Obama’s Disturbing Remarks

Remarks by the President

at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

Washington Hilton Hotel

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Good evening, everybody. Good evening. I could not be more thrilled to be here tonight — (laughter) — at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This is a great crowd. They’re already laughing. It’s terrific.

Now, if I do win a second term as President, let me just say something to all the — (applause) — let me just say something to all my conspiracy-oriented friends on the right who think I’m planning to unleash some secret agenda: You’re absolutely right. (Laughter.) So allow me to close with a quick preview of the secret agenda you can expect in a second Obama administration.

In my first term, I sang Al Green; in my second term, I’m going with Young Jeezy. (Laughter.)


THE PRESIDENT: Michelle said, yeah. (Laughter.) I sing that to her sometimes. (Laughter.)

He sings THAT to her??? Read the lyrics if you can stand to – they are very explicit – but find them here:

THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we ended the war in Iraq; in my second term, I will win the war on Christmas. (Laughter.)

HUH? Win the WAR ON CHRISTMAS? Did you know there was such a thing? Well, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Christmas is detested by almost everyone for its supposed Christian overtones, and they have been de-christianising it for years. It’s not politically correct to have a religious festival that is so blatantly Christian. So it’s becoming a “winter festival” instead.

“In the past, Christmas-related controversy was mainly restricted to concerns of a public focus on secular Christmas themes such as Santa Claus and gift-giving, rather than what is sometimes expressed by Christians as the real “reason for the season” – the birth of Jesus.

Modern-day controversy occurs mainly in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and Ireland, and usually stems from a contrast between the holiday’s significant social and economic role in these countries and its strong association with Christianity in an increasingly multiculturally sensitive and religiously diversifying society.

In recent decades, public, corporate, and government mention of the term “Christmas” during the Christmas and holiday season has declined and been replaced with a generic term, usually “holiday(s)”, to avoid referring to Christmas by name.

Also, many retailers are asked to greet their customers with “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” than with the traditional “Merry Christmas”.

It has also been further argued that as western society continues to diversify culturally and religiously, public recognition of a potentially sectarian holiday, such as Christmas, may be seen as non-inclusive or offensive to non-Christians or non-celebrants in general.”

However, do you want to vote for a man who openly (even in jest) aims to “win the war against Christmas”? – presumably, to completely overturn any religious connection to that time of the year. It’s disturbing to say the least that these are the principles of a man whose words and actions affect many if not most of the nations round the world.


THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we repealed the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” — (applause) — wait, though; in my second term, we will replace it with a policy known as, it’s raining men. (Laughter.)

July 22, 2011 President Obama formally certified on Friday that the American military is ready for the repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy as Pentagon officials said that nearly two million service members had been trained in preparation for gay men and women serving openly in their ranks. Enactment of the repeal will come in 60 days, on Sept. 20. The two-month waiting period is called for in the legislation passed late last year that ended don’t ask, don’t tell, the 17-year-old law that banned openly gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from military service. As of Sept. 20, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country, Mr. Obama said in a statement. Pentagon officials said they would be looking in the next two months at gray areas that might allow them to extend some benefits to same-sex married couples in the military. (Source)


What’s Obama referring to? He’s aiming to push the gay agenda even further!

There’s an ongoing conspiracy theory that says Obama is gay, and was even “married” during his college years and is seen in photographs wearing a wedding ring on his ring finger at that time. A spoof profile that he wrote for college lists one of his accomplishments as “deflecting persistent questions about the ring on my left hand.”

Be that as it may, it’s certain that Obama today does support gay marriage. In addition, his choice of song “Raining Men” is now hailed as a GAY ANTHEM, like “YMCA” by The Village People, and the gay community helped popularize it.

The song was written by Paul Jabara and Paul Shaffer in 1979 originally for Dave Balfour’s album ‘Stars’ (it was eventually discarded),and originally recorded by The Weather Girls in 1982. It was covered by Martha Wash (of The Weather Girls) as a duet with RuPaul in 1997, Geri Halliwell in 2001 and by Young Divas in 2006. The song is hailed as a camp classic and more recently as a dance anthem, gay anthem, and as a classic feminist anthem.

There is a gay blog called “It’s Raining Men” to which I won’t give the link but if you are that interested you can find it yourself on Google, and the strap line reads: “Breaking barriers and giving expression to the gay community” – therefore we have to ask ourselves why, of all songs, Obama would choose this one as his theme and anthem for his second term!

THE PRESIDENT: In my first term, we passed health care reform; in my second term, I guess I’ll pass it again. (Applause.)

I’m not qualified to comment on the Health Care Reforms, but I know they are hotly debated in the States – nonetheless, Obama chose to throw this comment in as another part of his supposed conspiracy agenda. Draw whatever conclusion you like from that!

Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “liar” in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.

I can’t stand him any more, he’s a liar,” Mr Sarkozy said in French.

You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day,” Mr Obama replied.

The exchange at the G20 summit was quoted by a French website, Arret sur Images, and confirmed by other media. The remarks – during a private conversation – were overheard by a few journalists last week but were not initially reported, the BBC’s Christian Fraser in Paris says.

Journalists at the bilateral press conference had been handed translation boxes but had been told not to plug in their headphones until the backroom conversation had finished. But those who did heard the revealing comments.

For several days there was media silence in France about the exchange – a decision had apparently been taken not to embarrass the French president. A correspondent for Le Monde newspaper referred to the conversation without the quotes.

But Israeli newspapers have reported it in full. It is said Mr Obama was taking Mr Sarkozy to task for voting in favour of the Palestinian bid for full membership of the UN cultural organisation, Unesco, a bid that was approved despite American opposition.

The remarks indicate a breakdown of trust with the Israeli leader which could have wider implications for the Middle East peace process, our correspondent says.

New International Peace Plan for Israel

The “Mideast Quartet” is to present an international Peace Plan in a last-minute effort to stop the Palestinians from seeking unilateral recognition at the United Nations in September. The Quartet’s envoys – representing the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia – are planning to present a new international peace plan at a summit in Washington on July 11, based on US. President Barack Obama’s Mideast speech on May 19.

LINK:  What Obama did to Israel See here “What Obama did to Israel” and what it will mean for Israel (Washington Post article).

The summit will be taking place at a very critical time – only four days before the appointed date that the Palestinians set to officially appeal to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and to send him Palestine’s request for full membership at the UN.

The Palestinians have said they are prepared to consider the peace plan, but the political adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas said the leadership are preparing the text of the declaration that will presented to the UN in September, should talks not go ahead.

It will include, he said, references to Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, and UN resolutions 242 and 194 on the return of Palestinian refugees and establishment of a state based on territories prior to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

(click the link above to find out how this will affect Israel).

The Proposal
The Palestinian leadership formally decided to seek UN recognition in September of a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Palestinian officials plan to ask the United Nations to recognise an independent Palestinian state within 1967 borders. The idea is strongly opposed by Israel and to some extent, the United States.

What are the Palestinians asking for?

The Palestinians, as represented by the Palestinian Authority, have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

In 1988, the late Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, unilaterally declared the establishment of a state. This won recognition from about 100 countries, mainly Arab, Communist and non-aligned states – several of them in Latin America. Recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state by the UN would have greater impact as it is the overarching international body and a source of authority on international law.

For years, the Palestinians have been collecting recognition of a state of Palestine from individual countries and so far 112 nations have done so, mostly in the developing world. The Palestinians predict they will have 135 recognitions by September – more than two-thirds of the 192 U.N. member states.

Their bid at the United Nations would be a more dramatic step: seeking some sort of official recognition by the world body as a nation defined by the 1967 borders.

Late last year, Palestinian officials began pursuing a new diplomatic strategy: asking individual countries to recognise a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.

Now they want the UN to do the same. This would entitle them to full member state representation at the UN, where the Palestine Liberation Organisation currently has only observer status.

It could also have political implications allowing Palestinians greater access to international courts where they could possibly launch legal action to challenge the occupation of territory by Israel.

What is the process?

The 15-member UN Security Council needs to recommend statehood to the General Assembly. If it does, then a vote on membership by its 192 members could take place on 20 September. Approval requires a two-thirds majority – or 128 votes. Currently 116 countries are said to recognise Palestine but the Palestinians hope they would gain the support of up to 150.

The US is the main obstacle to a General Assembly vote because it has veto power as a permanent Security Council member. In February, the US vetoed a resolution, which was co-sponsored by 130 countries, condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace. This time around, the Palestinians are hoping to persuade the US to at least abstain.

As a back-up, they are exploring other possible legal options. These include a loophole created by a 1950 resolution, which may allow the Security Council to be bypassed on issues of “world peace”. The Palestinians and their supporters are also looking at ways to press for UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947 to be enforced.

The resolution calls for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab one. At the very least, the Palestinians say they want the General Assembly to accept Palestine as an observer state.

What does the Palestinian proposal entail?

The formulation of the resolution that is emerging from Ramallah will be a “cut and paste” job of lines from the president’s speech on May 19, in which he presented the formula of the 1967 lines with mutually agreed border adjustments.

In a keynote policy speech on 19 May, US President Barack Obama issued a clear call for Israel and the Palestinians to use the borders existing before the 1967 Six Day War, with land swaps, as the basis for talks. However, he made it clear that an appeal to the UN for full membership for Palestine would be a mistake.

Mr Netanyahu rejected President Obama’s proposal outright, saying the Jewish state would be “indefensible” if it returned to the 1967 borders, which would exclude dozens of Jewish settlements. He also rejected the idea of dividing the city of Jerusalem. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their capital.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday implored Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, calling it a “basic demand” for achieving peace in the region. Netanyahu directly addressed Abbas in this plea: “Just say these words – ‘I accept a Jewish state’. It is a basic demand for peace.”

After the snub delivered to Obama by Benjamin Netanyahu, the American President is not eager to use the right to veto again. Nor would siding with Israel against the odds look good for his re-election. Therefore, the Americans have been investing special effort in enlisting key European countries, first and foremost Germany – the weak link in initiatives depicted as being against the Jewish state – along with Britain and France, the permanent European members of the Security Council.

Obama has warned the Palestinians twice in recent days against unilateral moves.“The United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum,” he told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC in a speech in Washington on Sunday. However, the U.S. would clearly want to avoid being put in the position of having to veto Palestinian statehood.

What if there is a deadlock?

President Barack Obama threw down a gauntlet this weekend: no vote at the United Nations, he asserted, would ever create a Palestinian state.

Never before has the assembly taken on a new member state without a nod from the council. But legal experts say there may be ways to maneuver around that block. One possibility of bypassing the Security Council – at least to a degree – is the so-called “Uniting for Peace” resolution, first invoked in 1950 to circumvent further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean war, U.N. officials say.

To date, 10 emergency special sessions have been convened under “Uniting for Peace.” The Palestinians and their supporters could seek to hold another one, arguing that not recognizing a Palestinian state constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

Who supports and opposes the UN option?

After the recent reconciliation deal between rival political factions, even leaders of the Islamic militant organisation, Hamas, acknowledged there was a broad consensus on the establishment of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, though they formally still refuse to recognise Israel and their Charter is committed to its destruction.

The appeal to the UN is also backed by the 22-member Arab League. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Friday that the international community should accept the Palestinian request to become a UN member

Cyprus on Monday said it would rally support in Europe for the Palestinian bid for UN recognition of statehood in September. Cyprus recognized a Palestinian state on 1967 borders in January.

The main opposition comes from Israel. “Peace can only be achieved around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement will not bring peace,” Mr Netanyahu told a joint session of the US Congress in May.

Some major European Union states are looking increasingly favourably on the idea of recognising a Palestinian state. This is mainly because of their disappointment with Mr Netanyahu’s government in Israel-Palestinian peace talks and what they see as its recalcitrance over settlements.

In the coming weeks, both Palestinian and Israeli delegations will be on a diplomatic drive to win countries around to their point of view.

The Palestinian Authority had deployed delegations to make the rounds of nearly a dozen countries to try to drum up support for their bid to have the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state. They have to submit their bid by July 15 in order to have it considered at the UN General Assembly in mid-September.

Palestinian officials will visit Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several other countries that have not yet endorsed the Palestinian plan for recognition, and all Palestinian ambassadors would meet in Madrid in early July to discuss how to gain the support of European Union member states.

Questions and Answers:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13701636

Bin Laden Raid: Questions we should Ask

President Obama’s Pants on Fire??

“methinks he doth protest too much”
Maybe I’m becoming way more sceptical now that I’m in my dotage, but the bin Laden exercise is looking more ridiculous as it progresses down its rocky road of multiple “corrections” – and how convenient the timing, just as the re-election looked uncertain and embarrassing evidence about Obama’s birthplace was about to surface?

That much-circulated photo, so carefully stage-managed, of President Obama and others watching live footage of the Navy SEALs gunning down “heavily armed” (correction unarmed) people! (I would have looked shocked too, if I’d been in the room, but Hilary Clinton later confessed she was just coughing, not covering her mouth in shock.)

Now, if I was going to launch a pre-emptive strike on a terrorist cell, I’d probably not think to arrange for the official White House photographer to take photos of me triumphantly watching the action on a live feed. Or, if I needed that much proof, I’d show the actual screen I was watching as well.

But we have no photos of the monitors Obama was watching with his staff, nor any videos of the “firefight”. No bodies either, nor any photos of them. Oh wait, we ARE going to release the photos! No – hang on, we decided not to after all.

I give a great big Hmmmmmm.

The official White House account of Osama bin Laden’s demise has had more cosmetic surgery than Michael Jackson.  The many  contradictions were explained by “confusion”. Press Secretary Jay Carney said the story line was being “corrected”.

He added: “One of the things we all have to be careful about is the idea that you can suddenly rush to transparency and understanding in a matter of minutes or hours on the first day.” No, by all means keep up the obfuscation for as long as possible!

Some of the White House contradictions and corrections that have emerged so far:

  • bin Laden’s son Hamza was killed in the raid. Corrected to that of another son, Khalid.

Hamza or Khalid – Which Bin Laden son was killed in the Abbottabad raid? There are contradictory reports on who was inside the compound at the time of the raid and who was killed, injured or survived the US attack. But which son actually died – US officials now say the hunt is on for Hamza who “may have escaped”.

Nobody knows where he is – perhaps in US custody along with others from the compound, and whether or not bin Laden died years ago, died in the raid, or is now tucked away in a US military stronghold we don’t actually know for certain, and are not supposed to ask. Not that I care that much – but honesty and transparency is always comforting in supposed democratic Government.

John O’Brennan, the chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama, said in a White House press conference on May 2 that the US Special forces had killed Hamza Bin Laden, the 22 year-old son of the Al-Qaida leader.

Question: Were there any civilian – I mean, how many civilian casualties were there?

MR. BRENNAN: Bin Laden died; the two al Qaeda facilitators – the brothers, who were – the courier and his brother in the compound; bin Laden’s son Hamza; and the woman, presumed to be his wife, who was shielding bin Laden.

Since that press conference it became clear, the woman that assaulted the American soldiers in the room with Osama Bin Laden did survive the raid and was not killed but shot in the leg. From documents found inside the Abbottabad compound it is possible to suggest the woman is Bin Laden´s youngest wife, Amal al-Sadah from Yemen.

Today the New York Times reveals some new details of the Abbottabad raid in a inside account. According to the NYT, the Navy Seals Team first shot a bodyguard of Bin Laden who tried to attack them and then also killed a woman.

“When the commandos moved into the main house, they saw the courier’s brother, who they believed was preparing to fire a weapon. They shot and killed him. Then, as they made their way up the stairs of the house, officials said they killed Bin Laden’s son Khalid as he lunged toward the Seal team.”

So, which account is to be trusted as for now? Was the Bin Laden son who was killed taken by the US soldiers along with the body of Osama Bin Laden, and was it Khalid or Hamza?

Other contradictions include:

  • Bin Laden’s wife died while shielding the terrorist leader from U.S. gunfire. But was merely shot in the leg, although another woman did die.
  • Bin Laden died in a bloody firefight.  No, Bin Laden did not engage in a firefight.  Bin Laden “was not armed.” Version three: he had an AK-47 “nearby.”
  • US officials said that “cellphones were strictly forbidden at the compound” but another reported that Navy SEALs confiscated a number of mobile phones. Which is true?
  • Obama and his team “monitored the raid”. But CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted “there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know about.”
  • A transport helicopter experienced “mechanical failure” and was forced to make a hard landing during the mission. Then it was changed to: a top-secret helicopter clipped the bin Laden compound wall, crashed and was purposely exploded after the mission to prevent our enemies from learning more about it.
  • The bin Laden photos would be released to the world as proof positive of his death. Then: the photos would not be released to the world because no one needs proof and it’s more important to avoid offending Muslims.
  • Bin Laden’s compound was a lavish (million-dollar) mansion. Photos show Bin Laden’s compound as a glorified pigsty.
  • Bin Laden’s compound had absolutely no television, phone or computer access. Video shows the was stocked with hard drives, thumb drives, DVDs and computers galore.
  • A gung-ho Obama spearheaded the “gutsy” mission. Later: Obama dithered for 16 hours before being persuaded by CIA Director Leon Panetta.
  • Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and close advisers watched the raid unfold in real time — “minute by minute,” according to Carney.  Later:  they weren’t really watching real-time video “minute by minute” because there was at least nearly a half-hour that they “didn’t know just exactly what was going on,” Panetta clarified.

And – those “home videos”. US officials released five videos they found on a computer in the compound, which offered “proof” of Bin Laden living there. Correction – one video of a grizzled old man who could be anybody, watching TV, and the place and date is unidentified; and four old propaganda videos without soundtracks, so the dates cannot be verified.

The official line for why Bin Laden looked so much younger in these is that “he dyed his beard”. [and his hair and eyebrows? and used botox to smooth his wrinkled face??].

It wasn’t but a moment before they appeared on Youtube, and I was able to watch them in more detail than on the BBC news. What I really wanted to check was the EARS. You can always spot a doppleganger by the ears. Unfortunately the fuzzy videos didn’t give me clear enough resolution to do so, but maybe someone with more expertise than me could check.

However, I did notice that there appeared to be more cables than needed for a simple TV/DVD setup and remembered the announcement that this compound “had no phone or internet”. Yet it had computers that could be seized for valuable information, and a lot more electronic equipment standing around. Strange?

A senior U.S. intelligence official says bin Laden’s home was “a command-and-control center for the terrorist network”, but with no visible means of communication?

Bin Laden’s wife supposedly told the story of how they evaded capture for so long by hiding in a secret location in a small village in Pakistan. This apparently without any of the villagers noticing.

Chak Shah Muhammad, the Pakistani village Osama bin Laden’s wife said they made their home for two and a half years, previously to the compound in Abbottabad, is a small farming village of low brick houses, poultry farms and wheat fields. But the feudal landlord who owns much of the land in the area, his tenant farmers and the local police were all in disbelief.  “It’s absurd,” villagers said.

“It’s impossible,” said Liaquat Khan, the main landowner in the region, whose ancestor Shah Muhammad gave his name to the village and founded the nearby town of Haripur. “It is a very open place, with 50 houses, and they are very poor people who live there,” he said. The feudal system is such that no villager would host an outsider without checking first with him. “They give me daily reports from the village,” he said of his tenants.

We envy him. It seems this Pakistani landlord is more in touch with his surroundings and society than we are, as the “daily reports” we receive never quite seem to make sense or confirm events.  It leaves us wondering, whom do we trust? Do they wonder why conspiracy theories have proliferated as a result?