Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

New York Times Accidentally Tells the Truth, Quickly Rectifies Problem

In Media, Obama on April 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm

Via Gateway Pundit

The New York Times Economix Blog published a post analyzing the first quarter G.D.P. estimates. The opening paragraph of the post declared Obama’s economic policies a failure:

At a time when the economy should be rebounding the latest GDP number for the first quarter of 2010 shows that the Obama economic policies have failed. Read the rest of this entry »

Oh Noes! Right Wing Zealots!

In Culture, Terrorist on September 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm

Tea Party media coverageA North Carolina man was arrested after posting bomb-making instructions on his Facebook page. Justin Carl Moose describes himself as an “extremist” a “radical” and “the Christian Osama Bin Laden.” Sweet, ain’t he? Moose allegedly planned to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic and threatened to destroy the Ground Zero Mosque “Oklahoma City style.”

Think Progress, of course, immediately dragged out the 2009 DHS warning against “Right Wing Extremists” and linked Moose to the Tea Party movement because a Gadsden Flag hung over his doorway. Maybe he is, maybe he’s not… so what? Mohammed Atta was linked to Islam and, as I recall, we’re not supposed to judge a group by its fringe elements. Isn’t that what we’re told?

Apparently there’s a double standard in the characterization of any group of people. In President Obama’s press conference this morning, he invoked the First Amendment right of the Imam Feisal and the Cordoba Initiative to build a (victory) mosque at Ground Zero. In the context of that same press conference, the president described Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Koran on 9/11 as “dangerous.” The conclusion we’re left to draw is that if you want to destroy America because of its freedoms, then you have the unimpeded freedom to do so. But, if you want to exercise that freedom, you are dangerous. Got it.

via memeorandum

Castro: Cuban Model Doesn’t Work

In Education, Humor on September 8, 2010 at 3:15 pm

And the rest of the world says: No @#$!, Sherlock!

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba’s economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore” Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

Okay, maybe not the rest of the world but, at the very least, the part that isn’t fantasizing about their own Marxist Utopia. So, that pretty much excludes Hugo Chavez, William Ayers, most of the UN bureaucrats and, to our great misfortune, President Obama. Everyone else thinks Castro might be the slowest learner in human history:

h/t Iowahawk via Twitter

Obama’s Dereliction of Duty

In Afghanistan, Obama on September 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm

In 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, over three hundred U.S. Military Personnel gave their lives in the course of their service to our country in Afghanistan. During that same year, then Commanding General Stanley McChrystal tried for three months to gain an audience with his Commander-in-Chief.

McChrystal sought to address the necessities for successfully carrying out the mission tasked to our troops. It wasn’t until his avoidance of McChrystal was more widely reported in the media that President Obama found time to meet with his top general in Afghanistan. Even then the meeting was little more than an aside. McChrystal was granted a few minutes, not in the White House, but aboard Air Force One… On a Copenhagen air strip… While the President was on his way to make his case to IOC for hosting the Olympic Games in Chicago.

General McChrystal has since been replaced as commander in Afghanistan following his criticism of the Obama Administration in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. Obama said McChrystal’s remarks showed “poor judgment.” On the contrary, General McChrystal’s observations seem spot-on, especially in light of recent statements from within the Obama Administration:

[Obama’s] Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics. He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.

Let that sink in for just a minute. Obama’s Afghan policy was focused on domestic politics. He would not risk losing health care votes. In other words, decisions that affect the lives of American Servicemen were made not with regard to the mission that they’ve put their lives on the line for, but for how those decisions affect Obama’s legacy.

Obama Policy Shift on Offshore Drilling

In Economy, Environment, Obama on March 31, 2010 at 9:31 am

Drill, baby, Drill!

The New York Times reports:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Hold the celebration for a bit, though. Opening more coastline to oil exploration is something that Obama promised during his campaign and brought up again during his state of the union address. However, as with anything the Obama administration does, this will surely come with a catch. Further on in the NYT article, the catch may have appeared:

The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.

Sister Toldjah‘s take:

The upcoming cap and tax battle is close at hand, and with this being an election year, Obama and Democrat mis”leaders” in the House and Senate don’t want the political headaches and nightmares that came with the drawn out process of them trying to shove the trillion dollar ObamaCare “reform” plan down the throats of the American people, so they’re throwing a bone to “moderate” Republican and Democrat Senators and House reps in hopes of avoiding a prolonged battle and winning their votes on cap and tax

While this move may anger Obama’s pro-environment, “green-er” base, it’s a move that he can afford. It’s the base after all, where else are they going to go? In the mean time, he can build capital with the moderates and allow Democrats to repair some of the damage done by the health care reform process.

