Obama vs Trump?

The Muslim world is erupting and Obama sits on the fence, while Hillary dithers. He started it by bowing to US enemies and blowing off US friends, like he did with Canada and our security seat. He is a disaster. The US has gone from powerhouse to laughing stock. I honestly worry about what will happen in the next 2 years of Obama's reign. Can the US hold it together long enough to survive?

Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt

The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt show that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

The east is in turmoil. There are very few safe havens left in this world of ours. Can the US turn to a successful businessman to lead them? I'm not so sure he's the one to lead them, I like Palin much better, but he's better than lots of other Republican candidates.

Donald Trump is mad as hell — and he’s letting everybody know it. In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Friday, the billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star lashes out at China, OPEC, Obama’s Middle East dealings, the president’s State of the Union address and more.

Trump takes aim at America’s “horrible” trade agreements, declares that the Middle East is going to explode, warns about “catastrophic” oil prices, and charges that Obama’s Afghanistan policy is “dangerous and stupid.”

He also complains that the United States is a “laughing stock” throughout the world — and confirms that he is seriously considering running for president in 2012.

Obama vs Trump? A community organizer vs a self made billionaire? Hummm, let me think about that one. Personally, at this point, ANYONE would be better than Obama.

Help is coming. Our PM is going to the US to talk to President Obama on Friday. This is, as far as I know, an unscheduled visit. Why? I suspect that Obama is wanting some advise on the Middle East and recognizes that PM Harper is a smart man, with a strong moral and political sense of what to do. Face to face so no wiki-leaks happen.

If nothing else, call on the useless UN to intervene and make sure that Egyptians actually get to vote in a fair and democratic election in September. Do not let a fake "intern" government take over Egypt, like Hezbollah has taken over Lebanon. Once that happens the Egyptians will be no better off than they were before, they will have just exchanged one dictator for another.

Keep warm my American friends, both blizzards will eventually end.

Hillary Gets Slapped!

You know all the bowing and sniveling that Obama has been doing for the Arabs? You know how Obama has been smacking America's friends, like Israel by refusing to be photographed with Benjamin? It seems that it is sinking in to other countries that America is weak.

Maybe it was something she didn't say.

Peruvian President Alan Garcia Perez walked out on Secretary Hillary Clinton on Monday during a joint news conference in Lima, Peru, creating an awkward moment for the secretary of state.

Now, if I remember correctly, the Canadian media made a huge issue out of PM Harper being late for a photo op. It was, like a national embarrassment. I wonder if the American media is going to make an issue out of the slap in the face that Hillary got from the President of Peru, or will they bury it?

The White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state.

The Israeli prime minister and Obama didn’t pose for photos together, and Netanyahu was excluded from dinner with the president Tuesday night.

When Netanyahu wouldn’t agree to concessions, Obama left a meeting with him, though he invited Netanyahu to stay at the White House, talk to Obama advisers and “let me know if there is anything new,” a U.S. congressman who spoke to Netanyahu, told The Times of London.

“It was awful,” the congressman said.

One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages,” conducted in such an adversarial environment that the Israeli delegation eventually left, worried that their White House phone conversations were being bugged.

Pay back time I guess. Talk about arrogant. Is that a requirement to be a progressive? Arrogant and elitist, the definition of a Liberal. Obama showed how juvenile he is by his behaviour towards Netanyahu. What worries me is that Israel's opponents (which seems to be the whole world) are now emboldened and might feel that they can assault Israel without any consequences.

Who will stand with Israel? So far Canada is a firm friend, but will the Conservatives wimp out like they did with our troops? Will a majority mean more to PM Harper than being a true friend to a country that is under daily fire from Muslims? Will the Conservatives stand firm or will they fold under pressure from the opposition?

This is a true test for the Conservative government. Do they have the balls to continue supporting a nation that is under constant fire from every nation around them? How about Canada sends one of our ships to escort the Israeli flotilla bound for Turkey.

Why did the Peruvian President feel it was acceptable to leave Hillary at the podium? He knew that Obama is weak, and that America has no power. All the despots are taking advantage of the weakness of America under Obama. Can we all survive another two years of Obama? All I can say is good job Peru!

Arctic.....Everybody Wants A Piece!

I must admit I hadn't heard about the Arctic Counsel until Hillary blasted Canada for not including it in today's meetings, and with the same breath asked Canada to stay in Afghanistan. The US, making enemies of their friends, at an astonishing rate!

Clinton blasts Canada for exclusive Arctic talks

Ms. Clinton's bombshell, delivered in a prepared statement as she was meeting with Mr. Cannon and senior ministers from three other Arctic coastal nations - Denmark, Norway and Russia - cast a cloud over a meeting that was intended to show solidarity among the ocean's five shoreline states and highlight their "unique" position as chief guardians of the region's environment and resource riches.

"Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region," said Ms. Clinton, "and I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.

"We need all hands on deck because there is a huge amount to do, and not much time to do it. What happens in the Arctic will have broad consequences for the earth and its climate. The melting of sea ice, glaciers and permafrost will affect people and ecosystems around the world," she said, "and understanding how these changes fit together is a task that demands international co-operation."

Well Hillary, good to see you didn't need a teleprompter to read your prepared notes, too bad you can't think about what is good for the Arctic, and it is not the EU! They banned seal, why should they be included in Arctic discussions? Also if you would look on a map, the only true Arctic nations are Canada, US (thanks to Alaska), Russia, Norway and Denmark. Why should Finland be included? Or Iceland, they are in the Atlantic, it appears India and China want in on our resources as well.

To many in the European Union - which was recently blocked by Canada and others from gaining even "observer" status at the Arctic Council because of the continent's ban on seal products - Monday's party-of-five brainstorming session represented a troublesome narrowing of polar interests at a time when the wider world, including China and India, is angling for greater involvement in charting the future of the circumpolar realm.

HA! At least Canada stopped the EU from gaining any status on the Council! Maybe the EU should think about their position... ban seal products worth about 2 million a year, or get your grubby little muckers on some Arctic oil?

Oh, Hillary, the Northwest passage is Canada's waters, NOT international waters, that's what this is all about isn't it? Band together with other countries so you get free sailing through our waters.

If you think that is bad, go to the Arctic Counsel's site and see how many organizations and special interest groups think they should have some say in what we do with our land!

The environmentalists have their sticky little fingers all over this Council.

There are six Working Groups of the Arctic Council:

* Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP)
* Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
* Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
* Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR)
* Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)
* Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG)

No working group on oil drilling? It's an environmentalists dream come true! No wonder only countries who actually have land in the Arctic Ocean were invited, look at just one of the lists of organizations:



Well, well, well, looky there, it's the WWF!! Who would have guessed? These are the organizations that want some say in the Arctic? PM Harper sure is right, if we don't protect it, we will lose it! Not to be left out:



That's right the UN! The snakes are all lined up in the grass, just waiting for the Arctic to melt. Too bad, it's going to get much colder before anyone is going to be cruising through the Northwest passage with anything but a nuclear sub!

Butt out of Canada's Arctic!

McCain Gets Mulroneyized!

The Times have dug back, way back, to the 1990's to try and dig up some dirt on McCain, kind of like the Liberals here dug up Schreiber from the 1990's to try and smear Mulroney, and hopefully PM Harper and the Conservative party. Maybe the Times should have asked our press how well that worked before they ran with a "undisclosed" sources article.

The New Republic claims it was about to break an article about the Times, and that is why the Times story came out now.

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

Now I'm not up on the US nomination races, but it appears to me that the Liberals are up to the same tricks in the US as they are here in Canada. I suspect if you are a Liberal, you love the Times report, even though it's unsupported by FACTS. Too bad the Times had to tip their hand early, I bet they were saving it to use after McCain won the Republican nomination. Funny, this just might unite the right in the US.

If you have to dig up 15 year old dirt on someone, your case is weak, and your political stance is showing. Just like the Liberals here in Canada trying to dig up dirt on Mulroney, it backfired here, I expect it to backfire in the US. Maybe the Times should write an article about how Hillary sticks by her man, through thick and thin, short and tall, young and old. Maybe they could do an article on Belinda and Bill Clinton! She was seen with him at numerous times, at numerous functions. NO? Wonder why not?

Liberals, always looking for smut, because it's what they do. You could smack a Liberal over the head with a moral, and they would have no idea what hit them.