Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

What a novel idea: A President who understands business!

November 1, 2012

President Obama finally clued in that the American people care about the economy and pronounced that he would consider appointing a new Czar Secretary of Business. How Ayn Randian of him.

Or – and bear with me here – we could elect a President who actually UNDERSTANDS business! The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we will have four more years of the last four years, with higher taxes, fewer jobs and less take-home pay.

In 2008, Barack Obama promised to take China “to the mat.” Instead, he’s allowed China to treat the United States like a doormat. Regulations are crushing small business, yet President Obama has issued major new regulations at an unprecedented rate. He has stalled the trade negotiations and agreements he inherited, he has started no new negotiations, and he has completed no agreements of his own. Our corporate tax rate is already uncompetitive, and President Obama wants to take even more from our small businesses through new and higher taxes.

Worse still, President Obama has NO NEW IDEAS to fix the economy – other than creating a new bureaucrat.

Time for a president who actually has a plan.


Big Bird, Binders and Bayonets: Obama’s plan for the future

October 25, 2012

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words – a video has got to be worth so much more.

Obama and Libya – the outrage grows as the cover-up unravels

October 24, 2012

The White House story and ongoing cover-up are unraveling.

We already know that Candy Crowley had to walk back her “fact-checking” during the 2nd debate. The White House and State Dept insisted for days that the attacks on the Embassy were prompted by a video no one saw and were a result of a spontaneous demonstration.

Not so.

Even before the debates, the New York Times ran a story on how “The Shifting Reports on Libya Killings May Cost Obama”

“The Obama administration’s shifting accounts of the fatal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, have left President Obama suddenly exposed on national security and foreign policy…After first describing the attack as a spontaneous demonstration run amok, administration officials now describe it as a terrorist act with possible involvement by Al Qaeda. The changing accounts prompted the spokesman for the nation’s top intelligence official, James R. Clapper Jr., to issue a statement on Friday acknowledging that American intelligence agencies ‘revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

In the ensuing weeks, the American public has found out a more about what actually happened, piece by painful piece.

Now, we have emails that show CLEARLY that the State Department and the White House knew it was a terrorist attack within 2 hours of the initial assault.

From Reuters:

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Despite this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Rice on Sept. 18. He said: “Based on information that we — our initial information … we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.” Carney went on to say “that is what we know” based on “concrete evidence, not supposition.”

I guess the “not optimal” outcome didn’t fit the narrative that Al Qaeda was dead or on the run – and besides – it interfered with a Las Vegas fundraiser and being eye candy on “The View.”


Real Leaders don’t say assassinations are “not optimal”

October 23, 2012

The Obama record: leading from behind in Syria

October 23, 2012

President Obama has left Syria’s oppressive regime emboldened and has allowed a human tragedy to unfold inside the country.

First, he tried to appease Assad, saying in February 2009: “We can’t kick the can down the road. We’re gonna have to take a regional approach. We’re gonna have to involve Syria in discussions. We’re gonna have to engage Iran in ways that we have not before.”

According to the Washington Post later that year, “President Obama has decided to return a U.S. ambassador to Syria after an absence of more than four years, marking a significant step toward engaging an influential Arab nation long at odds with the United States.”

In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Syria’s government could still “make reforms despite mounting political violence that has sparked worldwide condemnation.” Clinton herself was widely criticized after she called Assad a reformer, citing the views of congressional leaders who had met with the Syrian leader. The Washington Post called it “wishful thinking.” “60 Syrians had already been massacred by Mr. Assad’s security forces; others have since fallen. Ms. Clinton was only reflecting a piece of wishful thinking to which the Obama administration and its congressional allies have tenaciously clung: that Mr. Assad, despite his brutality, sponsorship of terrorism and close alliance with Iran, can somehow be turned into a Western ally.

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year questioned Obama’s reluctance on calling for Assad to go. “That’s one of the many mysteries of the Administration’s policy toward Syria. Unlike with Egypt, where Mr. Obama was quick to call for Hosni Mubarak’s departure despite his 30-year alliance with the U.S., it took months for the President to call for Mr. Assad to go—and that’s despite the Assad family’s 40-year track record of hostility to the U.S. and its support for terrorism.”

The New York Times last week concluded in spite of “classified assessments” on the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 30,000 lives, Obama’s strategy of “minimal and indirect intervention” has failed to help topple Assad and instead, may be “sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.”
It should be alarming to know that:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

This summer, the NYT noted that not only is Al Qaeda not dead or on the run, it is becoming bigger, bolder and increasingly involved in the violence in Syria (and other places like, oh, say, Benghazi).

It is the sort of image that has become a staple of the Syrian revolution, a video of masked men calling themselves the Free Syrian Army and brandishing AK-47s — with one unsettling difference. In the background hang two flags of Al Qaeda, white Arabic writing on a black field. “We are now forming suicide cells to make jihad in the name of God,” said a speaker in the video using the classical Arabic favored by Al Qaeda.

Now, the Washington Post takes Obama to task on his “serial miscalculations” saying they “have had the consistent if unintended effect of enabling Syria’s Bashar al-Assad — first to avoid international isolation, then to go on slaughtering his own population with impunity. Obama’s Syria policy began in 2009 with the misguided idea of reaching out to the dictator. Within a month of his inauguration, Obama reversed the Bush administration’s approach of isolating Assad. He later reopened the U.S. Embassy and dispatched senior envoys, such as George Mitchell.”

Even Obama’s allies are calling for a more assertive role in Syria. Senator John Kerry – on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – said “The United States needs to do more to protect civilians in Syria, including considering setting up safe zones inside Syria and potentially arming the opposition.” According to “The Cable“, “Kerry also warned that if the balance of power is not tilted in Syria in the opposition’s favor, it’s unlikely that President Bashar al-Assad will step down. A political transition that sees Assad removed from power remains the goal, he said, but the United States must step up its efforts to make that goal a reality.”

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright told the NYT this summer: “I’m for intervention, but it doesn’t have to be on-the-ground military intervention. We do have to get more involved in this.’ Albright said that the American intervention should be multilateral, but that the inability to achieve a Security Council resolution shouldn’t block action any more than it did in Kosovo in 1999. “We can’t afford to be in a cul-de-sac while people are being killed,” she said.”

Last night, Obama said in the 3rd and final debate: “We are playing the leadership role. We organized the Friends of Syria. We are mobilizing humanitarian support, and support for the opposition. And we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term.”

Somehow, I don’t think Al Qaeda is shaking in their boots over Obama’s stance towards Syria and its murderous leader.

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

October 18, 2012

Romney shreds Obama on his record

October 17, 2012

Obama did better in this debate than the first one – nowhere to go but up, right? Of course he was helped by the moderator, who gave him extra time and fact-checked a comment she then had to retract. Romney missed a couple of opportunities to land some serious blows, but overall, did well. Post-debate insta-polling had candidates tied as winners or Obama slightly ahead, but when it came to the economy, Romney came out on top – some 30 points on top.

Governor Romney had the opportunity to pointedly address Obama’s record, some of the best use of time in the debate and it came towards the end.

“I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.

“He said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work.

“I wasn’t the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the President’s plan. Didn’t get there.

“He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

“He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

“This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented — it’s already been passed — if it’s implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500 on top.

“The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, ‘Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.’ That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans.

“There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

“How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.

“The President wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.

“You might say, ‘Well, you got an example of one that worked better?’ Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period — the end of that recession and the equivalent period of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

“The President has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.”

Watch for yourselves:

The White House cover-up on Libya

October 10, 2012

This is seriously disturbing. All to maintain a narrative….

Romney crushing it – huge shift in momentum becoming obvious

October 9, 2012

Last week’s debate wasn’t just good for Romney and disappointing for Obama. It was SPECTACULAR for Romney and DEVASTATING for Obama. Rasmussen polling showed an immediate tightening of the race but their results were pooh-pooh’d by many in the mainstream media because they tend to lean right. Yesterday, Gallup released a new post-debate poll that showed Romney and Obama tied at … wait for it … 47% each AND a whopping 72% of those surveyed declaring Romney the victor in the debate.

The Pew Research Center also released polling that showed just how devastating Obama’s performance was to his own campaign. Among all likely voters surveyed, Romney climbed from an 8-pt deficit to a 4-point lead. That’s a swing of 12 points with ONE debate. It get worse for Obama. Romney is now polling even among women voters. He was down EIGHTEEN points just last month in Pew’s previous survey. The trend continues. Romney has seen double-digit gains in the confidence the American people have in his ability to lead, up 13 points since September’s poll. Romney’s supporters are becoming more enthusiastic as well, up to 67% from 56% last month. That bodes well for poll turnout.

The good news for Romney continues: His favorables are up while Obama’s dropped 6 points. Romney also now leads on the questions of who would do a better job with the economy, the budget deficit and jobs. In less than one month, the Pew poll shows a 12-point gain for Romney in voters who like he would do a better job with the deficit, for example. There was a 9-pt swing on the issue of improving the job situation and a 10-point swing on the issue of taxes. Romney now leads in all three categories.

Heads exploding on the left isn’t limited just to Chris Matthews.) The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan has a scathing piece asking if Obama just threw away the entire election. Here are some nuggets:

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October….That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night:

Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.

But wait – there’s more!

I’ve never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week – throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement?

Sullivan’s suggestions for an Obama comeback?

He always needed a clear positive proposal – tax reform, a Grand Bargain on S-B lines – as well as a sterling defense of his admirable record. Bill Clinton did the former for him. Everyone imaginable did what they could for him. And his response? Well, let’s look back a bit:

With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now. Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. “Basically they’re keeping me indoors all the time,” Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. “It’s a drag,” he added. “They’re making me do my homework.”

Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve.

Finally, there is this:

Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.

I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate – and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan’s meandering mess in 1984 was better – and he had approaching Alzheimer’s to blame.

I’m trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines… and a record number of people watch, it’s hard to see how a president and his party recover.

If only the polls weren’t so biased, imagine the lead Romney would have. (wink)

Obama, Big Bird and the economy

October 9, 2012

After Obama got thrashed during last week’s debate, they have decided to regroup and refocus their campaign. On Big Bird.

CNN had this to say about making a big election about small things:

Removing federal funding from a corporation that will do just fine in the private market doesn’t equal “Killing Big Bird” – it just means pushing him from the nest and letting him find his wings.

And, in case you are wondering, Sesame Workshop, which reported revenue of $130,606,413, in 2009, says 35 percent comes from “corporate, foundation and government support.” The latter includes the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Gary Knell, chief operating officer of Sesame Workshop from 2000–2011, made a salary of $$956,513. He is now the president and CEO of National Public Radio.

Direct government grants amounted to $7,968,918. Its Form 990 reported lobbying expenses of $1 million a year, in order to keep the federal dollars flowing. Lobbying is carried out by Tracy Garrett, Director of Government Affairs at Sesame Workshop.

The actor that plays Big Bird? He makes over $300 grand a year.

%d bloggers like this: