We are faced with a difficult dilemma concerning Vice President Joe Biden’s outrageous comments about China’s one-child policy delivered in China this week.

On one hand we must either believe Joe Biden is a compete idiot, or on the other understand that he is OK with the fact that Chinese officials forced women to late term abortions and in many cases actually murdered already born babies to satisfy the one child per couple rule that the communist oppressors put into place years ago to curb the country’s population size.

Neither prospect is very auspicious for Biden or Obama.

While visiting Chinese students in southwest China, Biden raised the one-child issue

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

For decades China’s violent and controversial one-child policy has been the root of the murders of many millions of Chinese babies, many of them actually born alive. For Vice resident Biden to strain to tell his communist audience that he wasn’t “second guessing” this murderous policy is appalling.

This policy is responsible for the outright murder of many babies born alive in China. After authorities found that women gave birth in violation of the policy, these babies were killed in front of distraught parents. But this policy is also responsible for millions of selective-sex abortions where Chinese culturally favor boys instead of girls and aborted babies thought to be female. Chinese authorities also engaged in a whole raft of human rights violations such as forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

So, what is Biden saying here? Are we to assume he is too stupid to know of the murderous history of China’s one-child policy? And if we assume he must know this history, then we are forced to understand that he has no problem at all with these human rights violations.

In fact, this whole thing argues against the whole claim that Democrats are “pro-choice.” Yes, they often choose abortion, like the Chinese are, but the “choice” could also include keeping the baby. You see, there is a choice here. But by agreeing with China’s one-child policy, he’s agreed with taking away the “choice” in the matter because Chinese women have no choice! It is an authoritarian policy thrust upon them regardless of their needs and desires. Biden appears totally OK with that.

Of course, back here at home, his office tried to skitter out from under this major gaffe — a full time job for his office, to say the least. Biden’s office issued this statement:

The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the One Child Policy to a Chinese audience.

Unfortunately for Obama and Biden’s office, this does not square at all with what he actually said. Biden said he wasn’t judging the policy and only thought it was bad for economic reasons.

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney wasted no time condemning Biden’s foolish comments.

China’s one-child policy is gruesome and barbaric. Instead of condoning the policy, Vice President Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.

Another GOP hopeful, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also condemned Biden’s comments.

China’s one child policy has led to the great human tragedy of forced abortions throughout China, and Vice President Biden’s refusal to ’second-guess’ this horrendous policy demonstrates great moral indifference on the part of the Obama Administration. Americans value life, and we deserve leaders who will stand up against such inhumanity, not cast a blind eye.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner chimed in, as well.

I’m deeply troubled by the comments reportedly made by the Vice President yesterday regarding China’s reprehensible one-child policy, which has resulted in forced sterilizations and coerced abortions and should not be condoned by any American official. No government on Earth has the authority to place quotas on the value of innocent human life, or to treat life as an economic commodity that can be regulated and taken away on a whim by the state.

Romney and Boehner had it exactly right. China’s one-child policy is a barbaric, disgusting, condemnable policy that no freedom-loving American should condone in any way whatever.

That’s right, folks, if you thought Porkulus one was a laugh a minute, get ready for “Porkulus II: The Next Fail,” a new flick coming soon from Obama/Alinsky/Marx productions.

If you thought the last Porkulus was a failure wait till you see the next one.

Click image to see larger version

Yes, all your favorites are back. There’s Slow Joe Biden grinning like the useless jackal he is, Harry “This War is Lost” Reid, Timmy “Tax Cheat” Geithner, Hilary Clinton, Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, Jeffery “What Jobs?” Immelt, Austan “Sell Out” Goolsbee, Ben “Fed Head” Bernanke, and a host of other halfwits and clowns all meant to tickle your funny bone and rob you blind.

Remember the days when you had to actually pay to see a movie? Well, not this time! THIS movie is FREE we are told. Why, just show up and we’ll let you in gratis. But if you don’t want to see the movie, well at a later date there is a fine, some jail time, and the kind of harassment that even Muamar Gaddhafi would be ashamed of employing.

This is a production of Obama/Alinsky/Marx Productions and Wastrel Belief, Inc. Present Barack Hussein Obama’s PORKULUS II: THE NEXT FAIL executive producers the Democrat Party. Written by Karl Marx and John Maynard Kenyes. Produced by Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party. Available in paperback by Saul Alinsky. A 20th Century Marx film. This movie is rated “F” for abject Failure.

O.: I want to yammer on about corporate jets

Staff: OK, that’s good, because Americans are really concerned about them. You should probably mention Independence Day

O.: You mean that right wingnut holiday? Is that this weekend? What’s it about?

S.: It’s Monday, Mr. President. Same day as your daughter’s birthday. And means a lot to the flag lovers

O.: Really? Oh, well, stick it on the ‘prompter

And we get

Right now, there are a lot of folks who are still struggling with the effects of the recession. They’re wondering how they’d deal with an unexpected expense if their car breaks down. They’re worried about layoffs. They’re not sure if they can help their kids pay for college. And for many families, these challenges were around long before the recession hit in 2007.

Like, always, but, obviously, this is an attempt to offset the Right side point about Democrats taking over Congress in 2007, and blaming Bush and the GOP.

I ran for President because I believed in an America where ordinary folks could get ahead; where if you worked hard, you could have a better life. That’s been my focus since I came into office, and that has to be our focus now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re working to reduce our nation’s deficit. Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

All About O. Yet, perhaps he has learned something, and that is government has to “start living within its means.”

The good news is, Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to solve the problem. And over the last few weeks, the Vice President and I have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts. That’s trillion with a ‘t.’ But after a decade in which Washington ran up the country’s credit card, we’ve got to find more savings to get out of the red. That means looking at every program and tax break in the budget – every single one – to find places to cut waste and save money. It means we’ll have to make tough decisions and scale back worthy programs. And nothing can be off limits, including spending in the tax code, particularly the loopholes that benefit very few individuals and corporations.

Face palm. “Spending in the tax code.” That means tax hikes. But, I sort of agree: let’s look at every tax break. How about looking at some of those tax free funds that benefit millionaires? We should look at those, too.

Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them. Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else. We’ve got to say to a student, ‘You don’t get a college scholarship.’ We have to say to a medical researcher, ‘You can’t do that cancer research.’ We might have to tell seniors, ‘You have to pay more for Medicare.’

Yes, he is going to yammer about this for quite some time, apparently. Much like his slurpee and driving into a ditch points, he seems to love the corporate jet thing. Good thing Obama doesn’t receive all sorts of tax free perks, like a private chef, a country vacations estate, use of jumbo jets, a rent free McMansion, and a $50,000 entertainment budget. Taxpayer funded and tax free, trips around the world. People in the private sector have to pay tax on the value of private jet trips. I’m not saying Obama should pay a tax on them, he won the job of POTUS, even if he doesn’t act like one, but, it is rather hypocritical of him to complain when he jumps on AF1 to make a quick jaunt to a fundraiser.

On Monday, we celebrate Independence Day, the day we declared a new nation, based on revolutionary idea: that people ought to determine their own destiny; that freedom and self-governance weren’t gifts handed to us by kings or emperors, but the rights of every human being. We’ve learned in the years since that democracy isn’t always pretty. We have arguments. We disagree. But time and again we’ve proven that we could come together to solve problems. We remember that while we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, we share a love for this country and a faith in its future. That’s the spirit we need to harness now. That’s how we’ll meet this challenge and reach a brighter day. Thanks for listening, and have a wonderful fourth of July.

So good of him to finally mention Independence Day….wait, what was that thing about people determining their own destiny? Freedom and self-governance? How does that jibe with ObamaCare and the individual mandate? And corporate jets? Raising taxes? Hey, wasn’t part of the Declaration of Independence about taxes?

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Humph.

We also have the requisite photo of Obama looking snooty, which comes from the video.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The débacle of Washington’s handling of the Libya issue is symbolic of a wider problem at the heart of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The fact that it took ten days and at least a thousand dead on the streets of Libya’s cities before President Obama finally mustered the courage to call for Muammar “mad dog” Gaddafi to step down is highly embarrassing for the world’s only superpower, and emblematic of a deer-in-the-headlights approach to world leadership. Washington seems incapable of decisive decision-making on foreign policy at the moment, a far cry from the days when it swept entire regimes from power, and defeated America’s enemies with deep-seated conviction and an unshakeable drive for victory.

Just a few years ago the United States was genuinely feared on the world stage, and dictatorial regimes, strategic adversaries and state sponsors of terror trod carefully in the face of the world’s most powerful nation. Now Washington appears weak, rudderless and frequently confused in its approach. From Tehran to Tripoli, the Obama administration has been pathetically slow to lead, and afraid to condemn acts of state-sponsored repression and violence. When protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against the Islamist dictatorship in Iran in 2009, the brutal repression that greeted them was hardly a blip on Barack Obama’s teleprompter screen, barely meriting a response from a largely silent presidency.

Isn’t this why Obama picked Joe Biden to be his vice president, because of all the vast foreign policy experience? How’s that working out? So far, Obama generally seems to spend as much time as possible demeaning our allies and working to alienate them, while either ignoring our enemies or looking for dialogue with them.

It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security. This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.

That’s simply the way Obama rolls. And it highlights exactly why Joe Biden stated that being President does not lend itself to on the job training. A few years as a Senator, some time spent in the Illinois legislature, and a few years as a community organizer did not prepare him for actually being the person in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth. Now, is any president actually ready for the burden placed upon him? Of course not, but, some are more prepared than others, and have a staff that understands what to do, which is why Qaddafi’s Libya is in a much weaker position to use WMD

Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-fly zone to neutralize the Libyan air force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.

While it is unclear whether he might have ultimately succeeded in building nuclear weapons, as part of the deal (Qaddafi) gave up thousands of shells filled with chemical weapons.

The NY Times does everything it can to avoid giving any kudos and praise to Bush, but, this highlights the difference between Obama and Bush: one made the United States feared by most enemies, the other makes those same enemies bold, while pissing off our allies.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

At a Wilmington rally for Democratic Delaware Senate candidate Chris Coons today, President Obama laid to rest any remaining speculation that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden might switch jobs in 2012, telling a packed crowd in Biden’s home state that his choice of vice president was “the single best decision I have made.”

This is a “big f***ing deal!”

Remember, Obama picked Biden for his foreign policy experience. How’s that working out? Iraq is proceeding exactly as the Bush plan laid out, Obama didn’t follow Biden’s advice for Afghanistan (Biden wanted more air strikes and special operations forces, rather than a surge), Iran is about to get the nuclear bomb, and the rest of the world still doesn’t love us. Exactly what is Biden doing, anyhow? Other than cursing and making campaign trips, does he do anything?

BTW, if Coons is going to easily win the Delaware Senate race, why do the Pres and VP need to make a trip?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!

Despite that President Obama made Cap and Trade and other green policy plans a focal point of his early days in office — not to mention his campaign for president — the White House has quietly scrubbed from its official website many of Obama’s promises and green initiatives. I guess the era of Obama really is “change you can believe in”?

Especially interesting it the sudden disappearance of Obama’s plan to commit $150 billion on clean energy research and development.

In 2008 as Obama was preparing to take office he featured on his “Office of the President Elect” website a pledge to spend $150 billion on energy R & D. As of today, that pledge is still there.

Invest in a clean energy economy and create 5 million new green jobs: Obama and Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world.

This policy was a major plank in his green initiatives plan and was featured on the White House website until July but just short of the two year point in his term this pledge has vanished from the White House website.

Also gone is any clear pledge to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions via his formerly touted cap and trade legislative efforts. For instance, the section once titled “Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters” is now vanished down the memory hole.

The differences can be clearly seen on the website Versionista, a site that tracks changes in the White House website.

Interestingly enough there is another thing that is missing from the Internet: any mention in the Old Media of the White House scrubbing its enviro policies.

About all I can find on this story is a piece by Mark Tapscott, one on Politico, and one each from the advocacy groups American Energy Alliance and The Breakthrough Institute.

Shouldn’t the fact that the White House dropped some of its key environmental policies be pretty big news? Shouldn’t the changing of Obama’s “hope and change” be just enough to make the Old Media want to poke a finger in the President’s eye?

I guess the Old Media is too busy thrilling to Obama’s golf game to worry much about his quiet policy changes.

Even Obama’s now Vice President, Joe Biden came under attack as “racially insensitive” when, in trying to compliment Obama, he said “”I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” and followed it with “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

No sooner were the words out of his mouth than the powers of darkness struck back, forcing Biden to apologize for his well-intended remarks by saying: “I deeply regret any offense my remark in New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama.” He elaborated that apology in a later conference call with reporters, when he went on to say that: “Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I’ve been around… He’s fresh. He’s new. He’s smart. He’s insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world ‘clean.’”

Apparently, some of his knee-jerk attackers had thought that for Biden to describe Barack Obama as “clean” was both to declare that to be somehow remarkable and to imply that other black people are not clean.

Yeah, right.

The accusation of racial attack has come up time and time again: During Obama’s campaign for the Presidency; after his inauguration and still to the present day. Even so, there has never been any documented evidence of any organized attack against Obama on grounds of race, and only the barest smattering of such from the ordinarily much-more-vociferous lunatic fringe.

The fact of it is that partisans of both major political parties – Democrats during Obama’s hard-fought primary battle with Hillary Clinton for their Party’s nomination, and Republicans, during the actual Presidential race and after – seem to have been tippy-toe careful to never even to notice, let alone say anything about Obama’s color, even though Democrats, never willing to waste an opportunity to fight dirty, did accuse Republicans and Republican support groups of various never-proven or never-significant racial slurs.

Even so, and despite its undoubted potential to cut both ways, the accusation of racism seems to be cherished by the Left as a sort of political panacea: Whether leveled against those who oppose Obama’s Progressive policies, or for any other political purpose, crying “racist!” has become so much their standard gambit in every disagreement that one wonders if the Left sees men in hoods and sheets everywhere because that’s what they secretly long to be!

Certainly, some of their race-card rhetoric is at least potentially politically effective: In attacking Arizona for trying to ward-off an overwhelming flood of illegal immigrants, they not only have a chance to score some points toward passing the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read it as “amnesty”) they so obviously want, but they may also pick up some new Hispanic recruits for the Democrat Party in the process.

Most of the time, though, it’s just nonsense: Like when comedienne Janeane Garofalo, in an interview about the Tea Party movement, told MSNBC’s Hater-In-Chief, Keith Olbermann “You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying. It sounds right and then it doesn’t make sense. Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up”. I’ll bet she didn’t even realize she was being funny!

In fact, Garofalo was dead wrong: It’s not about a black President. As an active Conservative, I regularly have the opportunity to hear other people’s ideas and to speak and discuss politics and the state of our nation and our economy with just exactly the kind of people that Garofalo went on to call “…a bunch of teabagging rednecks.” At no time during any of those conversations or discussions have I ever said, thought, or heard from any of the people I was talking with or listening to, even one word against Obama for being black.

That’s not to say that there was no criticism of Obama, his beliefs, his policies, his ideology, his temperament, his truthfulness, or his way of doing things. There was plenty, and it was both voluminous and impassioned. . It was NOT, however, in any way related to Obama’s race.

Whether all Conservatives are color-blind, I simply don’t know. I don’t even know if the ones I know and deal with are. If they do have any concerns about race though, at least as related to Barack Obama, I am certain that those concerns are either so minuscule as to be of no consequence, or buried so far under a mountain of other concerns that they never, ever, make it to the top of the pile.

We don’t need racism to be to support our negative feelings about Barack Obama; there are far more than enough reasons even without it: We don’t like his arrogance and patronizing attitude. We don’t like his constant cry for bipartisan action and constant complaint that the Republicans aren’t contributing, when neither he nor his stooges in Congress, Reid and Pelosi, will allow any real opportunity for Republicans to be heard. We don’t like that Obama will bow and kiss the ring of any little tin-pot dictator, but actively snubs and belittles Israel and Great Britain, two of our most loyal friends and allies. We don’t like Obama because, in this, the 21st century, when instantaneous communication and constant polling have made it certain that he and his minions can know exactly, at every moment, what the American people want and don’t want, Obama ignores and disrespects our wishes entirely. We don’t like that, knowing we were opposed to it, Obama and his gang – using or threatening a wondrous new array of congressional dirty tricks – forced Healthcare Reform through, anyway. We don’t like that Obama intends to do exactly the same thing with Immigration Reform and Cap and Trade. We don’t like that Obama, knowing that the United States is buried under foreign debt and suffering near double-digit unemployment, keeps pushing to spend more, increasing our debt, and tax more, crippling our economy and costing even more jobs. We don’t like that Obama lies about virtually everything, including the great basic lie that his administration – perhaps the most secretive and underhanded in history — is and will continue to be the most transparent. We don’t like his socialism. We don’t like his unionism. We don’t like the people he surrounds himself with and the people he chooses as his mentors. We don’t like the fact that he doesn’t much love our country and has made a practice of apologizing for it and for the American people to anyone who will listen. We don’t like him for any number of other reasons, which you know and we don’t need to list here.

It really ISN’T that we don’t like Obama because he’s black. That’s not even a factor. We don’t like him because he’s a jerk and a menace and an insult to everything that we and our country stand for. That’s plenty. No racism is needed.

– END –

In Chapter 3 of the Annual Report on the Middle Class released in February by Vice President Biden and the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, the Obama administration calls for enhancing the “retirement options” for the middle class by imposing “new regulations to improve the transparency and adequacy of 401(k) retirement savings.”

Whenever Obamunists use the word “transparency,” you know they are throwing up a smokescreen to disguise something shady.

The plan, as sketched in the 43-page document, calls for the creation of something called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs). Biden slyly shifts the onus for the idea through weasel words typical of the federal government: “Some have suggested the creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk, and in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.”

These accounts would be “free of inflation and market risk” because they would be under the direct and absolute control of the federal bureaucracy. There would be no risk because the funds would no longer be moored to the free market and subject to the fluctuations thereof. Rather, the retirement funds of every hard-working American dependent on a 401(k) for their retirement security would be nationalized and made subject to the whims and will of the executive branch.

What better way to “spread the wealth around” from those who have created and saved it to Obama’s supporters?

There’s more:

Coinciding with the publication of the report described above, the Obama White House, together with the Departments of Labor and Treasury, issued a so-called “Request for Information” calling for a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of the “annuitization” of individual 401(k)s. The scheme was set forth in a set of “Proposed Rules” published on February 2, 2010 in the Federal Register.

The document reads in part, “While defined contribution plans have some strengths relative to defined benefit plans, participants in defined contribution plans bear the investment risk because there is no promise by the employer as to the adequacy of the account balance that will be available or the income stream that can be provided after retirement.” And furthermore, “The Agencies are considering whether it would be appropriate for them to take future steps for them to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide designed to provide a stream of income after retirement.”

The upshot of that clunky prose is that the Obama administration believes that employers cannot be relied upon to adequately manage the 401(k) retirement accounts it provides for their employees, therefore the federal government will relieve them of that responsibility and take sole discretionary control of those funds, thus eliminating the risk of mismanagement. In other words, the Obama administration is planning to divert the “stream of income after retirement” and channel it right through Washington, D.C.

Look for instability in the stock market like yesterday’s sudden plunge to be exploited as cover for the greatest robbery of all time, the $multitrillion heist of every American’s retirement account. But don’t worry, Big Government will dole some of the money back to you at its discretion, assuming the program doesn’t go bankrupt like Social Security soon will.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

The indispensable Jake Tapper of ABC News took an interview with Vice President Joe “Foot in Mouth” Biden that contains a nugget of information that tends to prove that Barack Obama intends to destroy America’s insurance industry and place it under the full control of the federal government.

Tapper asked VP Biden what he’d been hearing from the members of the Democrat Congress that are vulnerable over this healthcare debate and Biden’s reply let slip the administrations ultimate goal; full government control of the insurance industry. (My bold)

BIDEN: Well, I yes. Some of them I say they say, well, Joe, look, man, I mean, you know, you guys haven’t massaged this very well. And, you know, this thing has gone on so long, I don’t know. And my response is, hey, man, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’m telling you, you know, pre-existing, they’re going to be covered. You know we’re going to control the insurance companies.

Granted Joe Biden is the court jester of the Obama Administration. He is a fool of the highest order. It would be easy to dismiss this silly little man’s words. However, the idea that Obama wants to take full federal control of the insurance industry fits quite nicely with Obama’s claims as a candidate — that he was for a single payer plan all along.

Barack Obama fully intends to destroy the health insurance industry and replace it with a socialist nationalized healthcare program.

Call your representatives in Congress and tell them to vote “no” on this un-American legislation.

Congress Switchboard: (202)224-3121

This photo came to me in an email. It shows Barack Obama with Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the White House State Dinner crashers. At this moment, FOX is showing the couple making their way to Capitol Hill for their subpoenaed testimony – and they say they will take the Fifth.

Just my opinion here, but I don’t think there’s any photoshopping involved. We all knew something wasn’t right about these people in the White House with no credentials. The Salahis and the President look noticeably younger – no doubt about that.

The emailer believes the photo was taken when Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator or before. Does anyone else think the guy on the left looks a bit like Randy Jackson, the American Idol judge (who we know is an Obama friend?).

Compare Tareq and Micahele Salahi “then” and “now.”

Because the Salahi’s were allowed into the White House with no credentials, several Secret Service agents are in danger of losing their jobs. The person responsible, Desiree Rogers, the White House Social Secretary – who decided no one from her office needed to meet and greet guests as has been the custom for years, will not be subpoenaed. The White House has forbidden her testimony and Congress did Obama’s bidding and did not invite her to testimony party. Instead, taxpayer money will be wasted on the gate crashers, who will plead the Fifth Amendment, and we will hear of no White House involvement in a very serious crime.

Officials say the Salahis went through metal detectors and passed all the rigorous tests to be allowed into the White House sanctuary…except, they did not have an invitation to the event. American Power, however, reported Tareq Salahi’s ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP):

In addition, and ominously, it turns out that Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The “right of return” has long been considered the backdoor to Israel’s destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat’s funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department’s designated-terrorist group, Hamas.

ADDED: ATFP has removed Tareq Salahi from its website’s board of directors page.

As Glenn Beck would indelicately say, this stinks on ice.

A thank you for the pic of Obama and the Salahis to reader, Lynne, who finds amazing news as she works to combat this evil administration everyday. The photo was sent to her husband and she passed it along. Visit her at TravelLight to see a wonderful game for children to adults. She is a true conservative, a devoted Christian, and she is the game’s designer. The tagline for the game:  “A game plan for life! TravelLight – A Self-Help Phenomenon. Here is how the game is described?

Now, let’s see if the MSM prints this photo of Obama with the pro-Palestinian Salahis – probably taken long before the White House State Dinner, or at least investigates it.