Doug Powers predicts

…that new drill sites will end up being like Obama’s sudden embrace of building nuclear power plants — and that is to construct them as sweetheart deals for big labor, but never really use them.

This as-for-now merely symbolic lurch to the middle can also be taken as a sign that Obama knows Democrats are in serious trouble in the upcoming election, as well as in 2012.

The potential for emptiness in this gesture is significant. Any leases in the newly opened areas are subject to approval by the Department of the Interior after environmental and geological studies. None of these studies will be available until after 2012, allowing the administration to maintain the illusion until conveniently after the next presidential election.

I’ll let Moe Lane at Red State take it home because he sums it up nicely:

Let me put it another way: the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow – in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday – in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps.  Try again, Mr. President.  Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more.  A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities.

h/t memeorandum


This Just In: Paul Krugman is Still an Ass

In health care, Tea Party on March 26, 2010 at 10:12 am

New York Times– Paul Krugman:

I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn’t seem quite as entertaining — and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.

In a sense, Paul Krugman is right. One cannot be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great (here I agree only if by “great” he means “large”) political parties. Where I disagree is on Krugman’s characterization of opponents to health care “reform” as extremists.

To correct Mr. Krugman’s misperception, this is an extremist:

William Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist.

This also is an extremist:

Rev. Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright

This is someone who associates with extremists:

"We're going to fundamentally change America"

This is an extremist who celebrates our move toward socialized medicine:

Fidel Castro, despot

We’ve been saying for years that it’s dangerous to see one of our two major parties aligning itself with extreme elements. The fact that Paul Krugman has not only just come to that conclusion and then points to the American public rather than the extreme elements in the Democrat party as an example is not surprising. Because, you know… he’s an ass.

Conflict of Interest, Anyone?

In Economy on March 25, 2010 at 5:40 am

Thumb screws: just the right amount of pressure...

Andy Stern, recent Obama appointee to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has set his sights on Bank of America. The problem with that? Stern is also the head of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), an organization that currently owes more than $94 million dollars to Bank of America.

Kyle Olson at Big Government:

Fresh off his health care reform victory, [Stern is] renewing his attack on Bank of America, one of the banks SEIU and ACORN targeted during the foreclosure crisis and bank bailouts.  Bank employees reportedly received a memo saying “that SEIU is ramping up a big attack on the banks again about derivatives,” according to sources.

What makes Stern’s attack particularly audacious is that, according to SEIU’s latest LM-2 financial report filed with the federal Department of Labor, the union currently has an outstanding loan of $94,578,779 from Bank of America.  It has repaid a paltry $1,740,250.

The trouble is that Andy Stern is not noted for his above-board tactics. Investors Business Daily compared Stern’s appointment to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility to putting a serial arsonist in charge of fire safety week.

With a reputation such as Stern’s, the potential for undue influence seems high.

The Real Reason For Partisanship

In Obama on March 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm

Republicans turned off by size of Obama's package

Next Steps After Obamacare Passage

In Congress, Economy, health care, House, Republican, Senate, Tea Party on March 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm

The United States House of Representatives, on March 21, 2010, passed the Senate’s health care reform legislation, sending it on to President Obama who will sign the bill into law. Those of you who have fought, argued, railed and protested against this legislation don’t need me to describe any further the unconstitutionality, erosion of freedom, fiscal irresponsibility and exponential expansion of government bureaucracy that this represents. Those who argued for the passage of this legislation will find out soon enough the truth behind the bill of goods you’ve been sold. Already the bond market has reacted unfavorably because, unlike politicians who lie about the  numbers, the numbers themselves don’t lie.

At the founding of our nation, the events that fomented revolution were strikingly similar to what we are experiencing today. While they bridled against them, the taxes that led to the Boston Tea Party weren’t the root of the issue with the colonists, the beef with Britain was that the taxes were levied without someone representing the interests of the colonists in Parliament; taxation without representation. The correlation between that and the passage of sweeping legislation against the will of a majority of Americans today ought to be obvious.

Heritage describes the “Intolerable Acts”, legislation enacted by the British Parliament in the wake of the Boston Tea Party.

The British government responded harshly by punishing Massachusetts— closing Boston Harbor, virtually dissolving the Massachusetts Charter, taking control of colonial courts and restricting town meetings, and allowing British troops to be quartered in any home or private building. Richard Henry Lee wrote that these laws were “a most wicked system for destroying the liberty of America.” The American colonists, outraged by these violations of their first principles, their basic rights and the rule of law itself, called them what they were: Intolerable Acts.

The contrast between colonial American society and modern American society is largely what has allowed this current debasement of our freedoms. It’s almost as if Aldous Huxley was a prophet.

Heartening is the knowledge that our founding patriots began as a small, fringe group from which the idea of liberty spread. Having laid that foundation for us, our work in restoring those liberties, while challenging, is somewhat easier. The notion of Freedom has not yet been lost in our society, though there is a cost to freedom as Doctor Zero reminds us:

Freedom is not a gift. It is not given to you by the government, in a precise dosage that can be adjusted to match a politician’s diagnosis of what ails the body politic. Your forefathers won an impossible Revolution against an invincible foe to declare the self-evident truth that your rights descend from your Creator. Whether that Creator is a transcendent God, or a random combination of genetic material in the primordial soup, it is a power that existed before the first king assumed his throne, or the first president was elected.

In paying that price, we will have to face our own shortcomings, our past laziness, political opportunism and shortsightedness:

Not once during that period [of Republican majority in 2006] did the party seriously attempt to reform the health-care cost structure, let alone through the use of market-based strategies now expounded by Paul Ryan, among others.  Why?  First, Republicans did attempt to reform Social Security in 2005 with market-based strategies and got demagogued by Democrats for making the effort.  But it wasn’t really that reason that kept the GOP from engaging on health-care reform.  That issue was widely seen as a Democratic strength, and Republicans didn’t want to engage heavily on their turf. – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.

Drew at Ace of Spades lays out a battle plan in an open letter to Republicans:

You need to be the party of No for the next 6 months on just about every issue. The only issue (other than national security) that matters is repealing this monstrosity. I don’t know if it can be done but it has to be tried.

Please don’t let Obama drag you into a pissing match over the small stuff. If he has another idiotic jobs bill, just let it go. Vote no but don’t fight about it, reframe the fight in terms of health care. Reframe everything in terms of health care…immigration, taxes, Cap and Trade, whatever other crap they throw at you. It all comes down to health care and the fundamental shift in the relationship between the government and the people.

Repeal is indeed the word of the day. The trouble is that entitlement programs become rapidly entrenched in society, as evidenced by the inability to reform Medicare which we’ve known for years is on the verge of bankruptcy. The fact that the end of the line for Medicare’s feasibility is in sight and yet we’ve been unable to do more than delay the inevitable speaks volumes of the task we’ll have reversing this health care legislation. The Cato Institute lends a little perspective on this, taking a pessimistic view of Republican will:

Republicans will run this fall on a promise to repeal this deeply unpopular bill, and will likely reap the political advantages of that promise. But in reality there is little chance of their following through. Even if Republicans were to take both houses of Congress, they would still face a presidential veto and a Democratic filibuster.

But more important, once an entitlement is in place, it becomes virtually impossible to take away. The fact that Republicans have been criticizing Obamacare for cutting Medicare shows that they are not really willing to take the heat for cutting people’s benefits once they have them — no matter how unaffordable those benefits are. Paul Ryan put forth a serious plan for entitlement reform — and attracted just six co-sponsors at last count. Enough said.

I have to admit that such lack of follow-through concerns me, as well. For that reason, as I vet candidates for the mid-term election, commitment to repeal will be a crucial factor. If I don’t find that commitment I might actually join the vote out all incumbents crowd and begin beating the drum loudly.

Kill the Bill Status Update

In Abortion, health care, House on March 20, 2010 at 1:07 pm
President Obama addresses the House

President Obama Addresses the House

Here is a run-down of recent developments pertaining to health care legislation:

  • President Obama has just completed his final sales pitch before the House votes on health care reform tomorrow.
  • Stupak will not have his abortion language included in the House reconciliation bill. Either the Dems think that they have the votes without the Stupak 12 or the threats of revolt by the Pro-Choice Caucus were taken seriously.
  • “Deem and Pass” has been abandoned; we’ll have a straight up or down vote after all.

The House will vote tomorrow on the Senate health care bill and the House amendments separately since the “Deem and Pass” idea has been abandoned. Interestingly, it was suggested on C-Span that the House Parliamentarian may allow the house to vote on the amendments before voting on the Senate bill that they’re amending. I’m not sure how that’s going to work.

The latest whip count (depending on who you ask) puts the “noes” tantalizingly close at 214 but that may change if the House is allowed to vote on the amendments first.