A questionable Barack Obama Photoshop has been doing the rounds since Tuesday, courtesy of South Korean news agency Yonhap.

Perhaps taking inspiration from their media colleagues in the North, the news outlet published the image alongside a story about South Korean premier Park Geun-hye meeting President Obama.

The picture was later removed, but The Atlantic was quick to swoop on the amusing Park-Obama Photoshop, which purports to show the two world leaders shaking hands at the White House.

It’s a fairly risible effort, and calls to mind the infamous Photoshopping habits of North Korea’s KCNA news agency; earlier this year, the North’s state-run outlet pasted a few extra hoverboats into a scary-looking military image.

Apparently, the entire Korean peninsula sucks at this stuff.

The Atlantic notes that Yonhap may have formed its unconvincing ‘shop from an image of Park meeting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday.

What’s most peculiar about the Park-Obama Photoshop is that there was actually tons of genuine images of Park and Obama chumming it up at their White House encounter – some of which even featured the pair shaking hands.

But instead, Yonhap reached for the Photoshop, and we all know how that can end (least of all me).

Pyongyang, you have some competition.

Horrible Obama Photoshop Published By South Korean News Agency is a post from: The Inquisitr

Barack Obama will skip Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday, sending in his place two former Republican Secretaries of State, James Baker and George Shultz.

The White House confirmed the attending US delegation will also include Barbara Stephenson, charge d’affaires to the UK, and Louis Susman, former UK ambassador. Former vice president Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Newt Gingrich, and Ross Perot will attend independently.

News that Obama would skip Thatcher’s funeral has not gone down well with some of the British press. Numerous right-leaning newspapers have criticized the no-show, with The Daily Mail writing:

“Although Nancy Reagan, 91, is too frail to attend today’s funeral, what’s the current First Lady Michelle Obama’s excuse? Or, that of the stayaway Obama Administration generally? They simply don’t deem the event important enough. Yet Margaret Thatcher and then prime minister Tony Blair (with wife, Cherie) attended the 2004 funeral in Washington DC of ex-President Ronald Reagan. Poor show.”

The Sun, meanwhile, adds:

“Downing Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, First Lady Michelle and Vice-President Joe Biden. And none of the four surviving ex-US leaders – Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr, Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr – is coming either.”

That said, Obama is not alone in missing Lady Thatcher’s final send-off. Argentina — who the UK fought in the 1982 Falklands War, while Thatcher’s government was in power — has declined an invite to the funeral.

German leader Angela Merkel will also not be attending but has sent her foreign minister instead.

Obama spoke warmly of Margaret Thatcher after her death last week. In a statement, the president said:

“As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best. And as an unapologetic supporter of our transatlantic alliance, she knew that with strength and resolve we could win the Cold War and extend freedom’s promise.”

However, actor and comedian Russell Brand disagreed with Obama’s verdict, writing in the left-leaning Guardian:

“[Margaret Thatcher] is an anomaly; a product of the freak-onomy of her time. Barack Obama, interestingly, said in his statement that she had ‘broken the glass ceiling for other women.’ Only in the sense that all the women beneath her were blinded by falling shards. She is an icon of individualism, not of feminism.”

What do you think of the news Obama will skip the Thatcher funeral? Sound off in the comments!

Obama To Skip Thatcher Funeral is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama released his federal income tax returns today, revealing that he and the first lady brought in an adjusted gross income of $608,611.

The Obamas paid $103,214 in taxes. This came from a tax rate of 18.4, which the president has sought to rise through policy proposals such as the Buffett Rule aimed at raising taxes on families that make over $250,000. The Obamas paid an additional $29,450 in state income taxes to Illinois.

President Obama and Michelle Obama also donated an additional $150,034 — nearly one quarter of their income — to 33 different charities. $103,871 went to one charity in particular, the Fisher House Foundation.

As president, Obama’s federal salary amounts to $400,000 a year. Earlier this month the president announced that he will give five percent of his 2013 salary to charity as an act of solidarity with thousands of federal employees who will be furloughed as a result of the sequester. This amounts to roughly $20,000.

Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden also released their 2012 federal income tax returns today. Together, the Bidens brought in an adjusted gross income of $385,072. They paid $87,851 in federal taxes, $13,531 in Delaware taxes, and $3,595 in Virginia taxes. They gave an additional $7,190 to charity. The vice president has also committed to donating 5 percent of his salary if his staff is affected by the sequester budget cuts.

The Bidens have a substantially smaller income than much of Congress. Secretary of State John Kerry used to be one of the wealthiest members of Congress when he was still a senator. His wife is reportedly worth more than $1 billion. OpenSecrets.org shows Representative Michael McCaul of Texas as the wealthiest politician still in Congress, worth over half a billion dollars.

President’s Obama’s federal salary does not represent the bulk of his income. He has made a substantial amount of money from his books, making the Obamas millionaires. Obama’s complete tax returns are available for download from the White House website.

Obama’s Tax Returns Show The First Family Made Over $600,000 In 2012 is a post from: The Inquisitr

Is Glenn Beck a better basketball player than Barack Obama?

President Barack Obama has the reputation as an avid basketball aficionado, both as player and a spectator. He even goes on ESPN for a NCAA March Madness bracketology session. The president plays a lot of golf too as everyone is well aware.

Yet during the recent fitness-themed White House Easter Egg Roll, the president went an unimpressive 2-22 in a hoops-shooting session, including blowing a layup.

According to the media pool report, “At one point, POTUS handed a ball to a boy and asked for help. The boy made the layup. ‘He couldn’t make one. I had to help him out,’ said Kahron Campbell, 10, of Landover, MD.”

This poor showing by Obama prompted media commentator Glenn Beck to try to outperform the president on his Blaze TV/radio show from his Dallas studio. See embedded videos below.

At the outset of the challenge, Beck described himself something along the lines of America’s worst athlete, noting that “I have absolutely no skills in sports whatsoever.” He later added: “I throw like a girl.”

Beck nonetheless somehow managed to go 6 for 22. That’s “three times as good as the president,” co-host/executive producer Stu Burguiere observed.

According to Beck, “The guy [President Obama] just can’t admit that he sucks at anything … He just can not admit that he’s not the world’s greatest at everything.”

Shooting indoors on a makeshift court with a couple of guys hanging around is not the same as being outside surrounded by lots of visitors and media, however. Obama seemed to be shooting from longer range as well.

During the same video segment, Beck mocked disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner for evenn considering running for NYC mayor.

Does it surprise you that non-athlete Glenn Beck “got game” (to some degree anyway)? Do you think Glenn Beck and Barack Obama should go one-on-one to settle this once and for all?

Watch The Glenn Beck Vs. Barack Obama Basketball Shootout [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Kamala Harris, California’s state Attorney General, got some effusive praise yesterday from none other than President Barack Obama at a California Democratic party fundraiser in Atherton. So far, so good. Harris was an early supporter of Obama’s and a speaker at the Democratic convention in Charlotte in 2012 when he was campaigning for re-election.

She’s also a rising star herself, with rumors flying that she may run as governor for California.

So you’d expect the president to say nice things.

However, a firestorm flared up when some observers thought he was a little bit too nice when Obama introduced Kamala Harris this way:

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country – Kamala Harris is here.”

Sounds like a typical fundraiser introduction to me, but some people reacted like they’d never heard a lame joke before.

For example, The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta called Obama’s compliment a gaffe even while acknowledging that “nobody looks like Harris at her age (48) without effort and without herself valuing beauty and fitness.”

Franke-Ruta added: “President Obama’s remark mistook the setting. Just as it’s perfectly appropriate to tell a colleague she looks gorgeous when she’s dressed to the nines for some black tie work event, it would be inappropriate to refer to her as ‘gorgeous over there’ during a work meeting.”

The reaction from Twitter was priceless:

President Obama said “california attorney general kamala harris ” was a ” HOT babe” hahaha (just kidding)

— JOELISKA (@warpony2310) April 5, 2013

“Calling people ‘good-looking’ — men, women, Penguins — is just something he does.” Best take on Obama’s AG intro nymag.com/daily/intellig…

— Emma Fidel (@emmafidel) April 5, 2013

Kamala Harris is very attractive but I think Nevada AG #CatherineCortezMasto is way better looking.

— Mary Langford (@MaryinNV) April 5, 2013

Folks are up in arms about Obama calling Kamala Harris the best looking Attorney General. She’s 48 & puts 20 somethings to shame. Sit down.

— Sarah B. (@Mocha_Bee) April 5, 2013

James Carville also thinks Kamala Harris is ‘the best-looking’ attorney general bit.ly/ZimcIC #tcot

— Drudge Report (@tweetdrudge) April 5, 2013

Disappointed in Obama for “best-looking Attorney General” line. washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-pol…

— Jed (@elysdir) April 5, 2013

For once Obama was right! Calif Atty General Kamala Harris is very good looking! Get over it!

— Steven Pigott (@StevenPigott) April 5, 2013

For the record, by all reports, the crowd in attendance at the actual event just laughed, as crowds always politely laugh at this sort of mild joke. The whole Kamala Harris/Pres. Obama flap appears to have been dreamed up later, after a few people reviewed the transcript of what was no doubt an otherwise not-too terribly interesting fundraiser.

What do you think? Is Kamala Harris indeed the best-looking attorney general? And was it OK for Obama to say so?

[Kamala Harris official photo courtesy California Attorney General's Office]

Best-Looking Attorney General? Kamala Harris Gets Strange Compliment From Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama attended a couple fundraisers in San Francisco Wednesday that brought Democrats $3.25 million to use for the mid-term elections coming up in 2014. This marks Obama’s first fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the current election cycle.

At the fundraising events, the president talked about his plans for the second term and expressed frustrations he has felt so far.

“My hope is that we’re going to see more and more Republicans who say, you know what, I didn’t come here just to fight the president or demonize Nancy Pelosi, I came here to get some stuff done, and they will be greeted with great enthusiasm by me and I think by Nancy, if we could get some more stuff done right now,” Obama said at one of two fundraising events held in the Bay Area. ”But, realistically, I could get a whole lot more done if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House.”

California Representative Nancy Pelosi is currently the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. She became the first female Speaker of the House when the Democrats took control of the House in a landslide in 2006 and lost the position when Republicans took back the House in 2010. If the Democrats regain control of the House, Pelosi would get to return to her role as speaker.

At the end of February, the DCCC had $7.6 million cash on hand, compared to $4.4 held by the National Republican Campaign Committee. The president will attend 14 fundraising events altogether this year. Five events will go towards electing representatives while another five will go towards senators. The remaining two will be shared events aimed at electing Democratic candidates in general.

Still in California today, the president expressed frustration with the degree of gridlock in Washington. He is confident that Congress will pass immigration reform, but gun control proposals have come against a more ardent opposition. The GOP feels compelled to attract Latino voters following two presidential defeats, but it does not wish to alienate its base by caving on gun control. If the Democrats manage to regain full control of Congress in 2014, it may make it easier for Obama to pass his agenda during his final two years as president. On the other hand, a Democratic majority does not guarantee an easy ride. Obama walked into the White House with both houses of Congress in his corner in 2008, and passing health care reform still proved to be a monumental undertaking. What is just as frustrating as an antagonistic majority? The filibuster.

Obama and congressional Democrats are thankful for the $3.25 million, because they are going to need it.

[Image via Randall Stevens / Shutterstock.com]

Obama Fundraiser Nets Congressional Democrats $3.25 Million is a post from: The Inquisitr

Secretary of State John Kerry, the richest member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet, has joined other members of the administration in donating five percent of his salary in the spirit of sharing the pain thousands of federal workers will feel when they start to furlough work in the upcoming months. He follows similar gestures by the President and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

The Treasury will not see Kerry’s money. Instead, Kerry is donating his 5 percent to a charity for department employees. Impressive. So, how much money is that?

Kerry will bring in $183,500 from his government salary this year. That means his donation amounts to $9,175. That is no small amount of change, unless you try to divide it among all the workers who might need help, but that is besides the point.

When Kerry disclosed his finances for 2011, he was worth $184 million. His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune. She is reportedly worth over $1 billion. The Kerrys make the Obamas look relatively poor. With money like that, what’s nine thousand?

Again, besides the point.

White House officials are taking turns offering up portions of their salaries. Hagel got the ball rolling with 20 percent. Obama put down five percent. Kerry matched him with another five percent. Congress, on the other hand, remains pretty mum. Kudos go out to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Alaska Senator Mark Begich, Utah Senator Mike Lee, and Washington Senator Jay Rockefeller for having all expressed their intentions to give up a portion of their salaries, but that amounts to just four percent of the Senate. The branch of government most responsible for imposing the sequester budget cuts on everyone else finds itself undeserving of a pay cut.

Congress does not vote to cut its own pay, but it understands a cut in votes. Still, donating a portion of one’s salary would be more of a symbolic gesture than anything, and failure to do so is not likely to jeopardize anyone’s job. Perhaps Obama could promote a few senators to serve Kerry overseas and allow a wave of eager candidates to donate portions of their salaries as they seek to fill the newly opened seats. Too much?

John Kerry Donates 5 Percent Of Salary To Charity is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he will return five percent of his salary in an act of solidarity with thousands of federal employees across the country who will be furloughed as part of the sequester budget cuts Congress failed to stop earlier this year. He is the latest in a growing list of public officials willing to take a small hit financial hit for the larger blow federal workers will feel in the months ahead.

Yesterday Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel revealed his intentions to take a 20 percent pay cut. This is the same pay cut that thousands of Defense Department workers will feel in the coming months as they are asked to stay home from work one day a week for fourteen weeks. Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter had already announced that he would also give up a portion of his salary before Hagel was even confirmed.

Obama’s salary is set at $400,000 a year. A five percent cut would remove a $20,000 wedge from that total. Five percent is the same reduction level that non-defense departments took when the sequester budget cuts began, so, while five percent may be less than Hagel’s 20 percent, the sentiment is the same. Besides, the President’s salary is larger, meaning he is giving back a smaller piece of a larger pie. He will write a check to the Treasury each month for the remainder of this fiscal year, starting this month.

Neither public figure will feel pain as a result of their gesture. Both are wealthy men, and much of their income does not come from their government salaries. Obama brings in large royalties from his books, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.  Still, the Obamas are new millionaires. Much of Congress consists of old millionaires whose pockets run much deeper.

Speaking of Congress, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Alaska Senator Mark Begich, Utah Senator Mike Lee, and Washington Senator Jay Rockefeller have all expressed their intentions to give up a portion of their salaries, but, given that a majority of the Senate passed a measure last month urging lawmakers to take a pay cut in solidarity with thousands of other Americans, that list of names should be much larger. Congress is the chamber of government responsible for the automatic budget cuts, but it appears the least willing to own up to it.

Obama campaigned heavily against the sequester and proved unable to stop it. The President is now offering up five percent of his salary as a result. Who’s next?

[Image by White House (Chuck Kennedy) (The White House official photostream [1]) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons]

President Obama Will Cut 5 Percent Of His Salary: Who’s Next? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Newt Gingrich released a statement Tuesday commending President Barack Obama’s plan to spend $100 million mapping the human brain.

“President Obama is taking a very important step toward the most dramatic breakthroughs in human health,” Gingrich said in a statement. ”Brain research is vital for Autism, Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, traumatic brain injury, mental health, and a host of other concerns.”

The federal government will fund $100 million in research via The National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the National Science Foundation. The White House states that federal research agencies will partner with organizations that are also investing in relevant neuroscience research. Such companies, foundations, and private research institutions include the Allen Institute, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. The funding for the BRAIN initiative will come out of the 2014 budget.

“When I was Speaker we balanced the federal budget while doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health,” Gingrich continued. “We should have increased the National Science Foundation budget at the same time. One of the keys to brain research is better computation and better storage systems. President Obama deserves credit for taking an important step in the right direction.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor took advantage of the opportunity to announce the House of Representative’s own plan to fund additional research on the brain. He unveiled the Kids First Research Act, a proposal not yet introduced on the House floor. Cantor said in a statement:

“Mapping the human brain is exactly the type of research we should be funding, by reprioritizing the $250 million we currently spend on political and social science research into expanded medical research, including the expedited mapping of the human brain. It’s great science.”

The president’s speech unveiling the BRAIN initiative can be viewed in its entirety below:

Both announcements came on World Autism Awareness Day. Autism is a brain disorder generally recognized by the repetitive behavior and dampened social skills that it causes. Scientists and doctors still do not fully understand autism, making treatment one of the many possibilities hoped to stem from additional research on the brain. Gingrich, Cantor, and Obama all agree on the importance of researching the human brain, making the issue one of the most elusive kinds to pass through Washington.

[Image by Gage Skidmore [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Newt Gingrich Gives Obama Props For BRAIN Initiative is a post from: The Inquisitr

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is so unpopular right now that he currently polls lower than Obama in a state where nearly 60 percent of voters went for Romney in the last presidential election. The president has an approval rating of 43 percent in Louisiana, five points higher than Jindal’s low approval rating of just 38 percent.

A statewide poll by Southern Media Opinion & Research shows that Louisiana voters are frustrated with budget cuts made to higher education and health care under Jindal. The public does not approve of a plan to privatize the charity hospital system, and most Louisianans are not fans of the governor’s proposed state tax overhaul.

Jindal’s popularity has plummeted from a more comfortable approval rating of 51 percent back in October. On the positive side, things seem to have bottomed out. A poll by Public Policy Polling showed Jindal with a 37 percent approval rating back in February.

Only 27 percent of voters support Jindal’s plan to abolish personal and corporate income taxes, and only 33 percent support even the idea of further budget cuts. 80 percent of voters feel the state government should not think of making further cuts to higher education and health care. The message is clear: enough is enough.

Roughly half of respondents said they experienced hardship as a result of budget cuts. Louisiana has a large number of low-income families. Budget cuts have scrapped or risked the jobs of state employees, hospital workers, and campus faculty and staff.

Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana in 2007 and gave the response to Obama’s State of the Union address in February 2009. He previously served two terms in the US House of Representatives from 2005 until 2008. He was the just the second Indian American to serve in Congress and is the first Indian American to serve as a Governor. The second Indian American governor is fellow Republican Nikki Haley.

Jindal is considered one of the possible Republican presidential contenders in 2016, but these latest poll numbers do not speak well for his chances. Then again, only 32 percent of Massachusetts voters felt Romney should be granted a second term as governor when he left office, and he managed to gain his party’s presidential nomination. Jindal, like Florida Governor Rick Scott, may have a low approval rating, but he maintains the support of his conservative base. Jindal may poll lower than Obama among general Louisiana voters right now, but that does not mean a liberal candidate stands a better chance of winning the state come 2016.

[Image by Gage Skidmore [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Obama Polls Higher Than Jindal In Louisiana is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Obama Administration has asked Carolina Kennedy to serve as the next US Ambassador to Japan and is currently vetting the candidate for the post. If Kennedy is nominated and confirmed, she will become America’s first female Ambassador to Japan.

Kennedy has wanted the post for years now, but she was not offered the job in President Barack Obama’s first term. She has not had the strongest relationship with Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, following her high-profile endorsement of then-Senator Obama for president at a time when the Democratic party favored Clinton. She went on to co-chair the search for Obama’s vice president and addressed the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Talk of promoting Kennedy to the ambassador position for Obama’s second term predated current Secretary of State John Kerry‘s arrival. Now that Kerry holds the position, Kennedy stands to benefit from their warmer relationship. Kerry served with Carolina’s uncle, Ted Kennedy, as Massachusetts senators for over twenty years.

Talk circulated a month ago that Kennedy had become the top candidate for the post, where she will replace John Roos, a lawyer who handled the Obama campaign’s finances in California. It is a long-standing practice that leading campaign fundraisers are promoted into ambassador posts once their candidates are elected.

Carolina Kennedy is the 55-year-old daughter of former president John F. Kennedy. Born in 1957, she was just a young child when her father was assassinated in Dallas, Texas in late 1963. She now serves on the boards of many non-profit organizations and works as an attorney, writer, and editor.

The Washington Post reports that Japan prefers for their American ambassadors to be heavyweights. Previous Ambassadors to Japan include former Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield and former vice president Walter Mondale. If Kennedy is granted the position, her husband Edwin Schlossberg is expected to remain in New York while she works full-time in Tokyo.

[Image by Bill Burke/Page One, for the aflcio2008 (Photo credit: Bill Burke/Page One) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

Caroline Kennedy Vetted To Become US Ambassador To Japan is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama urged allies in Congress to remember the children killed across America as they push for gun control measures. The president gave an emotional speech Thursday flanked by mothers that have lost their children to gun violence. He called the many tragedies that have burned themselves into the national consciousness justification to act now.

“As any of the families and friends who are here today can tell you, the grief doesn’t ever go away,” Obama said. “That loss, that pain sticks with you.  It lingers on in places like Blacksburg and Tucson and Aurora.  That anguish is still fresh in Newtown.”

Obama listed universal background checks, penalties for people who buy guns and sell them to criminals, an assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and mental health treatment as gun control measures that will come to a vote in the coming weeks with the support of the vast majority of the American people. The president argued:

“None of these ideas should be controversial,” Obama said. “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”

He argued that 90 percent of Americans support background checks and that both 80 percent of Republicans and gun owners agree.

“How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?,” Obama asked, drawing laughter from the audience. “It never happens.”

In his speech, the president called on Congress to show that it wants to offer more than platitudes to the victims of gun violence.

“Tears aren’t enough,” Obama said. “Expressions of sympathy aren’t enough.  Speeches aren’t enough.  We’ve cried enough.  We’ve known enough heartbreak.  What we’re proposing is not radical, it’s not taking away anybody’s gun rights.  It’s something that if we are serious, we will do.”

Following the speech, Marco Rubio joined a growing list of Republicans that have vowed to filibuster any gun control legislation. He signed a letter written by Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz Friday for Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“The proposals the president is calling for Congress to pass would primarily serve to reduce the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens while having little or no effect on violent crime,” Senator Lee said in response to the president’s speech. “It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime.”

The fight for gun control has picked up over the past week. Four days ago New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was financing a $12 million television advertising campaign. Gun control groups scheduled rallies around the country Thursday, including in Tucson and Newtown. The White House continues continues to turn to Twitter to call for action:

We should never forget—families in Newtown deserve a vote. #DemandAction, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 28, 2013

Last week, Reid dropped the assault weapons ban from the gun control bill he intends to bring to the Senate floor out of concern that he simply did not have the votes to pass it. It remains to be seen if either Senator Reid and President Obama can find the votes they need to pass the gun control measures they have pushed for.

Obama Urges Gun Control, Remembers Newtown In Emotional Speech is a post from: The Inquisitr

Two of the Obamas are in the Bahamas, but not everybody is happy about that. While first daughters Sasha and Malia enjoy some Caribbean sun, GOP congressman Steve King has been getting into a lather about the cost of their vacation.

King was taking phonecalls as part of an interview on an Iowa talk radio show when one caller complained it was “hard to stomach” watching the girls take a vacation.

“When we’re tightening our belts, either all of us should do it or none of us should do it,” opined the caller, adding, “This – I am pretty tolerant, I always have been, I usually shut my mouth. This is not acceptable.”

King, as it happens, agreed wholeheartedly with the caller. He said: “You’re on point. [President Obama] sent the daughters to spring break in Mexico a year ago. That was at our expense, too, and now to the Bahamas at one of the most expensive places there. That is the wrong image to be coming out of the White House.”

The Obamas use their own money to pay for family vacations, but many critics argue that the security costs associated with travel are difficult to justify. Indeed, President Obama’s own vacations have attracted plenty of flak in the past. Conservative sites and blogs have previously attacked the Obamas’ 2011 Hawaii vacation, which reportedly cost the taxpayer around $4 million.

However, Obama has also taken significantly less vacation time than many previous presidents. President Bush spent 1,020 days on vacation over the eight years of his presidency, a huge figure compared to the 131 days taken by Obama during his first term.

This is not the first time the Obama daughters have been targeted by rival politicians. Back in January, the National Rifle Association labeled President Obama a “hypocrite” for dismissing the idea of armed school guards when his own daughters attended a school with guards. It was later revealed the guards at Sasha and Malia’s were unarmed.

What do you make of the ‘Obamas in Bahamas’ furore? Sound off in the comments.

Obamas In Bahamas: Sasha And Malia Vacation Draws Criticism is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama arrived in Israel today for the first overseas trip in his second term.

He was greeted by Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with nearly every member of his new government, Israel’s Chief Rabbis, Christian and Muslim religious leaders, IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Benny Gantz, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and several other officials. “United States is proud to stand with you as your strongest ally and your greatest friend” Pres. Obama said upon arrival, according to CNN.

According to Ma’ariv, Pres. Obama traveled from the airport to an “Iron Dome” battery, Israel’s new anti-rocket defensive system, while escorted by Pres. Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu. He then traveled to Jerusalem to the Presidential Residence, where he was greeted by groups of school children, signed the famous Visitor’s Book and planted a magnolia tree in the presidential garden.

The magnolia was the source of a minor diplomatic incident, as the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture ordered that it be removed and sent to a lab for tests.

Another minor snafu occurred on the way to Jerusalem when the presidential limo broke down. ”We experienced mechanical trouble with one of the cars” said Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the United State Secret Service. According to CNN, the reason for the malfunction, though unconfirmed by Donovan, was that its driver refueled it using gasoline and not diesel fuel.

Pres. Obama also had a number of meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu, both in private and with additional government officials. In a press conference held tonight, Pres. Obama reaffirmed the US’ commitment to Israel’s security, stating that “the security of Israel is non-negotiable”. He also addressed the situation in Syria and the peace process with the Palestinians.

In preparation for Pres. Obama’s visit, the City of Jerusalem has hung 1,000 American, Israeli and Municipal flags throughout the city, the Old City’s walls will be illuminated with decorative lighting and several major streets have been closed off as part of the security arrangements, according to Ha’aretz.

However, in return for the inconvenience, Jerusalem residents are getting a much cleaner city, with Mayor Barkat jokingly saying, in an interview to Israel’s Channel 2 news, that its all part of  ”Passover cleaning”. The King David Hotel, where Pres. Obama and his party will be staying, has also cleaned for the Passover holiday, and will not be serving any leavened bread or grain-based alcoholic beverages (which, unfortunately, includes beer).

Tomorrow, Pres. Obama is scheduled to make a speech before Israeli students, rather than before the Knesset, as part of his desire to reach out to the Israeli public. He is also scheduled to visit the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. On Friday he will visit Yad Va-Shem, Israel’s national Holocaust museum and then travel to Bethlehem, before departing for Jordan.

Obama Arrives in Israel for First Official Visit of 2nd Term is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama signed into law today expanded protections for students on college campuses, Native American women, and LGBT victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act after a year of a partisan paralysis.

The reauthorized Violence Against Woman Act offers stronger protections against stalking and dating violence. It requires universities to inform students and staff about incidents that occur on or near campuses. The law aims to help schools, youth organizations, and domestic violence agencies to stop violence before it starts.

Other provisions of the law were more controversial. The updated version expands protections to same-sex couples and offers help to undocumented immigrants and immigrants whose immigration status is dependent on their abuser. The law grants Native American tribes the authority to prosecute domestic violence against Native Americans and non-Native Americans-alike. Native American women suffer among the highest rates of domestic violence in the country.

Republicans took issue with many of the law’s expanded provisions, which Democrats inserted after determining the political winds were in their favor going into last year’s election. The two parties failed to come to an agreement before the close of the election year.

The Violence Against Women Act first passed in 1994. It was originally drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden and passed through Congress with broad bipartisan support. The law has since been reauthorized three times, once in 2000, again in 2005, and now. The act passed the Senate last month with a vote of 78 to 22 and the House with a vote of 268 to 138. President Obama accredited the bill’s supporters across the country with its successful passage today.

“This is your day,” President Obama said in an event surrounding the signing of the law. “This is the day of the advocates, the day of the survivors. This is your victory. This victory shows that when the American people make their voices heard, Washington listens.”

House Speaker John Beohner allowed the law to come for a vote despite opposition from a majority of his party. Republicans had a poor showing among women in the recent election, and this was an issue some wanted to get behind them.

Vice President Biden joined the President in celebrating the passage of the bill:

Vice President Biden: “Because of the people in this room, every time we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, we improved it” #VAWA

— Office of VP Biden (@VP) March 7, 2013

Instances of sexual assault have fallen by two-thirds since the law’s original passage nearly two decades ago. Supporters assert that this is evidence the law has had a positive effect.

“It didn’t just change the rules, it changed our culture,” the President said. “It empowered people to start speaking out.”

Signing the expanded Violence Against Women Act comes as a political victory not just for President Obama, but for Vice President Joe Biden who has made the issue one of the causes of his career.

[Image via The Columbian]

Obama Signs Updated Violence Against Women Act is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chuck Hagel was confirmed to replace Leon Panetta as the US Secretary of State last month after nearly a month of resistance in Congress, making certain Israel supporters nervous.

Supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, gathered in Washington this weekend in the wake of a the confirmation of a Secretary of Defense that left many of them feeling uncomfortable. Hagel, a former Republican Senator from Nebraska, was originally nominated by President Barack Obama on January 7. Senate Republicans filibustered the appointment on February 14, stalling the process until relenting in a 58-41 vote on February 26.

AIPAC largely avoided the fight. The group lobbies Congress, not the President. It seeks to impact policy rather than White House personnel. Many of AIPAC’s supporters felt the group dropped the ball by silently watching as other vocal groups took a stand against Hagel. The group was hit by phone calls over the past few weeks from supporters wanting the group to do something to stop Hagel’s confirmation.

In a 2006 interview with Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller, Hagel said:

“The political reality is that you intimidate, not you — that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.”

Hagel has since apologized, saying that he should have said “Pro-Israel” rather than inaccurately single out a religion. Not all Jews support Israel, and many of the most vocal advocates for Israel are not Jewish. Regardless, his words aggravated many supporters of AIPAC and similar organizations, the ones his words directly scrutinized. The new Secretary of Defense is on record as viewing their tactics as counter-productive.

“I was very disappointed with the Hagel appointment,” David Feder, a donor from New Jersey, said. “It passed, and he’s our next Secretary of Defense, but I think he’s the wrong person for the job.”

AIPAC identifies as a grassroots movement of more than 100,000 members working to protect Israel and American interests in the Middle East and around the world. The group’s priority is to ensure that both the US and Israel remain strong and work together.

Not all of AIPAC’s supporters are disappointed by the organization’s inaction during Hagel’s confirmation process.

“It’s not AIPAC’s business,” Michael Lerner, a long-time donor from Kansas, said. “Our business is to work with congress on legislation. The president’s entitled to appoint whoever he wants.”

If AIPAC rallies Congress against Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s policies as expected, they may find many in Congress ready to put up just as much fight as they did during the confirmation process.

Chuck Hagel Confirmation Makes Certain Israel Supporters Nervous is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, has turned criticisms back to President Barack Obama over the impending sequester.

Speaking to reporters at a Republican Governors Association news conference following a meeting with Obama this week, Jindal said, “I think he’s trying to scare the American people,” reported The Washington Post on Monday, February 25.

Democrats and Republicans have until Friday to avoid the automatic spending cuts that would affect education, public health assistance, and military spending, among other areas.

Jindal’s state would take a hit of at least $75 million in education and military readiness alone, according to numbers released from the White House.

Generally, the Republican position has been for the overhaul of spending with certain exceptions to military funding and other areas, while opposing taxes that would run in addition of recent increases the President won in the debate over what to do with the expiration of the so-called “Bush Tax Cuts.”

Democrats continue to look for more revenues and some spending cuts, though Republican opposition doesn’t feel the concessions that are there would affect the country’s $16 trillion-and-growing national debt.

This was the position Jindal took when he said to reporters on Monday, “It has become clear to me that this president, this administration, has an insatiable appetite for new revenues.”

Jindal said the governors, in their meeting with Obama, wanted “flexibility” in where the cuts were made, but the President balked.

“He didn’t jump at that,” Jindal added.

Danny Kanner, spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association, pointed blame to Republicans and had some words of his own for Republican governors.

“Republican governors like to say they’re different than Republican politicians in Washington, but it’s all talk,” Kanner said. “They refuse to urge congressional Republicans to embrace a balanced approach or end special tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in order to stop job-killing automatic spending cuts, demonstrating that they have no interest in a bipartisan agreement.”

Criticisms from Jindal, however, have not been reserved exclusively for Obama and the Democratic party. In January 2013, following the defeat of Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election, Jindal issued a warning to the GOP.

“We must stop being the stupid party,” Jindal said. “We must stop looking backward … We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.”

Do you believe Jindal is right that President Obama is trying to “scare the American people” in the sequester debate? Should states be allowed to determine where spending cuts are made in the event of sequestration?

[Image via Anne Power / Shutterstock.com]

Jindal To Obama: ‘Stop Trying To Scare The American People’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

The President attended daughter Sasha Obama’s recital Saturday night at the Music Center at Strathmore.

Taking a break from his presidential responsibilities to support his daughter, Obama watched as 11-year-old Sasha performed during a dance recital just last night, reports the Washington Post.

Sasha is Obama’s youngest of two daughters. Sasha’s older sister is 14-year-old Malia.

Even though they are arguably the two most famous kids in America, Michelle Obama has said before that she works very hard to make sure that the Obama girls have a normal life.

“I want them to be normal kids, just like you guys, polite and respectful and kind,” she said back in January.

The president seemed to agree. Now that his girls are becoming teenagers, they don’t have much time to spend with their dad.

“Now that my girls are getting older, they don’t want to spend that much time with me anyway, so I’ll be probably calling around, looking for somebody to play cards with me or something, because I’m getting kind of lonely in this big house,” he also said in January, per the Christian Post.

Sasha enjoyed some spotlight of her own during Obama’s presidential inauguration ceremony when she was caught yawning. The reaction went viral.

Hang in there, Sasha. You’ve still got a big day ahead of you. gifboom.com/x/745fb39e

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) January 21, 2013

What do you think? Is it a good thing that President Obama still makes time for things like Sasha Obama’s recital? Sound off!

Sasha Obama Recital: President Takes Night Off To Be A Dad is a post from: The Inquisitr

New NRA ad features gun comments made by President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton. The “We Are America” ad targets controversial gun statements made by the two men who have both sat behind the Resolute Desk.

The NRA uses gun remarks made by both President Obama and Bill Clinton to prove the group’s stance about an assault on the Second Amendment. The gun rights commercial uses quotes which appear to denigrate gun owners, according to The Blaze. The statements are referred to as “arrogant” utterances.

Viewers are encouraged to make their voices heard in the Second Amendment debate. An excerpt from the new NRA ad reads:

“The arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder: They don’t rule us. They don’t give us rights. We grant them power. They don’t make us safe. We pay to protect them.”

The gun rights commercial by the NRA also notes that President Obama and Bill Clinton do not make Americans free, that citizens were already free. The pro-Second Amendment ad also maintains that as long citizens have the right to bear arms, we will always be free. The NRA will be running full-page ads in four states were Democratic Senators are facing a re-election battle, The Hill reports.

President Obama’s comments to a group in San Francisco in 2008 are referenced in the new NRA ad voiceover. The quote by the president reads:

“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.”

The entire tone of the Second Amendment commercial by the NRA appears to center on the fact that politicians that American voters are essentially the boss, and all lawmakers work for them.

What do you think about the new NRA ad?

[Image credit: NRA]

New NRA Ad Focuses On Obama And Clinton Gun Statements is a post from: The Inquisitr

The steady wave of US gun violence has drawn President Obama to Chicago, where Hadiya Pendleton was shot only a mile from the President’s home. First lady Michelle Obama attended the 15-year-old’s funeral and invited her parents to be present at the State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Pendleton was killed only a week after performing at Obama’s second inauguration. The King College Prep High School student was shot in the back while standing with friends in Chicago’s Harsh Park on January 29. The shooters had mistaken one of her friends for someone upon whom they wanted to enact revenge.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the president arrived at O’Hare International Airport at 1:23 pm. He is expected to speak at Hyde Park Academy about opportunities he believes will help working families such as raising the federal minimum wage and investing in education. These are issues Obama raised during his State of the Union address, and they are not irrelevant to the debate over gun violence.

The administration has argued that US gun violence stems from issues other than a lack of gun control. The President is speaking about about creating jobs and improving the economy in part because unemployment and economic instability contribute to violence and other social problems.

Over 500 people were murdered in Chicago in 2012. This was an increase of 16 percent from 2011 and the first time the city passed 500 since 2008. Chicago suffered more murders last year than New York City, a city with around three times the population. Chicago’s unemployment rate held steady at 10 percent as 2012 came to a close. If US gun violence can be tied to other social issues, Chicago is a place to watch.

US Gun Violence Draws President Obama to Chicago is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ted Nugent left the State of the Union Address largely unimpressed. The rock legend stated that President Barack Obama was simply spewing “more nonsense” during his time at the podium. Nugent maintains that nothing in the President’s gun control proposals would have stopped tragic mass shootings from occurring.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Ted Nugent was Representative Steve Stockman’s State of the Union Address guest. Stockman is a Texas Republican. The rock star had this to say about President Obama’s speech:

“Nothing Obama proposes or nothing he’s proposed would have stopped any of the shootings. None of those shooters are gonna register anything. Canada final abandoned its multi-billion waste of a C68 gun law where goose hunters and farmers had to register their squirrel rifles. And it didn’t do anything to reduce crime or save any lives. Who doesn’t know this? Who doesn’t know that registration and limitation on magazine capacity and the color of guns has anything to do with saving lives and reducing crime?”

Ted Nugent’s comments were uttered just moments after the State of the Union Address concluded. The “Catch Scratch Fever” singer was surrounded by the media just moments after the president left the stage, The Blaze notes. Nugent also added that, when the president utters a “flowery” speech, he either does nothing at all or does the opposite, BuzzFeed notes.

The rock star did enjoy a few parts of President Obama’s State of the Union Address — the parts that he couldn’t hear clearly. Ted Nugent remarked that, when he couldn’t hear the President’s words clearly, he couldn’t get angry.

Is Ted Nugent’s take on the ineffectiveness of the gun control proposals accurate?

[Image Via: Harmony Gerber/Shutterstock.com]

Ted Nugent Responds To President Obama’s Gun Control Proposals is a post from: The Inquisitr

Barack Obama has presented the Medal of Honor to former Staff Sgt Clinton Romesha because of the heroism that he displayed while on tour in Afghanistan.

The 31-year-old led a battle against hundreds of Taliban fighters four years ago. Insurgents stormed Combat Outpost Keating near Pakistan, and, at the time, only 50 US soldiers were in the compound.

The Army’s official document states that at around 6:00 on October 3, 2009, 400 Taliban fighters targeted the base in the Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province whilst many key US officers were off base.

At one point, Romesha and his men were surrounded on four sides by their assailants, who also possessed the higher ground as well as a number of dangerous weapons.

He then exposed himself to enemy fire and became wounded after he was hit by shrapnel when an RPH landed near to him. Romesha was able to lead a team and helped to defend the positon, directing air support, and then assisted injured soldiers into safe positions as well as recovering the bodies of two men who died in the attack.

Eight US soldiers died, whilst 22 were wounded in the exchange. Official documents state that Romesha personally killed 10 Taliban fighters and helped to kill 35 others because of his guidance.

Romesha becomes only the fourth living veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan to be granted the award, which is America’s highest military accolade.

On receiving the award, Romesha stated, “You’re not going to back down in the face of adversity like that. We were just going to win, plain and simple.”

Barack Obama Awards Medal Of Honor To Clinton Romesha is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Clinton tops Obama in poll data, so does that mean Benghazi did not really matter that much to a majority of Americans?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Hillary Clinton is more popular than President Obama. The former secretary of state received a 60 percent approval rating, while Obama received a 53 percent approval rating and a 40 percent disapproval by voters shortly after re-election. Now, his approval rating stands at 46 percent, just slightly higher than his disapproval.

The Inquisitr also reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally answered questions regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate last year. But in response to hard questions about the Obama administration purposefully misleading the American public, and Hillary Clinton’s handling of the State Department, all she could do was spout, “What difference does it make?”

The difference, of course, is that the lies repeated by Hillary Clinton and others attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama right before the Presidential elections. The difference is that these lies shifted the blame away from Hillary Clinton and the State Department. The difference is that Hillary Clinton claims she was clueless and uninformed about multiple requests for maintaining security in a hot zone when millions of dollars were being spent by the State Department in other locations that were hardly dangerous (yet, of course, Bush is to blame).

At this time we still do not know who else in the Obama administration or the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the Benghazi security forces at safer levels. This decision is directly responsible for lowering the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi from 34 to just three. While no one knows for certain what difference this would have made in the Benghazi attack, it’s easy to speculate that perhaps some lives would have been saved.

The worst part is that neither Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or any of the other people in the State Department were held responsible for their actions. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Deputy Assistant Secretaries Charlene Lamb, Eric Boswell, and Raymond Maxwell, and a fourth State Department official who is still unnamed, were thought to be the sacrificial lambs who would lose their jobs over the gross incompetence in providing security for the Benghazi Consulate. This phony announcement from the State Department was made under Hillary Clinton, so chalk that one up as another Benghazi lie. Yet, despite all this, people still think Hillary Clinton is doing a good job.

As Hillary Clinton tops Obama in poll data, which politician do you prefer? Do you think that Clinton, Obama, or never mind Charlene Lamb, should face repercussions for their decisions related to the Benghazi scandal?

4 men died, but seriously #whatdifferencedoesitmake? RT if you are fed up with the lies! #Benghazi twitter.com/withthetroops/…

— al vinton (@withthetroops) January 23, 2013

Clinton Tops Obama In Poll: Benghazi Apparently Doesn’t Matter is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Most Americans are probably unaware that in 1976, President Ford signed an Executive Order outlawing political assassinations. Executive Order 11905 has been affirmed by every President since, and both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan actually strengthened Ford’s edict. Despite the clear prohibition against political murder, the Obama Administration not only ignored these long standing rules, but added American citizens to the kill list. Instead of reacting with outrage, most citizens are cheering the President’s decision. The Liberals, who claim to uphold human rights are silent, as are the Conservatives, who strongly supported the use of drones on foreign citizens.

Our 44th President, Barack Obama, believes he has the power to order the death of American citizens anywhere in the world, without due process, without conclusive evidence, without giving the target the right of an attorney, without a trial, and without a guilty verdict. We can now be blown to atoms by simply adding our names to a top secret list and pushing a button on a joystick in a command center.

The support for this murderous policy among the public is enormous. Eight out of every ten Americans support the use of drones and two out every three approve of using them to kill their fellow citizens. They base their support on the claim that drones kill our sworn enemies while saving our soldier’s lives. The response is based on pure emotion; after all don’t we want to kill the bad guys and save the lives of the good guys?

However, very few of the supporters of drone attacks are willing to consider the consequences of their use. How many innocent victims have been killed by drones when they go just a few yards off target or we failed to detect the target’s wife and children in the house with him? How many non-political civilians have been radicalized after their home was demolished in a drone attack?

How exactly would the lives of our nation’s soldiers be protected if we use a drone to kill an American in one of the 50 states or the legally recognized US territories? The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military on American soil, except when there is an organized and widespread insurrection against the Federal government. Local law enforcement, not the military, is delegated to enforce the law in the United States.

At best, the current use of drones in the so-called War On Terror is a badly thought out policy of convenience. It is war on the cheap and the consequences be damned. One can only imagine the uproar in the press, and among the Democrats in Congress, if George Bush were the one behind the current drone policy. If Bush, not Obama, had issued the White Paper justifying the use of drones to kill Americans, every headline would be screaming for his impeachment. Every talking head, including British fop Piers Morgan, would bellowing “Bush is a killer” at the top of their lungs.

As of this date, drones have been used in foreign nations, but the White Paper issued by the Justice Department places no restrictions on where drones may be used in the future. Simply stated, Mr. Obama has declared that he has the power to kill Americans without due process anywhere on the planet, and he also has the power, under the frightening NDAA, to imprison our citizens indefinitely, without legal representation, and without even bothering to notify their families. If the Administration decides the individual is a threat to national security, they can be blown to bits or disappeared forever with the stroke of a Presidential pen.

Put aside your emotions and any inclination you may have to patriotically support anything the President tells you is for the good of the nation. Instead, let this sink in for a moment. The current President of the United States has made an absolutly unilateral decision, without the support of Congressional legislation, that he has the power to detain American citizens essentially forever or even kill them by simply putting their name on a secret kill list. Now, let me ask you one simple question. Do you honestly feel that that Obama is acting in a manner that follows the Constitution? Do you honestly believe the President of the United States should be able to order the death of American citizen’s without trial, legal representation, evidence or a guilty verdict?

Former Congressman and Morning Joe host, Joe Scarborough, was one of the few voices who spoke out against  Obama for his drone policy, when he made the following comment on MSNBC:

“There are no checks and there are no balances. We can kill you. We can pick you out of a list and drop a bomb on you, and not only can we kill you, we can then kill your 16-year-old son who is not even affiliated with al Qaeda, and then we can blame it on the father for us having to kill the son.”

The Obama Administration disputes its critics by the use of the nebulous and questionable legal language we witnessed in the stunning Justice Department Memo written to justify the murder of US citizens under the so-called Laws of War.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. An informed, high-level official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been recently involved in activities posing a threat of a violent attack and there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

Not only does the DOJ White Paper justify murdering Americans, the document makes no effort to define “recent” or “activities” or who might be a “high level official.” The 16 page memo simply grants the Obama Administration power to kill any citizen they decide are leaders of al-Qaeda or members of their “associated force.” The terms are vague enough to include almost anyone and there is absolutely no concern that citizens of the United States have certain special protections under the Constitutions. Instead, it gives President Obama the power of life and death over each and every citizen of our nation.

Obama’s Justice Department ruling on the use of drones relies on the concept that the War on Terror meets the definition of a legally declared war. How this magically allows the President to kill United States citizens on American soil is quite a reach, even if we were to accept the concept that the Patriot Act is somehow a legal declaration of war.

Certainly Mr. Obama would be hard pressed to cite any precedent set by prior Administrations that permitted the execution of citizens without trial, even when our nation was fighting a declared war. There are many examples of our soldiers and citizens who were brought to trial for treason against the United States during time of war. None of them were summarily executed on the order of the President without due process.

Perhaps the loyal opposition in the Republican Party will show some spine and speak out against the Obama Administration’s use of drones to kill Americans on Thursday, when John Brennan begins his confirmation hearing to become Director of the CIA. Brennan is the chief architect of the Obama Administration’s drone policy and the hearings are the perfect opportunity to bring this controversial policy out in the open. However, the vast majority of Republicans support the use of drones and it remains to be seen if using drones to kill our own citizens is enough to make them reconsider their support.

The founders of our nation warned against America becoming embroiled in foreign wars. They desired to create a nation of limited government, that gave all powers not specifically granted to the central, federal authority to the citizens and the individual States. The use of drones to kill foreign citizens is a matter of ethics and morality, but the use of drones to kill American citizens is a serious Constitutional issue. To allow the President of the United States to make a unilateral declaration that he has the right to order the murder of American citizens by placing their name on a secret kill list is a dangerous step on the road to tyranny.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Says Its OK To Kill Americans With Drones And The People Cheer [Commentary] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chris Rock, in support of gun control efforts, has stated that we should listen to President Obama because “when your dad says something, you listen.” Rock appeared and spoke today during a press conference in support of Washington, D.C., Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The two organizations held the conference in support of President Obama’s effort to reduce gun violence. They are requesting that Congress cooperate with the president to enact a ban on assault weapons and require more strict background checks on those purchasing guns.

As reported by The Blaze, Chris Rock used some interesting terminology during his speech:

“The President of the United States is, you know, our boss. But he is also, you know, the president and the first lady are kinda like the Mom and Dad of the country. And when your Dad says something, you listen. And when you don’t, it will usually bite you in the a** later on. So, I’m here to support the president.”

Rock’s speech was brief but clearly pointed out his opinion on the subject of gun control. He has made statements in the past in support of charging more for bullets and only allowing those who have mortgages to purchase guns. As reported by Politico, Rock made the following statement to the Television Critics Association:

“The gun lobby also says people need to be able to protect their property … but every mass shooting is done by guys who live with their mother. So I believe you should need to have a mortgage to buy a gun. A mortgage is a real background check.”

[Image via cinemafestival / Shutterstock.com]

Chris Rock On Obama: ‘When Your Dad Says Something, You Listen’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Much has been made of President Obama’s claim that he is an avid skeet shooter and, therefore, a devoted supporter of the Second Amendment. Republicans were heard laughing from coast to coast, and the White House responded by releasing a photo of the President, in his best blue jeans and perfectly ironed t-shirt, happily blasting away with his trusty shotgun. Perhaps the President should have discouraged the idea because some very clever folks decided that altering the original photograph in dozens of truly twisted ways, and posting the results on the World Wide Web was the perfect activity for a rainy afternoon.

And ya know what folks: They were absolutely right. Internet users are rolling in the aisles as one new version after another of Obama with a shotgun appears on Twitter and dozens of other popular websites. So far, we are happy to report that the vast majority of the altered images have been basically tasteful and only mildly sarcastic, and no one has really gone for the jugular in a mean and vicious manner. Despite the mainstream media’s constant attempts to convince Americans that Conservatives are all Dr. Evil wannabes who live to slander the President, almost all of the images are simply good-natured attempts to bring some humor to a very serious subject.

Critics of the President are wondering why they never heard a single word about his skeet shooting hobby before since Mr. Obama is quite fond of writing and talking about every second of his life since the moment of his birth. Of course, the President didn’t help himself when he made the following statement to a skeptical public:

“Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time. Not the girls, but often times guests of mine go up there.” (We are trying to picture Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas waiting their turn on the line, shotguns in hand.)

Meanwhile, experienced shooters are wondering about Obama’s skeet shooting style. He may end up with a dislocated shoulder if he insists on holding the shotgun that high, but who is going to correct Barack Obama when he has a loaded weapon in his hands? The vast majority of Americans are thinking, “Nice Try, Mr President, but we don’t buy the story” and hoping he doesn’t pull a Gerald Ford and injure an innocent bystander.

We will leave it to some of America’s more dedicated investigative journalists to get to the bottom of this story — if there are any left who are willing to dig for information about Mr. Obama. While we wait for the results of their probe, you might enjoy a choice selection of our very favorite versions of that renowned contemporary photograph, “Modern American President With Shotgun.”

Be vewwy vewwy quiet, I’m hunting Wepubwicans.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 2, 2013

Photo of Palin with gun=unmitigated evil. Photo of Obama with gun today=exemplary person

— M.Joseph Sheppard (@MJosephSheppard) February 2, 2013

Obama Shotgun Photo Inspires Hilarious Photoshop Revisions Of The Iconic Image is a post from: The Inquisitr

An Idaho lawmaker made it clear in no uncertain terms that she’s not a fan of the Affordable Care Act (popularly referred to as Obamacare), opining that the legislation is not unlike a Holocaust on America.

Sheryl Nuxoll, a Republican state senator from Idaho, wrote an email to supporters criticizing President Obama’s signature legislation, reports The Huffington Post. In it, she said:

“The insurance companies are creating their own tombs. Much like the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps, private insurers are used by the feds to put the system in place because the federal government has no way to set up the exchange.”

When asked by the Idaho Spokesman-Review to clarify her comments, Nuxoll walked back slightly saying that she meant no disrespect, but stood by her statement.

“I just want people to know the truth. I felt badly for the Jews – it wasn’t just Jews, but Jews, and Christians, and Catholics, and priests. My thing was they didn’t know what was going on. The insurance companies are not realizing what’s going to end up in their demise.”

Currently, Idaho is weighing a decision to support Governor Butch Otter’s proposal to set up a state-run exchange plan, which he believes will let state authorities have more control over the market.

Now, I’m not fan of Obamacare, and I have written dozens of articles highlighting its weaknesses and flaws in the past (heck, I did two just today). But do I think Obamacare is a Holocaust? No way. Not in the slightest. And it’s precisely that kind of melodramatic language that keeps both sides from having a substantive discussion on the issue of healthcare. As always, you’re free to believe whatever you like about it, but just because making such an outrageous claim sells newspapers doesn’t mean it’s remotely applicable.

Idaho Lawmaker Compares Obamacare To The Holocaust is a post from: The Inquisitr

The rumors are flying fast and furious in the Windy City. While it has been confirmed that Former President Ronald Reagan’s childhood Chicago home was sold by the current owner and the building is scheduled for demolition, the reports that the space will be used as parking lot for the Obama Presidential Library remain unconfirmed.

Apparently President Reagan’s former homes have become a hot commodity as of late. His 4700 square foot home in California’s luxurious Pacific Palisades recently went on the market for a cool five million dollars. The home was a gift from General Electric in the 1950′s to thank Reagan for hosting the The General Electric Theater on CBS.

President Reagan lived in the Chicago apartment building at 832 E. 57th Street way back in 1915, and, judging by outside appearances, the building has seen better days. Reagan survived a near-fatal case of pneumonia when he lived in the building, but he maintained fond recollections of playing with his siblings in nearby Hyde Park.

In his memoirs, President Reagan recalled seeing horse drawn fire engines “come down the street at full gallop, the sight made me decide I wanted to be a fireman.” Obviously, his ambitions changed as he grew up, and eventually Ronald Reagan became the much loved and greatly respected 40th President. Republicans and Conservatives still remember Reagan as America’s greatest President and often cite his term in office as an example of Democracy in action.

Reagan’s home was sold to the University of Chicago, and legal approval was granted to demolish the building. Soon, the rumors about university’s plans for the property began to gain traction, due in part to the school’s extensive lobbying to become the location of the Obama Library.

Rumor mongers and critics of President Obama may be unhappy to learn that the University of Chicago is also building a major new hospital nearby, and they may need the property for that project. Even White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the rumors, advising everyone to “stand down” with a post on his twitter page. For good measure, Carney added a sarcastic, “‘The report is false. Shocking, I know’ to his tweet.

The man who sold the property the University, Frank Grabowski, told reporters the Chicago official he spoke with about the sale was aware President Reagan lived in the building as a child but “wasn’t concerned and wanted to pull it down.”

One can only imagine what critics of President Obama will read into Mr. Grabowski’s comments. The word is already out on Conservative website’s that the Chicago Democratic machine wants the building torn down because it is a reminder of a successful Republican President. While most rational people may doubt that there is a deep dark conspiracy involved, many have expressed the view that Reagan was an important historical figure and his childhood home should be preserved.

For the moment, a last minute stay issued this month by the city of Chicago has the demolition on hold. Advocates of preserving the home for posterity have 90 days to convince the powers that be to change their minds. It has been suggested that The University of Chicago could make more money for their endowment fund if they renovated the building and turned it into a museum.

Once again, the wonderful spectacle of the American partisan politics is on display in all its glory in the Windy City. Hip Hip Huzzah!

Ronald Reagan’s Chicago Home To Be Demolished: May Become Parking Lot For Obama Library is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama has authorized $155 million in Syrian aid. The White House reportedly hopes that another massive infusion of taxpayer dollars will help stem the violence in the country. There should not be a single American dime being sent overseas until we have our own fiscal house in order.

Congress has not passed a budget in four years and our national debt is growing by the minute. Although the innocent victims in Syria, and elsewhere need help, Congress must take care of responsibilities here at home first.

When a worthy charity comes knocking at the door, you help as much as you can. But, responsible American citizens do not give away money when their own bills are going unpaid. A common sense approach to spending the hard-earned money of American workers should be taken every time a penny is approved for both domestic and foreign initiatives.

A statement President Obama posted on the White House website in reference to the Syrian aid reads:

“The relief we sent doesn’t say ‘Made in America’ but make no mistake – our aid reflects the commitment of the American people. We’re under no illusions; the days ahead will continue to be very difficult. But what’s clear is that the regime continues to weaken and lose control of territory. The opposition continues to grow stronger. More Syrians are standing up for their dignity. The Assad regime will come to an end.”

Both Congress and the president need to consider their commitment to the American people when sending funds overseas. The latest wave of Syrian aid brings the total of taxpayer funds spent in the country over the last two year to $365 million, The Blaze notes.

Do you think the United States government should be sending millions to foreign nations when domestic funding constraints are causing law enforcement, firefighter, and teacher layoffs and increased taxation?

President Obama Sending $155 Million To Syria [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Key senators are working out the kinks on a bipartisan immigration plan, but President Obama is crafting a proposal all his own, which is said to include reforms for same-sex couples.

Obama will unveil his plan in Las Vegas on Tuesday, but BuzzFeed talked with multiple sources familiar with the plan to get an idea of what it might include. “Same-sex couples will be part of his proposal,” said one Democratic source. A second was quick to note that same-sex couples, in which one is American and the other an illegal immigrant, are not included in the Senate’s bipartisan proposal.

Obama’s proposal does indeed answer a concern of many in the LGBT crowd, namely that heterosexual bi-national couples can move an illegal partner on the path to citizenship through marriage, while same-sex couples many times do not have that option. It’s not always simple, but it is possible to confer citizenship through marriage for heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples say that the option simply doesn’t exist for them.

Democratic Senators working on the bipartisan immigration reform package said that LGBT rights were not included, while Republican Marco Rubio’s press secretary Alex Conant added that: “The issue of same-sex couples and immigration are details that still need to be worked out in Senate.”

The LA Times reports that the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform package is ambitious, but has already faced opposition on both sides. It remains to be seen what the response to President Obama’s proposal will be, but his frameworks are sometimes regarded as too dramatic or impractical, and are rejected by both parties.

Which immigration reform proposal do you think Americans will respond to more positively? Obama’s, or that of the bipartisan group of senators?

Obama’s Immigration Plan Includes Same-Sex Couples is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama appeared with Hillary Clinton for an interview on 60 Minutes Sunday, leaving many to speculate that the joint sit-down was an unofficial endorsement by Obama for Clinton’s potential presidential bid in 2016.

Though Obama and Clinton were once bitter rivals during the 2008 presidential primaries, they’ve worked closely since the latter’s appointment to the office of secretary of state. It’s no secret that Clinton is thinking about running again, but then again, so is VP Joe Biden, notes Newser. So by sitting down with Clinton, is Obama endorsing her over his own right-hand man?

Not necessarily.

“The main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say ‘thank you,’” says President Obama. “I’m going to miss her, wish she was sticking around, but she has logged in so many miles I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit.”

Clinton also tells Steve Kroft that a sit-down alongside Obama is long overdue. She says that a public chat with Obama would have been “improbable” after 2008 because “we had that very long, hard primary campaign.”

Clinton says that she fought hard, “but I lost. And then President Obama asked me to be secretary of state, and I said yes. And why did he ask me, and why did I say yes? Because we both love our country.”

So is Clinton gearing up for a 2016 run? Depends who you ask. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said on CNN that while Clinton has the resume, her decision will likely hinge on her health.

“The question is whether she’s up for the exhaustion of going to the Iowa caucus, in New Hampshire, in South Carolina and having (Monica) Lewinsky and other issues from the ’90s come back and haunt her in some ways,” Brinkley said. “Does she have that fight in her?”

Did Obama Give Hillary Clinton An Unofficial Endorsement For 2016? [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney blasted today’s Federal Appeals Court ruling that declared the President’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. Carney presented a defiant attitude, attacking Senate Republicans, while claiming the court ruling only affects one case before the NLRB. Carney added the three appointees cited in the case would remain in their positions at the agency.

The appointments were made by the President when the Senate took a 20 day break in January of 2012. Senators returned every three days for Pro Forma sessions designed to prevent the Senate from going into recess. The President decided on his own accord that the Senate was in recess despite the insistence of Republican Senators they were still in session. Obama made his appointments and the Republicans blew a gasket.

After a bottling company called Noel Canning was hit with an unfavorable ruling by the NLRB, they sued, claiming the ruling was illegal because three members of the NLRB were illegally appointed. Republican Senators joined the suit, the President lost and received a major rebuke in the process. Now Obama is fuming mad and he is rolling out all the big guns in an attempt to put the blame on the Republicans.

Obama’s push-back against the court decision began innocently enough, with Carney making his afternoon statement from the White House. While refusing to say whether or not the White House will appeal the ruling, he repeatedly insisted the ruling would not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Carney called the decision by the three Federal judges “novel and unprecedented. It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations.”

Carney completely ignored the fact that the judges cited constitutional precedent repeatedly in their decision. They were quite specific when they pointed out that until 1867 there were no recess appoinments and in the next 80 years there were only three. The judges said this showed “an assumed absence of [the] power to make such appointments.” It is only since the Truman era that Presidents began to vastly expand their use of Executive Privilege, thus blurring or ignoring the separation of powers between three branches of the Federal Government.

Once Carney was done making his comments, the Democrats trotted out AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, the man who boasts about his weekly visits to the White House. Trumka is roaring mad over the courts decision, which he sees as an attack on organized labor:

“In a radical and unprecedented decision, the court has interpreted the Constitution in a way that would deprive both Republican and Democratic presidents of a critical tool they have used hundreds of times over the years—including 179 appointments by former President George W. Bush and 139 appointments by former President Clinton—to keep agencies functioning and make the government work. In this case, the affected agency is the National Labor Relations Board—a crucially important agency that enforces workers’ rights.”

“We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and decision. We fully expect this radical decision to be reversed, and that other courts addressing this issue will uphold the president’s recess appointment authority. In the meantime, the appointees to the National Labor Relations Board remain in their jobs and the NLRB remains open for business.”

Trumka couldn’t risk resist the temptation to “Blame Bush,” mentioning that Bush the Younger made 179 recess appointments  Carney also used this tired old canard when he spoke about the Federal Court ruling. Will the Democrats ever tire of blaming Bush?

Even more astonishing to many observers was the manner in which Trumka spoke for the NLRB, as if he, and not the Government, runs the agency. Trumka needs to be reminded that the role of the NLRB is not to enforce workers right, but to arbitrate impartially in disputes between labor and management. Trumka’s attitude is prime example of why the Republicans are so concerned about who the President appoints to the NLRB.

Democrats also complained loud and often this afternoon about the Republican’s use of Pro Forma sessions to keep the Senate from going into recess. They neglected to mention that Democratic Senators, under the urging of Harry Reid, used the same tactic to great effect on several occasions in 2007 to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments.

On the other side of the aisle  the Republicans congratulated the court for their brave ruling in favor of the Constitution. Darrel Issa seemed to be quite pleased with himself as he took the President to task for making the appointments in the first place:

“The president, who taught constitutional law, should’ve known better. As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama’s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses. Today, we know that it is American workers who are going to pay the price for the administration’s arrogant miscalculation.”

House Speaker John Boehner, criticized Obama for using the NLRB as a weapon to hurt the American economy:

“The Obama administration has consistently used the NLRB to impose regulations that hurt our economy by fostering uncertainty in the workplace, and telling businesses where they can and cannot create jobs. Instead of operating under a shroud of controversy, the NLRB should meet the highest standards of transparency, starting with having its members approved by the people’s representatives.”

All in all, this is an interesting match up. On the one hand, we have a President who is quite willing to push the limits of Executive Power as far as he can and as often as he can. The Republicans are still furious at the NLRB for going after Boeing when the airline manufacturer tried to open a new plant in South Carolina.

Senate Republicans made it clear, after the ruling was announced in Washington, D.C., that they expect the three members of the NLRB in the case to resign immediately. The White House indicated that no resignations will be forthcoming from the recess appointees and Richard Griffin, Sharon Block, and Terence Flynn will be at their desks at NLRB headquarters bright and early Monday morning.

The battle lines have been drawn and who will win is any one’s guess. After the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, very few people are willing to venture a guess how the nine Justices on America’s highest court will decide any case; even one with a clear cut Constitutional precedent.

White House Blasts Court Ruling Against Obama On Recess Appointments is a post from: The Inquisitr

Despite the claims to the contrary by President Obama and his Justice Department, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today that Mr. Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. The three justices voted unanimously against the President and issued a strong statement emphasizing that Mr. Obama lacked the authority to decide when the Senate is in recess.

The case may seem to ride on a legal technicality about what actually defines a Senate recess, but the justices held that the case was an important test of constitutional principals. Obama made the three appointments after the Senate adjoined for a short 20 day period. In order to prevent the President from making appointments during the break, the Senate met for Pro Forma sessions every few days to avoid a recess.

Senate Republicans refused to confirm his candidates for the National Labor Relations Board due to their ties to labor unions. President Obama, in consultation with Eric Holder, declared unilaterally that the Senate was in recess and made the appointments anyway. Republicans were outraged, arguing the Constitution delegates the power to declare a recess solely to the Congress.

After the President appointed union lawyer Richard Griffin, Labor Department official Sharon Block, both Democrats, and Republican NLRB lawyer Terence Flynn to the NLRB in January of 2012, Noel Canning, a bottling company, filed suit, claiming the NLRB ruling against the company was illegal because the recess appointments were unconstitutional. The suit was later joined by Minority Leader Mitch McConnel and the Senate’s Republicans.

Critics of the President said the recess appointments by Obama were unprecedented and constituted a deliberate violation of the separation of powers. There has been an ongoing battle between the Obama Administration and the Republicans over the President’s use of Executive Privileges and today’s ruling is a major defeat for Obama.

Making a bad day worse for the President, the three judges ruled that recess appointments can only be made when the Senate has recessed a session permanently, which only happens at the end of the year. This places a major limit on the use of recess appointments to sidestep the will of the Senate.

The final twist of the legal knife for President Obama came when the three judges also found the Constitution restricted the use of recess appointments to filling vacancies that occur during an actual recess. If this ruling stands, it will prevent any future President from being able to use recess appointments to overrule the will of Congress. The court’s ruling is one of the strongest statements of support for the original intent of the Constitution we have heard from the Federal Appeals Court in many years.

The judges made their opinions crystal clear with the following paragraphs:

“An interpretation of “the Recess” that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law. The intersession interpretation of “the Recess” is the only one faithful to the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.”

“The dearth of intra-session appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments. Recent presidents are doing no more than interpreting the Constitution. While we recognize that all branches of government must of necessity exercise their understanding of the Constitution in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law.”

“The power of a written constitution lies in its words. It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government. In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess.”

The White House has not commented yet on the ruling, but Mr. Obama is expected to instruct the Justice Department to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Experienced observers of the high court expect the nine Justices to take the case rather quickly, as today’s ruling leaves the National Labor Relations Board without a quorum.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Obama’s Recess Appointment’s Unconstitutional is a post from: The Inquisitr

James Franco has written a poem to commemorate the day of President Barack Obama’s inauguration, and you can scroll down to the foot of the page to watch him read it too.

The poem is entitled “Obama In Asheville” and mentions the likes of Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and Claire Danes plus also references Francis Ford Coppola’s classic 1979 war film, Apocalypse Now, as well as a burrito.

One of Franco’s lines also recalls the moment when he and Obama first came across each other, proclaiming, “He knew me from Spider-Man.”

Yahoo News commissioned Franco to write this inaugural poem for Obama, alongside four other writers. Pulitzer Prize winners James Tate and Paul Muldoon created “Dear Mr. President” and ”For Barack Obama: his second inauguration,” respectively, whilst Brenda Shaughnessy wrote “To President Obama” on his second inauguration and Kevin Young scribed “Oath.” You can view each poem on Yahoo News’ website.

Discussing their decision to hire these writers, Yahoo stated, “Surveying the short history of presidential verse, Yahoo news began to wonder what would happen if inaugural poets might be inspired to raise their games. Without exactly staging a poetry slam, we turned to some of our favorite living poets: Would they compose something for Obama this time around?”

President Obama’s inauguration occurred in Washington, D.C., on January 21. It featured Beyonce Knowles, accompanied by the US Marine Band, singing “The Star Spangled Banner,” whilst Kelly Clarkson and James Taylor also sang at the event.

What do you think of James Franco’s poem?

James Franco Performs His Own Obama Inauguration Poem [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bill O’Reilly has drawn some backlash for uttering a theory about President Barack Obama’s treatment of Republicans. O’Reilly’s comment that President Obama’s views the GOP as “purveyors of white privilege” occurred during a Bob Woodward interview.

The O’Reilly Factor host is known for his not mincing words when he shares his thoughts. During the Monday evening segment, O’Reilly also noted Obama’s “social justice” comments during the inauguration.

The Fox News host had this to say about white privilege:

“It’s pretty clear that Obama doesn’t like them because he doesn’t feel — he feels that they are the purveyors of white privilege. He’s never going to say that, but that’s the theme that runs through his advisers: The white privilege has to be broken down.”

Bob Woodward did not agree with Bill O’Reilly’s statements about Obama and white privilege, according to The Blaze. The Washington Post reporter believes that Obama’s treatment of Republican is based on ideological differences and not race. When faced with Woodward’s opposing view, O’Reilly did not back off his conclusion about the president’s motivation when faced with opposition from across the aisle.

Bill O’Reilly had this to say when expanding on Obama’s treatment of Republicans:

“The Republican agenda, in his mind, the president’s mind, props up white privilege. Therefore, as the social justice champion, he has to tear that down. He doesn’t like the white privilege thing and he doesn’t like the Republicans trying to defend it. And that’s the seed.”

President Obama’s social justice mindset may be heralded by liberals, but has drawn fire from the GOP. Fiscal conservatives focused on responsible spending have taken issue with social justice arguments during the Obama administration.

Do you think President Obama is focused on issues relating to white privilege?

Bill O’Reilly Discusses Obama’s ‘White Privilege’ Views is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Obama is making multiple historical waves with his second inaugural address with a speech which touched on equal rights for LGBTs for the first time.

Last May, President Obama became the first sitting president of the United States to call for marriage equality, and included the call for equal LGBT rights in his second inaugural address.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” said the president in his second inaugural address.

President Obama embraced many progressive issues in his second inaugural address, including expansion of the nation’s entitlement programs, climate change, and marriage equality, reports Yahoo! News.

The president also touched on gun control, saying that “all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown” need to be kept safe.

Predictably, President Obama’s staunchly partisan second inaugural address is being embraced and damned by the public and the press along strict party lines.

An article on Breitbart titled “Obama Declares War on Liberty As We Know It” called the speech “a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.”

Meanwhile, Think Progress said that the second inaugural address “will no doubt be recorded in the annals of history as a pivotal moment in the long journey for social justice and freedom from oppression.”

Here’s video of President Obama’s second inaugural address. What do you think?

Obama’s Second Inaugural Address A Landmark For LGBT Equality [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg confirmed that he has been advising Vice President Joe Biden on gun control legislation. Although it is currently unclear if Bloomberg has spoken directly to President Barack Obama or the vice president about a gun ban, their respective officers have been in communication since the tragic Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown last month.

During a Monday press conference Mayor Bloomberg had this to say about aiding Joe Biden in his task to develop new gun control legislation:

“We sent some of our people down to Washington and we had some people on the phone to give Joe Biden our ideas. What we’ve got to do first is try to do everything we can to help Joe Biden.”

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been one of the most vocal elected gun control advocates, according to Yahoo News. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Mayor Bloomberg is involved with the Mayors Against Illegal Gun Violence organization.

Vice President Biden and the Obama administration are working on a “far broader and more comprehensive” set of gun control measures than “previously anticipated” in a reported attempted to thwart gun violence, according to the Washington Post.

The gun control legislative proposals are expected to be presented before the end of the month. The Obama administration reportedly courted Michael Bloomberg to aid with the public relations push necessary to get any type of gun ban or control measures passed. The New York City mayor and a host of others had previously criticized both the Congress and President Obama for not doing enough to “solve” the gun violence in America.

Michael Bloomberg Is Advising VP Joe Biden On Gun Control is a post from: The Inquisitr

Washington D.C., MD – President Obama has told reporters at a White House press conference that a deal to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis is close to being reached.

Speaking Monday, just hours before a midnight deadline would cause automatic tax rises and spending cuts to kick in, Obama described an agreement as being “within sight,” with discussions still ongoing. Should no deal be reached by midnight, every taxpayer in America would face steep tax rises from Tuesday, and a range of federal spending programmes would also suffer deep cuts. Obama told journalists:

“Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year’s Eve hike is within sight, but it is not done. There are still issues left to resolve but we are hopeful that Congress can get it done. But it is not done.”

Obama went on to explain how Americans could not afford the proposed tax rises, which would equate to an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer. According to the president, “The economy can’t afford it.”

Speaking about the deal currently being discussed, Obama said it would ensure tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, tax credits for clean energy companies, and assistance with university tuition would all be protected.

Meanwhile, tax rises would only apply to individuals earning $450,000 a year or more. Republican negotiators had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more, while the Democrats had been pushing for $250,000.

Talking about the negotiations, Obama conceded that he would have preferred a bigger deal, but said both sides in the talks were still too divided on certain aspects to achieve what he described as a “grand bargain.”

Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said Democrats remained determined to shield working-class families from tax rises:

“There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart but negotiations are continuing as I speak. We really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with tax hike in just a few hours.”

Should a deal be struck, legislation will have to be hurried through the House and the Senate before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. While the Senate should pose no problem – the Democrats hold a strong majority there – the Republican-controlled House may be more difficult, with Obama relying on Democrats and moderate Republicans to push the agreement through.

Obama Says Fiscal Cliff Deal Is ‘Within Sight’ As 2012 Ticks Down is a post from: The Inquisitr

With none of the hoopla that usually accompanies the signing of major legislation, President Obama today signed a five-year reauthorization of the federal government’s warrantless wiretap program enacted in the name of national security.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows counter-intelligence officers to monitor overseas phone calls and emails in cases of suspected terror activity. Although the AP report on the closed-door bill signing today claims that “the law does not apply to Americans,” that’s not quite the full story.

As Wired explains, electronic eavesdropping  is legally permissible “without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States” and foreign intelligence information is involved.

For American citizens per se, the government is required to see a warrant from a special FISA federal court whose rulings are not public.

The US Senate approved the final legislation on Friday, and in so doing, defeated several amendments that would have increased privacy protections and transparency.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the law’s primary foes, had this to say after the Senate action:

“Of course, the fight against illegal and unconsitutional warrantless wiretapping is far from over. Since neither the President, who once campaigned on a return to rule of law on surveillance of Americans, nor the Congress, which has proven to be the enabler-in-chief of the Executive’s overreach, have been willing to protect the privacy of Americans in their digital papers, all eyes should now turn to the Courts …

“But make no mistake: this vote was nothing less than abdication by Congress of its role as watchdog over Executive power, and a failure of its independent obligation to protect the Bill of Rights. The FISA Amendments Act and the ongoing warrantless spying on Americans has been, and will continue to be, a blight on our nation and our Constitution.”

Remember when G.W. Bush was bitterly accused of shredding the Constitution and assaulting civil liberties when FISA was originally amended? This latest FISA renewal is the law of the land until December 31, 2017.

Do you think the FISA law is a legitimate counter-terrorism tool or does it unconstitutionally violate the privacy rights of ordinary citizens?

Obama Signs Warrantless Wiretap Law Extension is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY|President Barack Obama promised to put his “full weight” behind gun control measures during an interview on Meet The Press on Sunday. The president did not appear to support the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) proposal to put armed guards in schools during the interview.

Armed officers protect our money in the bank, our lawmakers in Congress, and the folks we watch on our living room television set. But for some reason, the idea of placing a trained individual with a gun between our school children and a potential shooter is an idea which strays too far out of the realm of possibility for some Democratic elected officials.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, some teachers in Utah and Texas are already permitted to carry their licensed firearm onto school property. There have been no mass shootings, or misuse of the guns on campus by either a staff member or a student.

President Obama had this to saying about gun control measures, according to statements republished on Alan Colmes’ Liberaland website:

“It is not enough for us to say, this is too hard so we’re not going to try. So what I intend to do is I will call all the stakeholders together. I will meet with Republicans. I will meet with Democrats. I will talk to anybody. I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids. And, yes, it’s going to be hard.”

President Obama’s statements on Meet The Press were correct, when referencing that responsible gun owners do not want folks with mental health issues buying weapons. But, background check laws already in place at both brick-and-mortar gun shops and at gun shows address such issues. The Newtown shooter was not legally allowed to buy a gun and neither was the West Webster firefighters murderer. Both men obtained their guns illegally before embarking on a tragic and violent shooting rampage.

You cannot legislate morality or dictate common sense. The answer to preventing mentally ill people or those with evil in their hearts, from unleashing a violent rampage upon society has not and will not be an easy endeavor. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the gun ban in Great Britain has not stopped incidents of violence. A group of doctors from the United Kingdom are now pushing for a ban on kitchen knives to thwart impulsive stabbings.

Criminals will always find a way to garner a weapon to use to harm others. Whether it is a kitchen knife like in Great Britain, a hammer like the West Webster firefighters shooter once used on his grandmother, an illegal gun bought on the corner of a city street, or a shotgun stolen from Grandpa’s locked gun cabinet.

The best possible solution to the problem should not include infringement upon the Second Amendment or create more obstacles and expense for law-abiding citizens seeking to arm themselves for personal protection. Armed guards and classroom windows that open for a quick escape would do far more to protect America’s school children then any gun tax or semiautomatic weapons ban ever would.

President Obama Wants Gun Control Measures By End Of 2013 is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff plans would land the United States in $20 trillion in debt by 2017. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, a new Gallup poll reveals that Americans support Obama in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations by a margin of 2-to-1 when compared against Republicans. But what many Americans probably don’t know is the relatively short term repercussions the President’s plan will have on the nation.

According to the US National Debt Clock the outstanding Federal debt currently stands at $16.45 trillion. Typically, whenever Congress and the President come up with any budget plan it is analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Unfortunately, the last time President Obama or the Democrats bothered to submit any details was back in August.

Forbes has compared the August CBO numbers against Obama’s current Fiscal Cliff plans to come to this conclusion:

“If we go over the fiscal cliff, the second Obama administration will accumulate $1.5 trillion in deficits for 2013-2017 ($300 billion per year), for  a “modest” deficit of less than two percent of GDP. If Obama gets his full wish list and avoids the fiscal cliff, the CBO’s alternate fiscal policy projections yield a cumulated 2013-2017 budget deficit of $4.5 trillion. In this case,the second Obama administration will run annual deficits of almost a trillion dollars a year. Only this time round, Obama does not have the convenient excuse of  a deep economic crisis inherited from the previous administration.”

This would bring the US national debt to over $20 trillion by time Obama is out of office. Forbes also points out that in the five points of contention the only one Obama desires the most — taxing the rich — lowers the five-year deficit, and that only by $300 billion (or $60 billion per year). The other four items on Obama’s wish list actually increase the five-year deficit by a combined $3.6 trillion. Assuming the United States doesn’t have its credit rating reduced, and the resulting debt interest rates increased, Forbes point out this chilling fact:

“To gain some perspective, the CBO projects social security to cost one trillion in 2018. Our interest payments on the national debt (at 5 percent [of $20 trillion]) would roughly equal the entire cost of social security!”

Even worse, these gloomy debt estimates do not take into account the high cost of Obamacare, which will likely add billions more to the debt pile threatening to engulf our nation.

Surprisingly, these types of numbers are not new. Neither are they the result of a compromise reached with Republicans in the House. As reported by The Washington Times, near the beginning of the year President Obama submitted his own budget for approval by Congress and even the Democrat-controlled Senate shot it down with a 99-0 vote. That budget plan was far worse than Obama’s current plan.

The old Obama budget plan called for many new taxes but even then the high level of Federal overspending would have increased by $640 billion per year, bringing the annual deficit to $1.97 trillion. This means that by 2017 if Obama had gotten his way there would have been $7.88 trillion in new debt, bringing the overall debt to $24.33 trillion!

Some Democrats claimed the Senate vote on the Obama budget plan was just political brinkmanship, but Republicans in the House said they faithfully reused all of the president’s numbers in the budget proposal. They even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers so they could correct them, which no Democrat did at the time.

Republicans do not escape a rebuke, either. As a comparison, the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would create $310 billion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $200 billion. That’s not exactly a balanced budget, although it certainly comes closer.

The so-called Plan B Fiscal Cliff budget plan ignored many of the upcoming problems and, unless other measures were taken, would have cost the economy up to 2.7 million jobs next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, successfully tanking the economy. According to Forbes, “the top rate on ordinary income over $1 million would climb from 35 percent  to 39.6 percent, while the rate on long term capital gains and dividends over that threshold would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent.” Republicans crafted their extra taxes on the rich in this way in order to avoid raising taxes on small businesses as well. Unfortunately, all of the other revenue gains would have come from cutting credits and programs that benefit mostly the poor and middle class.

Perhaps Plan B was not intended to cover all angles but it certainly didn’t cover some of the major important issues. Then again, neither does Obama and Democrat’s current plan. Still, the bottom line is that Congress is currently running a $1.33 trillion deficit. Taxing the rich at 100 percent of their income (as in, all of it!) would only cover around half of the amount necessary to cover that level of Federal spending. So either the poor and middle class will have to be taxed more to cover these costs or such spending will need to be cut. It’s going to hurt either way.

Do you still support President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff budget plans after seeing these numbers?

[Image By China Daily]

Obama Fiscal Cliff Plans: $20 Trillion In Debt By 2017 is a post from: The Inquisitr

Now, this is coming from a tabloid … so take this information with a grain of salt.

Psy, the Korean rapper, has taken North America by storm. With his #1 YouTube hit, “Gangnam Style“, Psy has become a household name across the country. In fact, he has become so popular that he will be featured at the Super Bowl on February 3, 2013.

According to Weekly World News, Psy will reportedly be performing his popular “Gangnam Style” song with a very special guest … Barack Obama. President Obama and his family love Psy’s “Gangnam Style” song and will be doing the horse dance with the Korean rapper during the halftime show.

Psy is also hoping to use the Super Bowl to ease the conflict between North Korea and South Korea. Psy’s goal is to use the Super Bowl in an attempt to bring about peace in his country.

As a sign of peace, Psy hopes to use both North Korean and South Korean dancers in his Super Bowl halftime show.

Madonna performed at halftime at the 2012 Super Bowl in February with guests CeeLo Green, Nicki Minaj, LMFAO and M.I.A.

During that Super Bowl, the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in an exciting rematch of their contest four years earlier.

During the 2012 Super Bowl, Madonna’s performance was seen by 114 million people. This number is a higher average than the game itself, which was seen by an estimated 111.3 million people, according to the Nielsen Co.

Psy’s performance at the Pepsi NFL Halftime Show will feature collaborations including Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, One Direction, The Beach Boys and jazz legend John Pizzarelli.

The Super Bowl is set for February 3, 2013 at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans.

Excited to see President Obama do the horse dance alongside Psy?

President Obama To Perform With Psy At 2013 Super Bowl Halftime Show? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass thinks politicians, including the president, should be paying to attention to the rampant gun violence in the Windy City in addition to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

John Kass, who is an expert on the Illinois political machine, went on CNN to discuss the wave of gun crime in the city, which culminated in 500 homicides this year. According to CNN, 270 children have been killed in Chicago in the last five years.

Chicago has strict gun control laws.

Kass noted that there is a gang war going on in the west and southside of the city, and that Chicago police are undermanned and outgunned.

He insisted, however, that while there has always been guns in Chicago, and there have been gang wars before, the difference now is that the city has spent all the money, and there no resources available for additional law enforcement or other basic services. The police department is down about 1,000 officers at least according to Kass.

“Over 20 years, I can give you a laundry list of corruption and cronyism” by former Mayor Daley and others that wasted taxpayers’ money, Kass declared.

In a reference to reporters who failed to be watchdogs, Kass explained that “there had been people who were papering over and smooching up and making things look nice when they weren’t nice. The city is broke.”

Kass concluded his remarks by saying that in addition to attending memorial services in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama should return to his hometown to attend funerals for minority children:

“We make the Sandy Hook – which was a tragedy – a big deal. Why don’t the politicians come to the funerals of the dead African-American and Latino kids who get killed by the hundreds and hundreds? The media has ghettoized these children, these homicide victims, pushed them to the side.”

“I’m not diminishing the others. I’m just saying, President Obama, show up at a funeral here in Chicago once in a while too.”

Kass wrote a hard-hitting and heartfelt column about the small business his parents started after Obama made his famous “you didn’t build that” remarks in July.

Watch the John Kass interview on CNN about the murders in Chicago:

Chicago Columnist: Obama Should Show Up For Funerals Of Murdered African-American And Latino Children [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sunday, David Gregory will sit down exclusively with President Barack Obama. This will be Mr. Obama’s 11th appearance on “Meet the Press”, his second time as the commander in chief.

In the midst of fierce fiscal cliff negotiations, we’ll hear directly from the president about whether a compromise is even possible. Plus, David will talk with him about other key issues as he prepares to begin his second term as President of the United States, says ABC News.

Perhaps we may even hear about Gregory’s own shenanigans involving the infamous gun clip?

His most recent appearance was on September 20, 2009 in the White House. At the time, the healthcare reform fight was center stage and the President joined MTP to make his case. The full interview is below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama To Appear With David Gregory On ‘Meet The Press’ Sunday is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new Gallup poll has revealed that Americans support President Barack Obama in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations by a margin of 2-to-1.

Little progress has been made in the negotiations, which have remained gridlocked since the “Plan B” proposed by Speaker John Boehner and congressional Republicans failed last week. Should an agreement not be reached by the time 2013 ticks over, a combination of automatic spending cuts and expired tax cuts will kick in, raising taxes for the vast majority of Americans.

Should such a scenario unfold, Gallup‘s poll suggests the majority of Americans will pin the blame on congressional Republicans. The poll reveals that 54% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the negotiations, up from 48% a week ago. That contrasts sharply with the approval ratings for Boehner – only 26% of Americans are happy with Speaker Boehner’s performance in negotiations.

A similar pattern can be found in the approval ratings for each party. 45% of Americans approve of how congressional Democrats have handled the negotiations, while only 26% are content with the performance of congressional Republicans.

A second Gallup poll reveals that Americans are pessimistic about any budget agreement being reached before January 1 in the negotiations. While 50% (down from 57% on December 16) still believe an agreement can be achieved, 48% are doubtful, up from 40% on December 16.

Earlier this week, President Obama cut short his vacation in Hawaii to head back to Washington and continue negotiations.

Should the economy head over the dreaded fiscal cliff, who do you feel should shoulder most of the blame? Sound off in the comments!

Americans Back Obama In Fiscal Cliff Negotiations By 2-To-1 Margin is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Fiscal Cliff could force some prisons to release inmates. Criminals may be the only United States citizens looking forward to the potential scenario where the ongoing budget negotiations between Republican House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama end without an agreement. Besides a double-dip recession, states who rely on Federal monies will have to look to other “solutions.”

If the the Fiscal Cliff’s automatic spending reductions kick in, it would trigger an 8 percent cut in nearly $2 billion in federal grants that go to state and local law enforcement. Lane County, Oregon may be forced to release even more criminals because of a major cut in federal subsidies to its law enforcement budget.

Yes, that’s even more…they’ve done this before, with jail commanders like Lane County Sheriff Tom Turner using a protocol affectionately known as “the RAT” to guide their decisions according to the Associated Press:

“Everybody we’re releasing is dangerous to society. But we’re having to choose which ones to keep and which ones to let out.”

Their Risk Assessment Tool, or RAT, ranks “inmates based on nearly 80 questions about their criminal history and other factors to predict how likely they are to reoffend.” Weeding out repeat offenders may be the goal but in practice things don’t always work out the way we would wish. As one example, less than an hour after one low-level offender walked out of the Oregon prison he was attempting to rob a bank during Christmas week.

The loss of state operating revenue from the Fiscal Cliff only adds to the $1.5 billion in cuts to federal law enforcement grants since fiscal 2010. According to the Associated Press, Elizabeth Pyke, director of government affairs for the National Criminal Justice Association, believes that the Fiscal Cliff is just a leading indicator of how the financial future of the United States may affect law enforcement:

“It would not be unreasonable to envision a day in the not too distant future when federal support for state and local law enforcement will be virtually eliminated.”

NPR reports that the two million people plus prison inmate population in the United States requires States to spend about $50 billion annually to house them all. The Huffington Post adds that states with budget problems like California are trying to lower the prison population by early-releasing supposedly low-risk offenders. Some cities are even feeling the heat of budget problems, with Angel Taveras, the mayor of Providence, R.I., writing that the Fiscal Cliff would “have profound and draconian consequences for the City of Providence.”

What do you think State and local governments should do in response to the budget problems the Federal government is facing along with the imminent Fiscal Cliff?

Fiscal Cliff To Force Prisons To Release Inmates is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Upper House of the Russian Parliament approved a bill Wednesday that will ban American citizens from adopting Russian Children. The bill is the latest salvo in a tit for tat war of nerves between the United States and Russia that began when Congress passed a law imposing sanctions on Russian officials accused of human rights violations.

The US law, known as the Magnitsky Act, was passed on December 6, 2012 and signed by President Obama. The bill seeks to punish Russian officials involved in the mistreatment and death of financier Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison in 2009. It also imposes US visa restrictions and financial sanctions on any Russian officials involved in “gross violations of human rights.”

Russian are outraged over the American law, which was originally intended to loosen cold war trade restrictions and benefit both nations. The addition of the human rights component of the legislation provoked President Vladimir Putin to call the Magnitsky Act “unfriendly and political.”

Just days after Obama signed the bill, an angry Lower House of the Russian Parliament retaliated by passing the Dima Yakovlev Law, which suspends the activities of all US NGOs currently operating in Russia and prevents US officials who sentence Russians for human rights violations from receiving visas.

The Dima Yakovlev Law is named for a  21-month-old Russian boy who died in 2008 of heatstroke after his adoptive American parent, Miles Harrison, left him alone in a car for nine hours. The US courts raised the ire of Russian officials when they found the father not guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of the child.

Over the last 20 years, 19 adopted Russian children have either been murdered by their American parents or died from parental neglect. There have also been several ugly, high profile disputes in which American parents demanded the adopted child be returned to Russia because of severe behavioral issues.

Leaders in Moscow are concerned that American politicians have not really changed their attitudes towards the Russian nation and have only replaced anti-Soviet policies with anti-Russian policies. They are convinced the dispute is not about human rights but an attempt by the United States to retaliate against Russia for taking a different approach to dealing with major world issues including Middle East peace, Syria, and Iran.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov spoke about the need for compromise and negotiation:

“We think that the only reasonable way to conduct inter-state relations is to look for compromises in the cases when disagreements occur. This also implies searching for acceptable solutions on the issues which concern different controversial points such as approaches of different countries towards observation of human rights. Unfortunately, the US did not show the required understanding.”

Russian journalists have expressed strong support for the words of Mr. Putin and the actions of the Lower and Upper houses of Parliament. Political observer Mikhail Remizov voiced his displeasure with the United States in comments to the Voice of Russia:

“I qualify the Magnistky Act as a discriminatory law against Russia. Moreover, the act presupposes arrests of Russian citizens in the US without any decision of any court, which is an unprecedented step. It is only a court that has the right to take such decisions, not any political body. I believe that this decision was politically motivated. The fact that this decision was initiated by a congressman and approved by the US State Secretary is evidence that it was politically motivated.”

President Putin has not decided if he will sign the adoption ban into law. He seems to be taking his time, perhaps in hope of some conciliatory gesture from his American counterpart, President Obama. However, he still had words of warning for the American Government:

“If the US adopts any other discriminatory laws against Russia like the Magnitsky Act, Russia will also respond with more sanctions against the US. At Guantanamo, they keep people in prison for years without any charges. People there go around in shackles, like in medieval times.”

While both nations certainly have different concepts about human rights, any legislation banning adoption is only going to hurt the children. More than 700,000 Russian children are without parents, and US families have provided loving homes for 60,000 needy youngsters over the last 20 years. Hopefully, the two superpowers will put the children ahead of politics and find a way to resolve their issues without resorting to a total ban on the adoption of Russian children by Americans.

Russian Parliament Approves US Adoption Ban: Bill Sent To Putin For Signature is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Moments ago, President Morsi signed Egypt’s new Islamist Constitution into law, arousing the anger of pro-democracy forces across the struggling, strife-torn Middle Eastern nation. The Constitution was drafted by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi legislators from the Egyptian Parliament. Members of the secular opposition and moderate Muslim parliamentarians resigned from the Constitutional committee, citing the unwillingness of the Islamists to negotiate a fair and balanced secular Constitution that would respect the rights of all Egyptians.

The new Constitution was signed into law following a recent two stage referendum in which less than half of Egypt’s eligible voters turned out to cast their ballots. Many opponents of the new Constitution complained of widespread intimidation by the Muslim Brotherhood and ultra religious Salafi extremists. The Brotherhood placed several “observers” at every single polling place throughout the nation, and judges in some provinces banned unveiled women from voting. Coptic Christians reported constant violence and death threats against members of their community as Islamists tried to force the Copts to vote in favor of the new Constitution.

The Inquisitr contributor Raymond Ibrahim reported that longtime Brotherhood figure and popular Imam Safwat Hegazy made an open threat against the Coptic community:

“A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church—by Allah, and again, by Allah—if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter [screams of "Allah Akbar!" followed by chants of "With our soul, with our blood, we give to you, O Islam!"] … We say and I say to the Church: Yes, you share this country with us; but there are red lines—and our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Mohammed Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him”

Opponents of Morsi and his well organized Muslim Brotherhood backers have taken to the streets to protest, often resulting in bloody clashes with the military and police. Pro-democracy advocates, who led the movement to topple Mubarak, feel their fledgling Democracy has been hijacked by Morsi, the man they are calling Egypt’s new Pharaoh.

Fraud and violence were a favorite weapon of Egypt’s previous leaders. Millions of hard working Egyptians occupied Tahrir Square in an attempt to make a better life for themselves and their children. While the desperate poor who make up the vast majority of the nation’s population were still struggling to put food on the table, Morsi chose to devote his attention to making Sharia the law of the land and largely ignored the needs of the people.

While Cairo is calm at the moment, it is by no means a sign of the end of the dispute between the hard-line Islamists who back Morsi and the supporters of Democracy who led the Arab Spring. Many people who voted in favor of the new Constitution told reporters they only voted yes to end the unrest in Egypt in hope that Morsi would finally begin to focus on the economy. They were willing to take a chance on Morsi keeping his promises in order to get a job or prevent their family from starving even though they don’t support the contents of the new Constitution.

It is a sad comment on the state of affairs in the new Egypt when voters are willing to sign away their future and accept an Islamist Constitution instead of one that would provide true Democracy to all Egyptians. Perhaps Mr. Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the murderous Salafi thugs who are constantly calling for Coptic Christian blood could explain to the 10 million Christians in Egypt how their rights are protected under Sharia Law and Egypt’s Islamist Constitution. Perhaps they will explain to the 40 percent of the voters who are opposed to an Islamist constitution how they will treated treated as equals. Perhaps they will explain to the more than 50 percent of the Egyptian voters who were so discouraged they didn’t even bother to vote why they should continue to place one iota of trust in Mr. Morsi and his friends who would gladly see Sharia imposed on the entire world.

We need to listen to Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who spoke these words openly and without equivocation:

“When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Hassan Banna, founder] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life….  The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”

Another cleric made it clear the goal will be accomplished, even if it means endless war. This is not a fantasy or the result of some irrational prejudice against Muslims. The Islamists are serious, dedicated to the Caliphate, and have millions and millions of supporters. During the course of human history, untold numbers of innocents perished in the name of organized religion. The desire to impose a particular religion on non-believers is the eternal curse of the human race.

We need to listen to the words of these fanatics and take them seriously:

“We seek peace… If not through peace, there is nothing preventing war. We welcome war. The day will come when we will be the masters of the world. One of the tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood, which they cannot renounce, is the goal of global dominance by an Islamic caliphate.”

The people of Egypt deserve all the good things Democracy can bring: jobs, freedom from fear, food on the table, and the right to worship the god of their choice. While we may wish these things for them, we do not have the right to impose our way of life on the Egyptian people. If they truly choose to live under Sharia Law and subject non-Muslims to oppression then they will do so and there is nothing we can do to change it except to support those Egyptians willing to stand up for Democracy and freedom.

There is also one thing we cannot do, and that is give billions of dollars a year in military aid and advanced armaments to a nation that imposes Sharia law on its people. The constant calls from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis to destroy Israel should be enough to make it clear to Mr. Obama that rearming the Egyptians is a very bad idea.

Morsi Signs Egypt’s New Islamist Constitution Into Law: Secular Opponents Outraged is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sarah Palin is now on record as mocking President Obama for being named by Time Magazine as Person Of The Year. The former Alaskan Governor and now Fox News contributor was speaking to Fox’s Greta Van Susteren when Sarah Palin criticized the point of the award in a self-depreciating manner, using herself as an example for why being named Person Of The Year does not matter.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the last time Sarah Palin really made the news was when she used the phrase “shuck and jive” to describe the reactions of the Obama administration to the Benghazi Scandal. She probably didn’t realize her comment would become prescient as the political dodging is still ongoing. An honorable mention would include some conservative pundits nominating Sarah Palin for the 2016 Presidential Elections (ugh, these things start early these days, don’t they?). Then of course there’s her son Track who recently decided to divorce his wife of one year.

According to the video by Fox News President Obama was awarded Person Of The Year by Time Magazine for his success in “forging a new majority…to create a more perfect union.” Sarah Palin was asked for her thoughts on that statement:

“The path toward a more perfect union is our Constitution and I think we’ve seen examples of our President not necessarily following the Constitution. In fact, he’s wanting to change the Constitution because he see it as a charter of negatives…and he’s made statements in the past about his view of our Constitution. And following the Constitution is the blueprint toward a more perfect union.”

Time Magazine named Sarah Palin one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2010. Considering this, it’s pretty funny when she uses herself as example for why Time lacks credibility in making its choices for Person Of the Year:

“Time magazine, I think there’s some irrelevancy there, to tell you the truth. I mean, consider their list of the most influential people in the country and in the world, consider some who made that list: yours truly! That ought to tell you something right there regarding the credence we should give Time magazine and their list of people.”

Sara Palin considers Time’s description of Obama’s accomplishments to be “silly words” and when she looks back she asks, “What the heck has he done? Really, what has he done but drive us over a Fiscal Cliff?” She seems to think the Congressional gridlock means that the Fiscal Cliff is a foregone deal, but she also asks, “What has [Obama] done to unify and make our nation a more perfect union? For the life of me, I don’t know.”

Do you agree with Sarah Palin that Obama does not deserve Time Magazine’s Person Of The Year award for the reasons Time lists?

Sarah Palin Mocks Obama As Time Magazine’s Person Of The Year is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly is prepared to call for a boycott of Mexico if combat Marine Jon Hammar is not released soon. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Hammar has been in a Mexican jail cell since September. The bogus gun charges the heroic Marine faces could keep him behind bars for up to 12 years.

Bill O’Reilly is an extremely intelligent and reasonable man who is not prone to calling for boycotts or any type of group protest against an individual, company, or foreign nation. He is as angry as most Americans about the false imprisonment of Jon Hammar and has a microphone and a massive viewing audience at his disposal.

The O’Reilly Factor just ended its 50^th consecutive quarter as the top cable news program, according to TV Week ratings statistics. All of the top 10 cable news programs in the third quarter were on Fox News.

During an interview on Bill Hemmer’s Thursday broadcast, O’Reilly called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama to do far more the free Jon Hammar. The veteran newscaster noted that private behind the scenes negotiations could be ongoing between the Obama administration and the White House to help the imprisoned Marine. But, the O’Reilly Factor host also aptly noted that during a press conference earlier this week, Jay Carney stated he was not familiar with the lot of the combat Marine and therefore could not answer questions on the topic.

Jon Hammar’s parents are understandably worried about their son and want him home for Christmas. The United States sends millions of dollars in aid to Mexico, yet we apparently cannot get enough cooperation to secure the release of a Marine who attempted to follow the proper policy to take an antique firearm with him across the border.

Hammar hurt no one and was not even inside Mexico when he offered his weapon and paperwork for inspection. Bill O’Reilly is known to be a man of his word and it is doubtful that he will back down from his promise to call on all Americans to boycott any activity which would financially benefit the country holding Jon Hammar.

It is our patriotic duty to call and email our Senators to apply as much pressure as possible to help the combat veteran who struggled with PTSD and merely wanted to enjoy a peaceful trip down south as he eased back into civilian life.

Bill O’Reilly Calls For Boycott Of Mexico If Jon Hammar Isn’t Released Soon is a post from: The Inquisitr