David Plouffe…”Reprehensible.” “Irresponsible.” “Hard to stomach.”

Comments Off

I love a good political spin. If you saw Obama make this statement, and you also know that his administration backed the OWS, then you can see how one sided this really is. They have lost a lot of the independent vote, and the only way to get attention now is flip the race card and create more class warfare. Gingrich and Santorum are on point on this one.  Let’s just see if those words fit the Obama campaign this summer…

Washington (CNN) Gabriella Schwarz 

 “Reprehensible.” “Irresponsible.” “Hard to stomach.”

White House senior adviser David Plouffe did not mince words Sunday when talking about the reaction by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to President Barack Obama’s comments on the Trayvon Martin shooting.

“Those two comments are really irresponsible. I would consider them reprehensible,” Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think those comments were really hard to stomach, really, and I guess trying to appeal to people’s worst instincts.”

While the GOP presidential candidates said the incident was a tragedy, Santorum and Gingrich were particularly critical of the president’s response to the shooting in which Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, was shot and killed by a George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self-defense.

A somber Obama on Friday commiserated with the Martin family and urged authorities to fully investigate the shooting.

“If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “I think (his parents) are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Santorum said the president politicized the events, while Gingrich characterized Obama’s comments as “nonsense.”

“What the president of the United States should do is try to bring people together, not use these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America,” Santorum said Friday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” a radio program.

“Is the president suggesting if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it wouldn’t look like him? That’s just nonsense,” Gingrich said Friday on conservative host Sean Hannity’s radio show, “The Hannity Show.” “I mean dividing this country up, it is a tragedy this young man was shot.”

But Plouffe, who served as Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, said the Republican reaction is evidence of a circus-like primary.

“I don’t think there’s very many people in America that would share that reaction. You know, this Republican primary at some points has been more of a circus show and a clown show,” Plouffe told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley.

Although he indicated the Obama campaign expects Romney to be the Republican nominee, Plouffe also predicted an aggressive election come fall.

“Romney has a big delegate lead so we’ve always felt you know because Romney’s won a couple of big states lately, the fundamentals kind of support him,” Plouffe said. “But it’s going to be a close competitive race no matter who come out the other side.”

Another Liberal Opinion on Healthcare Constitutionalism…

Comments Off

This was on Yahoo News, and I got chills reading it. Since when does a democracy demand that you have insurance so you aren’t a burden? It may be a hard thing to stomach, but it’s called the FREEDOM of choice. If SCOTUS doesn’t call this one down, it’s another treadmark on the Constitution. I cannot believe the way these people think.

Neal Katyal, who as acting US Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s flagship health reform in lower courts, has warned in an interview with AFP of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law.

Q:) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

A:) The case that’s coming before the Supreme Court which challenges Congress’s Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly a significant case. It’s rare for a president’s signature initiative to come before the Supreme Court and be challenged as unconstitutional.

Q:) The requirement for each individual to have health insurance coverage is central to the president’s reform. Can the law survive without that measure?

A:) It’s a hard thing to imagine that the law, that all of the rest of the law would survive if the individual mandate is struck down, because Congress when they passed the Affordable Care Act, said: ‘We want to get rid of discrimination against those who have pre-existing conditions to make sure that insurers are going to insure everyone at a fair cost’. And if you get rid of the provision that says everyone has to carry insurance, then you’re really effectively undoing the logic of the ban on discrimination of those with pre-existing conditions.

Q:) In what way could the individual mandate by judged “unconstitutional”?

A:) The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.

Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Q:) What are the possible outcomes?

A:) The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30.

I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone else was surprised in this case, and the court didn’t reach a standard 5-to-4 judgment with the five Republican justices — those nominated by Republican presidents on one side, and the four nominated by Democratic presidents on the other.

Q:) Why is there such visceral opposition to this law among Americans?

A:) Whenever you have landmark legislation, people are afraid of change. That’s not surprising. And this is something that is going to dramatically change insurance markets, health care markets, and you know, there’s a lot of people who can be worried about that and who, if they don’t like the law, should vote against those who voted for it. Vote against President Obama, or vote against the members of Congress. What I think is not appropriate is to take that policy debate and put it in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. If they don’t like the law, there’s an easy vote and that’s in November.

1 in 7 now on Foodstamp relief

Comments Off

Here’s one the Obamby administration should be proud of…Please don’t get me wrong, there are some on the program that need help. But there are others now that the government have forced there. From the WSJ:

By Sara Murray

Growth in the food stamp program appeared to reach a plateau in February — with 14.3% of the population relying on the safety net program.

The number of food stamp recipients was essentially flat in February, the most recent month available, with 44.2 million Americans receiving benefits, according a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See a sortable breakdown of the data here.)

The food stamp program ballooned during the recession as workers lost their jobs or saw their hours and income reduced. The rise in recipients has begun to flatten in recent months, which may mean that as the economy is improving fewer Americans are seeking to join the program. Enrollment in the program is still high though, with 11.6% more people tapping benefits in February than the same month a year earlier.

Food stamp numbers aren’t seasonally adjusted though, meaning a variety of factors could influence the monthly tallies and the program could grow again in coming months.

Mississippi and Oregon were among the states with the largest share of the population utilizing food stamps in February: At least one in five residents in each state were receiving benefits.

Wyoming had the lowest rate of recipients with just 6.6% of the state’s residents using food stamps.

Tennessee was 19.9% usage for February at 1,202,604 on food stamps, with a year to year rise of 5.2%

Breaking News…We’re Going to Follow This….

Comments Off

This was posted on the Drudge Report on Sunday, August 29th.  The country is in economic turmoil…the President takes mulitple vacations, and plays more golf than Tiger Woods…and now this:

SOURCES: While president was in Martha's Vineyard, workers at White House have been busy installing new carpets, drapes, painting, etc. in Oval Office... Developing...

We’ll stay on this one…
UPDATE 8/30


ABC News’ Ann Compton reports:

On the President’s first day back in the office from vacation, facing a deteriorating economic horizon, one Internet site is claiming he has returned to a newly redecorated Oval Office, complete with new carpets and drapes.

A White House spokesman tells ABC News the administration will have no immediate comment on the Drudge Report that “workers have been busy installing new carpets, drapes, painting, etc. in Oval Office.” But mediamatters.org, a progressive  media watchdog site, has pounced, defending the Obama administration.

Under the headline “BREAKING: President Bush redecorated the White House,” mediamatters.org pre-buts any suggestion that a cosmetic face-lift would be what it calls “some sort of shocking waste of tax dollars.”   It recalls the Bush administration upgrades including an expensive sunburst carpet designed by then-First Lady Laura Bush.

When the Obamas first arrived last year, the President declared he liked the carpet and saw no need for immediate redecorating.

The President has a prime time address scheduled Tuesday evening from the Oval Office on the end of combat operations in Iraq, but under traditional White House protocol, the network television camera will be allowed to focus only on the President at his desk, without wider angle views of the office drapes and furniture.

– Ann Compton

The Brits Nail it Again

Comments Off

The Top 10 Reasons for the failure of the Obama Presidency, as seen across the pond…and not in the media at home…

President Obama: In decline? (Photo: AFP)President Obama: In decline? (Photo: AFP)

By Nile Gardiner, Telegraph UK

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.

There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.

Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.

On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.

3. Obama fails to inspire

In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.

4. The United States is drowning in debt

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

No to Christian Events, Yes to Iftar!

4 Comments

President Obama will host an iftar — the special evening meal observed during Ramadan — on Friday night in the White House dining room.

Obama participated in a similar gathering last year.

Celebrations like iftar dinners “remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings,” Obama wrote in a statement Wednesday.

“Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality … a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.”

The dinner comes amid a growing controversy over the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan, near the site of the World Trade Center. A CNN poll released Wednesday found that 68 percent of the public opposes the project.

Meanwhile, the White House — which has made great efforts to reach out to the Muslim community — has been silent on the issue.

“This is rightly a matter for New York City and the local community to decide,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Aug. 3.

Ramadan began on Wednesday and will end around Sept. 10.

Fixing the Spill, the Cure Ignored

Comments Off

Why has this been ignored by even the conspiracy media? Could it be a crisis appropiate for government takeover? Watch this very carefully and tell me should we have a problem in the Gulf?

Obama Holds Steady in Rankings on Rasmussen…in the Cellar

Comments Off

Are Blogs the Next Target?

5 Comments

From the Blog Herald.  Another reason that progressives need to be removed from power. Net neutrality, and the fairness doctrine are again coming to the forefront.  Until the SCOTUS could get involved, it may stop the freedom to speak your mind on the internet. For your reference, I am posting what the Constitution tells us about (a) freedom of speech, and (b) redress of government.  It makes no difference if it hurts their feelings…the people have the power (Amendment 10).  Amendment 1 says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction.) Now, what part of this article fits the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT?


It look like American bloggers could face a new threat that may make people think twice before criticizing their political leaders online.

Apparently the US government thinks bloggers are becoming a public hazard, and like a few other industries (i.e. airplanes, banks and nuclear power plants) need to be regulated by the government (in this case the Federal Election Commission).

The Obama administration has announced plans to regulate the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, extending its authority over broadband providers to police web traffic, enforcing “net neutrality.”

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere. (Reason.com)

This law would probably extend to Twitter as well, not to mention Facebook too (the latter who is embroiled in another censorship case via Pakistan).

Although this law (or measure) will probably be struck down by the US Supreme Court (who seems to love the first amendment aka “freedom of speech” for you non-yanks), the fact that the US government would even consider this is troublesome.

Unless the government is dealing with slander, a terrorist threat or a pay per post scandal they shouldn’t bother regulating the blogosphere as that could result in a political backlash (not to mention an provide an incentive to host ones content over seas).

Hopefully common sense prevails regarding this issue, as the last thing bloggers need is to worry about is regulation from “Uncle Sam.”

Even Helen’s had enough

Comments Off

 

Helen Thomas finally woke up at the briefing with Robert Gibbs long enough to smack him around some about the “openness” of the Obama administration.  Hey, even the old dog gets a biscuit every once and a while:

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers