer anything appeasement appointments arguments arms associated attack attempts bain barack begin behave behind believes bipartisan blames board boeing bows budget bush catholic century challenges change character china chinese church coal companies congress cost country create crushing cut czech dead deal debt defend defense deficit democrats department dollars don done either elected embarrassed enemy epa example extraordinary extreme f22 fast fighter fund furious future gave generous george gibbs gibson gitmo give given going government growing guitars gulf health hesitated house huge inauguration india indication institute invested ipab iranian iraq islamic israel jobs justice knows law life likes marines market massachusetts medical medicare million mission mitt money month movement national navy needs netanyahu nothing notice nuclear obama obamacare olympics opposition partisan passed paul peace people plant poland policy politics power president press pressure prize problems programs progress provide public questions raised real recent reform refused regulation relations remove republic republicans responsibility result revolution romney rule ryan secretary ships signs single slash social solyndra stadium states straw street support suppressed system taken takes taxes tells tens terrorist thousands throat toward trial trillion truth unconstitutional united vote wants war wastes white won world years yes

created at TagCrowd.com

Obama's appointed Secretary of Splainin' stuff just accused Romney of running a Racist campaign

In 2008, It was Bill Clinton being called a racist by Obama and his thugs and the former President shot back with venom and anger at Barack Obama for playing the race card.

"I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?"

Well, Why should Mitt Romney have to take that Shit from a disbarred and impeached liar?

In an interview with Bob Shieffer on CBS, Bill Clinton speaking on behalf of the Obama Campaign said:

" I think that the president’s winning," said Clinton, according to a rush transcript. "And winning in the swing states. I think that the Republican super PACs and the Romney campaign combined will outspend the Democrats probably two-and-a-half, three to one from here on in. And I think, this is the only time I can remember when a lot of the national polls are closer than the polls in the so-called swing states. But, according to Clinton, the outcome of the race depends on whether Republicans will play fair.

"But I think you can’t know because of the enormous financial advantage that Citizens United gave to these Republican super PACs and because of the work they have done and will do on Election Day to try to reduce the number of young people, first generation immigrants, and minorities voting," said Clinton. "And they have worked hard at this. They have a theory that if the election, the people who vote in 2012 look more like the 2010 electorate, then the folks that elected the President in the first place in 2008, that if they can get enough of those folks to stay home, they can still win. So that’s why we got to keep working on it."

Clinton provided no evidence for his claims, and Schieffer did not press him, either.

No Evidence.

This is what Obama likes to call "Silly Season".

If this is a planned attack and if it follows Obama's time tested strategy over the years to have surrogates fling racist charges against his opponents, then dare his opponents to respond thus injecting race in to the campaign and in the end Obama then stays above the fray by failing to condemn the racecard, nor deny he even has an opinion. Mission accomplished. In this case, if it is a planned strategy, Obama is essentially calling in America's previous "first African American President" to wage a knife fight against an opponent that Obama can't seem to wound in a fair fight. Obama is hiding behind granny's apron strings.

Let's look at Clinton when he was the racist.

Clinton made a remark during the SC primaries that Jesse Jackson had done well in 84 and 88 so Hillary faced a tough fight. This might have had some factual relevance and even later in interviews, Obama acknowledged that Jesse's experience demographically did lay a significant model for what Obama might expect, but Obama's people called it racist, because they claimed Clinton was trying to trivialize Obama's campaign as the Black candidate,... not unlike when Obama referred to Palin as "lipstick" on Letterman and that she was an "attractive" candidate.

The step three in the time tested Obama racecard strategy was avoid direct accusation and remain above the fray, but Obama slipped up a few times, once calling McCain by name a racist and in this case, when Clinton pal, ABC's George Stephanopolous tried to set the hook on Obama by asking him if, by what Clinton said, was he in fact a racist. Obama said "That's his frame of reference..." So the answer is yes. Clinton is a racist according to Obama.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And more voters, I think, voted for you last
night than voted in the entire Democratic Party in 2004. Before the
votes were finally counted yesterday, President Clinton was asked why
it was taking both Clintons to handle you in South Carolina. Here's
how he responded to our David Wright.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
B. CLINTON: Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and
'88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good
campaign here. He's run a good campaign everywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: The implication there is pretty clear: You're
the Jesse Jackson of 2008.
OBAMA: Well, you know, Jesse Jackson ran historic races in 1984
and 1988, and there's no doubt that that set a precedent for African
Americans running for the highest office in the land. But, you know,
that was 20 years ago, George.
And I think that what we saw in this election was a shift in
South Carolina that I think speaks extraordinarily well, not just for
folks in the South, but all across the country. I think people want
change. I think they want to get beyond some of the racial politics
that, you know, has been so dominant in the past.
We're very encouraged as we go to the February 5th states.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think President Clinton was engaging in
racial politics there?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that that's his frame of
reference was the Jesse Jackson races. That's when, you know, he was
active and involved and watching what was going to take place in South
Carolina. I think that a lot of South Carolinians looked at it
through a different lens.
And certainly our campaign was confident that if we talked about
the things that people are really trying to deal with on a day-to-day
basis. If we were talking about how to make sure everybody has health
care that they can afford, how people are going to be able to go to
college, making sure that people are able to stay in their homes in
the face of this subprime lending crisis and the larger credit crunch
that we're seeing.
As long as we were focused on those issues, we thought those
would transcend the sort of racial divisions that we've seen in the
past.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But several in the Clinton camp say that it was
your campaign that was playing the race card throughout this primary.
They point to Dick Harpootlian, one of your major supporters in South
Carolina, who said that the Clinton campaign was reminiscent of Lee
Atwater.
They point to the comments of one of your top advisers, Steve
Hildebrand, who said that the Clintons have always put people in a
box.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They look at everything through racial lines,
gender lines, geographic lines. They tend to segment people.
They say that it was your campaign playing the race card.
OBAMA: George, I'm not going to continue sort of the tit-for-
tat. I think that the results yesterday spoke for themselves, that
people wanted to move beyond some of these old arguments, and they
want to look forward to figure out how we pull the country together
and move forward, and that's what we're going to do during the
remainder of this campaign.

Obama will deny that he affirmed Clinton was a racist, but that is his way. When Rush Limbaugh makes a joke about Sandra Fluke asking for funds in order to have sex the equivalent of prostitution,... and mind you Limbaugh is an entertainer and comedian,..suddenly Romney, Bohner, Reince Preibus and all registered Republicans are required to stand before the tribunal and "Distance" themselves from Rush or stand accused of hate crimes. Yet, Obama's official campaign staff, SuperPacs and biggest Donors can say Racist, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, and Sexist slurs, as well as slanders about felonies and killing people's wives and Obama not only fails to distance himself from them, he denies they even happened. Obama doesn't have to call someone a racist, just the hint that someone might be branded a witch, is enough to silence them.

Remember this:

The president first addressed claims that his campaign has called Romney a felon, saying, “Nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon.”

Mr. President, I'd like to introduce you to someone you've never met, this is Stephanie Cutter, She is deputy campaign manager for your reelection campaign. She admires your leadership skills and ability to manage your subordinates.

Clinton has tossed this race card out before on Obama's behalf and even brought it up in his DNC convention speech when he said:

“If you want every American to vote and you think it’s wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama.”

But this recent case was a much more direct accusation. He referred first to "the Republican super PACs and the Romney campaign combined". Then later he accuses "they". He will defend himself in claiming he accused "Super Pacs" as "they". But this is how Obama played tis cat and mouse game with McCain. He would say, "there are Republicans that will say things and do things because I don't look like the Presidents on the dollar bills. They will try to scare you.." It wasn't until he slipped and used McCain's name that the media briefly remarked on it, and then quickly moved on.

Clinton in 2008:

"No, I think that they played the race card on me," said Clinton, "and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along." Listen to the full interview

"We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist."

After the phone interview, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: "I don't think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?"

But outside a Pittsburgh campaign event Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant "when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?"

Clinton responded: "When did I say that and to whom did I say that?"

"You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your games today," Clinton added.

"I said what I said -- you can go back and look at the interview, and if you will be real honest you will also report what the question was and what the answer was. But I'm not helping you."

Clinton did not respond when asked what he meant when he charged that the Obama campaign had a memo in which they said they had planned to play the race card.

Meanwhile, at a Pittsburgh press availability on Tuesday, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use "the race card."

"Hold on a second,'' he said. "So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it?"

"You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.''

So you said you had a memo, Mr. Clinton that Barack Obama uses the race card and that he planned to use it on you from the beginning of the campaign?

I'd like to hear Romney or Ryan mention that.

"We find it irresponsible and offensive that Barack Obama continues to send out his surrogates to slander myself and my campaign with remarks about my having killed people and committed felonies and then denying the attacks have even taken place. Now he has what he called the "secretary of explaining stuff" for his campaign accusing us of racist attacks with absolutely no evidence of any ill intentions. Considering in 2008, Mr. Clinton described for the American people how he had verifiable proof that Obama had planned to use the race card on him and that it was a cheap story meant to divert the attention of Americans, I am disappointed that Mr. Clinton would let himself be used in such a way and I am saddened we live in a time where the President of our nation, a man who claims he wants to be a model for 100% of the people would continue to run such a dirty campaign. I have faith that the goodness of the American people will grow weary of the politics of personal destruction and seek a more hopeful future where we base our debates on ideas and not divisiveness and hate."

Is it possible Obama believes he ended ALL wars on his inaugaration day?

Is it possible Obama believes he ended ALL wars on his inauguration day? ...That he just "Willed" war to cease? ...that like a hippie song from the late 60s that if an enlightened one became the philosopher king, he could just declare peace and it would be so?

I was reading articles from the first month or so of Obama's administration in Spring of 2009 and looking for references to the decision to stop using the term "Global War on Terror" as well as the term "Long War" and I found some incredible ideas being posited by the Left.

It appears the decision to stop using GWOT was as a result of "International human rights groups" like the International Commission of Jurists.

Last month, the International Commission of Jurists urged the Obama administration to drop the phrase "war on terror." The commission said the term had given the Bush administration "spurious justification to a range of human rights and humanitarian law violations," including detention practices and interrogation methods that the International Committee of the Red Cross has described as torture.

John A. Nagl, the former Army officer who helped write the military's latest counterinsurgency field manual, said the phrase "was enormously unfortunate because I think it pulled together disparate organizations and insurgencies."

"Our strategy should be to divide and conquer rather than make of enemies more than they are," said Nagl, now president of the Center for a New American Security, a defense policy think tank in Washington. "We are facing a number of different insurgencies around the globe -- some have local causes, some of them are transnational. Viewing them all through one lens distorts the picture and magnifies the enemy."

That all sounds clever in principle, but consider how Obama has used this theory. The claim that Bush was naive in lumping all groups together being a negative, ignores the idea that this form of asymetric warfare that manifests itself as Global Terror networks is designed for the specific reason to diffuse responsibility, hide in the shadows of a stateless network and make it almost impossible for a high tech nuclear superpower to impose its massive force upon a geographic location with uniformed command structure.

This is another example of the left assuming Bush is an unsophisticated Frat boy with a hidden agenda, so his words are the deceptive propaganda of an unintelligent incompetent. Bush and his staff openly stated, this is a new type of war that is designed to counter the very techniques that terrorism has employed to cripple our forms of defense.

Obama drank the Kool Aid of naivete and believed a far more delusional Hippie belief system. When combined with a cynical political self interest, it became irresistible.

In 2008, Obama claimed his work with Sen. Lugar was the REAL beginning of a long awaited Nuclear disarmament solution. In his mind, Reagan was a piker and only a true peace lover like himself could drive the golden spike in the transcontinental Nuclear Peace train. He believed with his Russian "Reset" button, that he could promise unilateral disarmament and Putin would become a warm and cuddly bear. Remember how the Russian diplomat accepted the button and refused to "diplomatically" laugh along with the fact that the Russian word on the button really meant "Overcharged" or "Overloaded". I asked a Russian friend and he said the term could be assumed to mean "con job" or "rip off". So here is Obama sending his people with a bizarre symbolic prop, messianic expectations, promises to make Nukes extinct,... and the sceptical hosts see the word "Con Job" written on it. How could they react any other way. It would be as if Gorbachev met Reagan in the White House for the first time with a Peace Pipe embossed with the words " Take my promises, and put that in your pipe and smoke it!" Reagan would have done a half hour vaudeville show on that one.

So in Obama's mind the Cold War? He won that! ...You didn't build that.

According to the WAPO and other friendly news outlets of the day, he didn't just dismantle some of the apparatus of Bush's racist war against people of color that was disguised by the term GWOT, he actually ended the "Global War on Terror".

Last week, shortly after being inaugurated, President Barack Obama ended the "global war on terror" (GWOT). Or so The Washington Post reported. The new president countermanded the Bush administration's extralegal approaches by mandating the closure of Guantánamo within a year, outlawing the use of torture in interrogations, and putting the CIA out of the secret prisons business. Obama announced that he wanted to "send an unmistakable signal that our actions in defense of liberty will be as just as our cause."

Sounds good. But the Post's declaration might be just as premature as President George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Lincoln that signaled the "end" of the Iraq War.

So in Obama's mind the Decades long Global Terror war against us? He won that! ...You didn't build that.

If you add up all the American casualties from attacks by Radical Islamic terrorists all the way back to Sirhan Sirhan's killing of RFK and you add them up, they exceed the number of Americans killed on 9/11. And in the minds of the many America hating terrorists and the people that admire their cause, in the long horizon of hate that spans decades, that makes them quite proud. It is even appealing to Westerners of the Hippie persuasion like Lynne Stewart who was imprisoned for assisting World Trade Center Bomber, Abdel Rahman to communicate and remain in charge of his Al Qaeda front group. It is also Appealing to Ramsey Clark and his Answer Network that organized most of the anti-war rallies. Also appealing to Bernadine Dorn, who worked with Lynne Stewart at the Lawyers Guild and is also a friend of Barack Obama.

The message that is so irresistible to both groups is an Oikophobic urge to hate America and envision the American way as the root of all that is wrong with this troubled world and that the moral bounds of civilized society can be bent to accomodate any means to bring the American beast to ruin. They also share a failure to envision the world that will exist if a sudden and total collapse of that American structure of Liberty is destroyed.

They seem to excuse away immoral acts like Jenny's boyfriend Wesley did in "Forest Gump":

Jenny? Things got a little out of hand. It's just this war and that, that lyin' son-of-a-bitch Johnson. I would never hurt you. You know that.

The idea that we base our foreign policy on the song "Imagine" and bow to an "Olympian" model of International bodies that will be more enlightened is delusional at best and almost as primitive as a cargo cult.

Every time Obama or Biden claim that they ended the Iraq War, I can see a slight wink in the eye of the liberal interviewer as if he is looking around to see if a duck is going to fall from the ceiling and say "BullShit".

It doesn't matter that the Surge he opposed and the Genocide he admitted he was willing to accept in Lieu of Bush's victorious strategy were hideously naive notions at best and enabling mass murder at worst. By making a symbolic pullout of all troops when even many Democrats admit a small contingent on a regional base in Iraq would have preserved some of the hard fought sacrifices we had shed blood for. But he needed a symbol.

So in Obama's mind the long Iraq conflict that began when Carter invited Saddam to invade Iran in a vain attempt to overthrow the Ayatollah, the million dead, the resulting war debt that the gulf states held over Saddam's head, the invasion of Kuwait that resulted from that debt, the Shiite terror groups that emerged to counter Saddam, Desert Storm to protect our Saudi allies based on a Carter policy, Desert Storm to regain Kuwait, the simmering cold war and no fly zones with the accompanying terror strategy and bribery network setup by Saddam, the 5 years of war and sacrifice in the face of leftwing obstructions,... all of that... and Obama believes about the Iraq War... He won that! ...You didn't build that.

Now with Afghanistan, he came to office, promised he would charm our allies in to a more vigorous share of the fighting, a Surge of American troops (Wish I would have thought of that), and a promise to pullout all of our troops as soon as the Taliban and Al Qaeda survivors of Obama's scourge agree to wave nicely as we leave.

At the DNC, the mention that he is in the process of bringing our troops home means...

The Afghanistan War....I won that, ...you didn't build that

This all from the man who shot Liberty Valance (OBL).

Better than all these things is the so called Arab Spring. The phrase describes something that does not exist, nor did it ever. He just believed that by stating it existed, it was so.

He compared the Tahrir Square "Twitter" people and the subsequent rulers of Egypt and all the other nations in the Mideast that were going to follow their lead as akin to Martin Luther King, Ghandi and those that tore down the Berlin Wall. Wait I thought the Berlin Wall fell on its own with no help from Reagan or Thatcher? But apparently this regime fell and the Arab Spring began, because Obama showed them the way of peace. They love Obama and so does the whole world.


So changing what Biden referred to as savages, a part of the world where peace was considered impossible, Obama won over the struggle to build a lasting Middle East Peace, ...He won that.... You didn't build that.

They now live like MLK and the Mahatma in the peaceful communes of Kashmir and the Southside of Chicago.

So how is it that the rioters in Cairo carry banners that they hate Obama. How is it that his favorite foreign policy bumper sticker, that he killed OBL is the same thing they put on banner that they hate. Yet, Obama marches his people out to say, they hate a bigoted movie only, we are just misunderstood because of an intolerant person in our midst and it has nothing to do with Obama the liberator, or the constant refrain the week before of "Osama Bin Laden is dead"... "Obama dances on his grave", Obama came, he saw, he put a bullet in Osama's head and then dumped him in the Persian Gulf as crab food".

If the world is all at peace and Obama solved all these issues, what is that I saw briefly on my TV set on Sept. 12, before the Networks got the memo to limit the images of burning buildings and the mention of the daily death count.... or the embargo on images of the 33 nations with Mobs carrying "Obama must die" signs.

Obama said he won the peace, so if the state run media has the urge to deliver what was once called "News" that would run counter to his narrative.

So Obama just declared that there was no war. He had done it before, it worked before, so one last time for old times sake. He sent out Hillary, Carney, Rice and Nuland and they all said, that might have seemed like a series of terror attacks, and I know it seems like its not a coincidence that it happened on Sept 11 and that our Ambassador was one of the Americans killed, but really, it was just a demonstration of civil disobedience that became over exuberant.

So Obama declared it an Occupy movement type event instead of an attack on America and He won that. In fact, King and Ghandi are examples of our finest traditions,...community organizing, so let them have their fun, try to understand their rage, bury the unfortunate dead and let's move "Forward".

Bill Clinton was not the well seasoned former Yale Hippie some Manhattanites want to believe. He inherited the weird populist dictatorial hucksterism of the region that encompasses southern Arkansas, Northern parsishes of Louisiana and North western Mississipi. The Delta Democrats like Huey P. Long were skilled plutocrats who could charm and press the flesh, but idealistic they were not. It was pure power that made even LBJ tip his hat. That was the real Bill Clinton and the Manhattanites are not his peers, they are his Marks. He could pivot because he knew the Con, the Mark, the setup and the getaway. Obama has none of that. Obama drinks his own bathwater. He believes he is the greatest President of all time and he was convinced of that before he took the oath,...and nothing can change that.

Obama is the first truly Post Modern President. He believes by creating the symbols and illusions of leadership to others, that it is real. He believes other Presidents have been good showmen and that he is their better.

“And that’s important, but, you know, the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

You mean like....ummm... your legendary 2008 campaign story that Clinton called a fairy tale?

Clinton, Jan. 8, 2008: It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.

The scary thing is, I really think he believes his own BullShit. God Help Us.

Obama still lying on last weeks Al Qaeda attack and his secret Blind Sheik negotiations that lead to them

State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland lied today when she claimed there have been no recent talks with Morsi's government on releasing the Blind Sheik.

As I have been following this story since before the Sept 11 Embassy attacks, The story of Obama's weird secret dealings with radicals in Egypt is getting creepy on stilts.

Here is the latest. Amidst recent information from White House sources that Obama is negotiating with Egypt (who are in essence acting as a stand in for Al Qaeda on the matter) regarding the release of the Blind Sheik, the State Dept. spokesperson gave a carefully worded response.

“Let me say as clearly as I can, there is no plan to release the Blind Sheik – there is no plan,” Nuland said. “To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians.”

Consider the careful phrasing:

"There is no plan" No Plan Right Now!!! Does this statement deny negotiations or just that an agreement has not yet been arrived at?

"To My Knowledge" The Secretary or President might have discussed these matters, but me personally, no I have plausible deniability, even though, just like Jay Carney, my job is SUPPOSED to be having that knowledge and sharing it, but in reality my job is to make sure you never find out what we are doing behind that curtain.

"We have not been approached..." They have mentioned it and we contacted them to keep it on the Downlow until after the election.

"Recently" It depends on what you mean by "Recently".

Rep Peter King in June, which seems pretty recent condemned the White House hosting Gammal Islamiya member of Parliament visiting the White House.

Also here.

King noted that last week, Eldin met with senior State Department officials and reportedly requested the transfer of the jailed leader of his group to Egyptian custody.

It would seem that's a pretty "Senior Diplomat" and pretty "recent". Gammal Islamiya is the Blind Sheik's terror organization that bombed the World Trade Center along with 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his nephew Ramsi Yousef. Morsi is pleading for Rahman's release primarily on behalf of Gammal Islamiya and their parent organization Al Qaeda. He is also asking for all Gitmo prisoners too.

So Ayman Zawahiri, on behalf of "Al Qaeda Prime" demands Abdel Rahman's release. Osama Bin Laden demanded it. Zawahiri's brother demanded it while at the Cairo riot on 9/11 in the form of a prisoner exchange and peace plan. Rahman himself obviously favors it. Rahman's sons, also at Cairo riot demanded it and warned 2 weeks before riot that the 911 riot was for the purpose of their fathers release. Morsi, leader of Egypt. has asked for Rahman's release and in his campaign promised it would come to pass. The leader of Rahman's terror organization which is officially part of Al Qaeda visited the White House and demanded it. Lastly, the Rahman Brigade in Libya that bombed the Benghazi consulate 5 separate times before it executed a military assault on the compound and murdered 4 Americans including our Ambassador...they clearly want the Blind Sheik released.

All these people working together for the same purpose.

And along with that huge list of monsters who are demanding the WTC93 terrorist, mass murderer and member of Al Qaeda's release, Obama is not only chatting them up about the possibility AND knowing what he knows,.. that they had made these demands, then threatened to attack our embassies for that purpose, gave the date of the attack, Sept. 11 and had previously bombed the consulate in Benghazi,... and then followed through on their threat, and attacked our embassies and in Benghazi what can only be characterized as an Al Qaeda terrorist attack with multiple high value American targets being murdered and their bodies desecrated and dragged through the streets in a manner similar to Fallujah... and the white house implies that a lengthy chat on the phone with Morsi has tidied things up. The notion is outrageous.

Obama had foreknowledge they were coming at the very least and failed to connect the dots. He also sent a message through out his administration that it is more important to conceal threats than spot them and deal with them. This was an Al Qaeda terrorist attack combined with a series of other mixed threat attacks and his Chamberlin-esque negotiations encouraged them and his response to this terror assault is to have a "serious talk" on the phone with Morsi? We have bombed the crap out of people for less. The Problem is Obama is complicit and a major retaliation would send up red flags how much of a fool Obama has been on the ludicrous idea that the Arab Spring itself ever existed. If it ever did it was 8 years ago when Iraqi women with purple fingers said "Thank You America" which may have been destroyed by Obama's anti war movement which gave encouragement to Al Qaeda to bomb mosques, create chaos and buy time for America to grow weary of the whole thing.

It is truly disgusting on par with George Orwell's 1984 to see Jay Carney, Ambassador Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland lie and claim this whole thing is about a movie and only a movie and is not a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, but a giant flash mob by a group of child like street urchins who Joe Biden once implied are incapable of ever becoming civilized.

But Obama tells them he is like them, "peace loving" and his predecessor deserves their scorn. Remember how the 2008 Obama campaign claimed he would reverse the trend of hatred of America, just by using his "Campaign charm". What sounded so "charming" in 2008 in Berlin became the "Bowing, groveling and 'Bush Bashing' Apology tour of 2009". Well Played, Sir!

I wish I could see who else was in the room on speakerphone with Morsi during that Sept 12 phone call from Obama. I can only imagine how they lunged for the mute button when the muffled chuckles turned to falling down laughter.

They do Love us again, Mr. President... for entertainment value. They are not laughing with us, they are laughing at us.

Stop lying. Put your Big boy pants on and tell the truth. You Blew it!

This can only get worse.

Obama outsourced US Jobs to China again with his Stimulus program and your money

As I pointed out during the RNC, when Obama and his people accused Ryan of lying in his speech, the main focus being erroneously on Ryan's truthful description of Obama's broken promise to rescue the Janesville plant, the facts were actually much worse for Obama. In fact, Obama not only broke his promise to rescue the plant and keep it open for "100 years", he took their votes, took their union money and he took their jobs and he shipped them to China.

He shipped the jobs to China because they were willing to give desperately needed cash to help Obama restructure GM by building trucks and vans in Jilin China, instead of Janesville. Now, why didn't the Janesville workers have a big chunk of money they could give Obama to outbid the Communist government? Because Obama and his allies in the Democrat Party had made the production of America's most profitable vehicles, trucks, vans and SUVs excessively costly because they claim it damages our atmosphere. This ignores the fact that China shares the same "Earth's atmosphere" with us.

Now we have another example of Obama outsourcing jobs to China to prop up his big government programs. In this case Obama claims evil geniuses in China are beating lazy Americans in the Solar Panel game, because they get unfair subsidies. But Obama used your tax dollars, the Stimulus money to subsidize many solar companies, including half a billion just for Solyndra,...and not just to help it succeed, but to intentionally delay the imminent collapse of the company to project a political image to keep a party in power that you may not agree with. Your money used against you.

And as it turns out, who was subsidizing the Chinese solar panel industry? You were! and it was illegal. But that didn't stop Obama from outsourcing the green jobs he promised would save our economy.


Feds ignore rules and use stimulus cash to buy Chinese solar panels

Government officials blame unfair competition from China for the collapse of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, but such concerns didn’t stop the federal government from breaking stimulus program rules to use Chinese solar panels atop a federal building housing the offices of a senator, congressman and several agencies.

Even the contractor questioned whether Chinese-made panels could be used under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus program that mandated use of U.S.-made products. His query in early 2010 was dismissed and the General Services Administration moved forward with using the Chinese panels on the Sen. Paul Simon Federal Building in Carbondale, Ill., records show.

Questions about the panels, which were assembled overseas, were raised in a four-page advisory memo sent by the inspector general to the GSA in the summer of 2011, but the findings take on added significance as government officials increasingly place blame on Chinese subsidies for troubles in the U.S. solar market.

Since last summer, Solyndra LLC and another solar company, Abound Solar, have filed for bankruptcy despite receiving generous federal loan guarantees. After both bankruptcies, government officials were quick to place blame on subsidies from China that allowed foreign solar panel manufactures to sell their products below cost, squeezing U.S. solar companies.

When Obama claimed the green economy would save us from Economic decline by imitating the communists in China,... maybe we should imitate the Chinese by taking things from Obama, like his job. It's the only thing he really cares about.