Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Enough is Too Much Already!

by Dr. Robert Owens on Saturday, November 15th, 2014

This is article 45 of 45 in the topic 2014 Elections

The recent elections delivered the most crushing defeat a political Party has suffered since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Forty-nine state landslide.  Democrats were rejected by every voting block demographic: young, old, men, women, rich, poor.  Everyone said, “Enough is too much already!” Exit polls everywhere say their handling of the economy and the general direction of the country were the major reasons.  BHO tried to make the election about him as he tries to make everything about him.  His party spent millions trying to run away from him, his record, and his agenda.  However in the end the President’s repeated statements that his policies were on the ballot and that all these Democrats had supported him and his agenda outweighed his friends protests that they hardly knew him.

After the 1994 Contract With America Congress came to town in a similar wave of rejection for the Progressives and their agenda, President Clinton was eventually dragged by his advisor Dick Morris to the signing table and he eventually signed on to the Contract’s legislation.  This brought about everything he is credited with today: a balanced budget and reforming welfare.  After his comeuppance he took the microphone to remind us he was still relevant.

After his recent shellacking BHO came to the world’s stage to tell us he hadn’t lost because the two thirds of the electorate who didn’t vote support him.  He has declared himself to be the voice of those not interested enough to pry themselves off the couch long enough to vote and the advocate of those who care enough to show up.  This is a bold attempt to organize the anarchy of the militantly apathetic.

Since his meteoric messianic rise from the South Side of Chicago to the Oval Office BHO has governed against the will of the American people.  When he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid used parliamentary sleight-of-hand to shove Obamacare down our throat they knew the majority of the public opposed it.  When the President used executive orders to implement the Dream Act he knew the representatives of the people had rejected it.  When he announced the surge in Afghanistan and at the same time announced the coming evacuation, when he cut and ran from Iraq setting the stage for ISIS to rise, when he encouraged the Arab Spring to overthrow our allies and empower our enemies leading to the wholesale slaughter and dispossession of the Christians of the Middle East, he knew all of these acts were contrary to the will of the people.

So it should be no surprise that after the largest shout by the voters since the 1940s that they want him to stop his fundamental transformation of America he plans to move ahead with his import-a-voter campaign.  Any moment now he will announce another decree from the imperial presidency.  In the wave of his hand that disregards the wave of the people he will legalize millions of illegal immigrants.  These are people who have broken our laws.  These are people whose goal is to take jobs from Americans.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Truth and Consequences of the 2014 Elections

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Thursday, November 13th, 2014

This is article 43 of 45 in the topic 2014 Elections

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

President Obama has doubled down on his latest lie—that last week’s elections were not a repudiation of his policies and governance. The pollsters and the media missed the mark as well, by a long shot. The election was a clear repudiation of an out-of-control, dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt administration. While the voters may not love Republicans, a majority of them recognized that they are the only hope of stopping the Obama agenda, which is disastrous for this country on many levels.

Even when Obama said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last Sunday that “The buck stops here,” meaning he accepted some responsibility, he added that it was really about his messaging and skills of persuasion, not his policies, his incompetence, or his radical agenda. He also said that the meaning of the election was that the American people just want Washington to work, and that he is committed to that.

His loyalists in the media took a bit of a different position. The view of MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and Chuck Todd, along with numerous other analysts, was that the real problem was the Democrats’ rejection of President Obama in the period leading up to the election. Very few incumbent Democrats wanted anything to do with Obama, but the belief of those journalists and analysts, taking their cue from the White House spin machine, was that if the candidates would have only embraced the President and his great “success” with the economy, they would have done much better. But those who did embrace him, for the most part, lost anyway. Some were shockers, such as the governor’s races in the very blue states of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Remember, Obama said that while he wasn’t “on the ballot this fall…make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” And the voters clearly agreed, either by the way they voted, or their decision to stay home.

The big question following the 2014 November elections is, what will both sides do now? For the GOP, the dilemma is said to be that they need to show that they can govern, and not just obstruct and say no. Without women, blacks and Latinos, we are told, the GOP can’t win another presidential election. So they must move to the left. However, a Gallup poll taken after the election shows that by a 53% to 36% margin, Americans “want GOP legislators in Congress to have more influence over the country’s direction than Obama during the next year.” The voters are saying to the GOP, show us what you’ve got.

At the state level, the Republican wave was even more dominant. According to the website, Vox, “Republicans now control state government outright in at least 24 states, one more than they did before the election. They control at least 66 of 99 state legislative chambers nationwide. And they cut the number of states with total Democratic control from 14 to seven —the lowest number since the Civil War.”

The dilemma for Obama is that he either has to drop the hand grenade of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in this country—which by all indications he plans to do—or risk, as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said, a “civil war” in the Democrat Party.

Click to continue reading “Truth and Consequences of the 2014 Elections”
Go straight to Post

The perils of Obama we refuse to face

by Douglas J. Hagmann on Wednesday, November 12th, 2014

This is article 1013 of 1013 in the topic Obama

hagmann111214

12 November 2014: An article written by Coach Dave Daubenmire, titled “Is the Man in the White House Mentally Ill?” appeared on the News with Views website last week. Coach Daubenmire said it best, plainly, and directly just within the title alone. With all due respect to the coach, however, I’d bet most “average” Americans looked at the title of the column and proceeded elsewhere, believing the article to be the ravings of just some hyper-lunatic Christian conservative with latent hatred toward the man occupying the Oval Office. I’d even bet that some conservatives and even conservative-Christians felt that way too, even without reading the article. After all, there must be some expectations of respect, or standards thereto, for anyone holding the position of the office of the President of the United States.

Furthermore, anyone of reasonable sensibilities would most certainly dismiss the mere suggestion that the most powerful man in the free world might possess some form of mental impairment, wouldn’t they? After all, how could our government remain functional and the chief executive be respected by other world leaders if he is hobbled by a hidden mental impairment?

Unsurprisingly, too few appear to be taking the observations of Coach Daubenmire seriously, including the corporate media and the usual stable of stale political pundits with a keyboard or microphone. Sure, some within the controlled media have broken from their scripts and made some minimal commentaries, but nothing of substance. The “real media,” however, would never look at the recent actions and reactions (specifically to the mid-term election results, as merely one example) of Barack Hussein Obama II with such unprecedented disrespect.

Wait… did I just use the word “unprecedented?” Hold onto that thought just for a moment.

Antisocial Personality Disorder, otherwise known as Sociopathy

The ponderings of Coach Daubenmire include his association between Obama’s visible behaviors with the use of a bona fide medical disorder known as Antisocial Personality Disorder, otherwise known as Sociopathy. The coach points to various instances where Obama exhibited outward signs of this recognized disorder, particularly in recent months. He lists the clinical presentations of someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder, but does so in plain-speak through his use of the medically recognized term sociopath. And such plain-speak and candor, cutting though the medical jargon to get to the heart of the matter, ladies and gentlemen, has seemed to cause some people to dismiss the valuable insights contained within his article, or has caused outrage in others.

Since the political and social Liberals (read Marxists) claim to have empathy for those with various impairments, as demonstrated by their rabid allegiance to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) at all costs and justifying the means by the ends, then it should be equally reasonable for those on the political left to be concerned about the mental and physical state of their leader. Instead, they choose to conveniently look the other way despite textbook behavioral exhibitions to the contrary. Even worse, they assail anyone who points out how closely the behavior of Barack Hussein Obama II mirror the characteristics of a sociopath. Has the media’s reticence to report on potential mental impairments with our chief executive officers always been the case?

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, November 9th, 2014

This is article 145 of 145 in the topic Democratic Party

There are really two Democratic parties.

One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.

They will say absolutely anything to get elected.

Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.

The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.

They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol’ boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.

Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.

The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.

Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.

Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.

Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.

The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.

Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Obsession with Iran

by Alan Caruba on Sunday, November 9th, 2014

This is article 1252 of 1254 in the topic International
Iranian mural on former US embassy in Tehran
By Alan Caruba
On November 4, 1979 as part of the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, a group of “students” seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took sixty of our diplomats hostage. They held them for 444 days until the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Every year since then Iran has celebrated that date as a national holiday. What does that tell you about how its leaders really feel about America?
The negotiations with Iran regarding a nuclear program it insists is only for peaceful use were supposed to be concluded in July, but were extended to this month and, given Iran’s ability to use such negotiations in the past to provide years’ more time to get closer to creating nuclear warheads for its missiles, they could be extended again with any hint from them of “progress.”
We have just learned that President Obama has been secretly writing to the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an effort to get his blessing for a deal. In 2012, Khamenei called for the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. On a website called Alef, he said that the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification’ to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel and in that the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

Khamanei’s predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called America “the great Satan” and expressed the belief that “If one permits an infidel to continue in his role as a corrupter of the earth, his moral suffering will be all the worse. If one kills the infidel and this stops him from perpetrating his misdeeds, his death will be a blessing to him.”  This insane justification of genocide is being ignored by President Obama who, unless he is a Muslim, should be troubled by such fanaticism.
The first rule of survival is not to negotiate with people who have expressed their intention to kill you. Obama has put the security of America, Israel, and all other nations at risk.
What is curious is Obama’s obsession with Iran that goes back to the earliest months of his first term. In May 2009, he was eager to “begin discussions soon” and believed that “we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction.” They have been moving in the wrong direction since 1979.  On October 1, 2009, Obama said, “Our patience is not unlimited.”  It is now 2014 and he has been secretly writing Ayatollah Khamanei.
For six years Obama has been proclaiming that negotiations will yield a result that everyone else knows cannot be achieved. Iran’s nuclear program is not peaceful.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies publishes an “Iran Press Review” in which it reports on what Iranian ayatollahs and political leaders are saying.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s Obsession with Iran”
Go straight to Post

It’s the Popularity Stupid: My Common Sense Take on Republican Victories in 2014

by John C. Drew Ph.D. on Friday, November 7th, 2014

This is article 1012 of 1013 in the topic Obama
As a political scientist, I think the reasons for Obama’s unpopularity are straightforward. He messed up his Obamacare website, screwed up with ISIS/Ebola, and left us with an economy with stagnant wage growth and low workforce participation. Things suck right now and the voters were right to blame Obama.

Basically, he is an incompetent, affirmative action president, incapable of doing the daily tasks necessary to succeed as president. He should have moderated his policies, parked his ideology, met regularly with congressional leaders, and spent less time on the golf course.

This was all quite predictable. He had no relevant job experience as a manager or as a leader of a large organization, much less an executive position in the federal bureaucracy. My take is that he surrounded himself with sycophants who played in to his enormous ego and allowed him to be lazy about the jobs of learning how to be president.

I met Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College and it never occurred to me that he had what it took to be president, much less be a successful president. He was lazy, into parties, intellectually frail, and a somewhat passive observer of life. He seemed like an average white guy to me. I’m not surprised to see that he has lost more congressional seats than any recent president, a casual review of his resume would lead any objective observer to think his time in office would be a train wreck.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Go straight to Post

Obama’s Revenge

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

This is article 41 of 45 in the topic 2014 Elections

By Alan Caruba

The Democratic Party that supported President Obama’s agenda for the past six years was dramatically rejected in the midterm elections and the message for the new Republican-controlled Senate and House is to aggressively take action on stalled legislation to improve the economy and address other issues that have suffered neglect.
The GOP is going to be up against the revenge Obama will take on America in the remaining two years. The midterms will not generate any humility in Obama; only anger and resentment.
Republicans were not elected to “work with” Obama. They were elected to stop his agenda and actions that have been harmful to the nation. The big question coming out of this electoral mandate is whether the inside-the-beltway Republicans in Washington will do what the voters want.
Obama promised a “transformation” of America, a nation dedicated to individual freedom and liberty, and it has taken this long for many to realize that his definition of transformation was an ever-increasing Big Government to control every aspect of our lives:
# the education of our youth who lack knowledge of civics, math, and science,
# the deprivation and reduction of access to vital sources of energy,
# the refusal to protect U.S. sovereignty by ignoring our immigration laws and border security,
# the reduction of our military power to levels rivaling pre-World War Two,
# the failure to resist the growth of Islamic fanaticism,
# the historic and dangerous increase of our national debt,
# the failure to take fundamental steps to revive the economy by cutting taxes and reducing regulations,
# the destruction of our market-based healthcare system.
Obama will take the electoral rejection very personally and, as we have seen in his contempt for working with Congress and his smears of the Republican Party, no one should doubt he will use the remainder of his term in office to wreak as much damage as possible; to prove he is right and the rest of the nation is wrong.
Much of what he will do was put off until after the midterm elections because he knew the level of rejection would be even greater. Now he is free to misuse “executive orders” unless the new Congress takes steps to defund and legislatively stop them. Investigations into the scandals that have become synonymous with his administration must be vigorously pursued.
What can we anticipate?
Obama will do everything he can to leave American vulnerable to increased illegal immigration including a rumored amnesty that would provide work permits and green cards to millions who would compete with jobless natural born and naturalized Americans. He has already refused to spend funds that have been allocated to secure our borders.
When Attorney General Eric Holder exits the Department of Justice expect Obama to nominate someone even more radical and divisive.
In the next two years you can expect the Environmental Protection Agency, already producing more regulations than any other element of the government, to go into overdrive to shut down as many power plants as possible, reducing the production of electricity on which the nation depends.
Obama has done little to respond to the growing global Islamist movement, showing favor to terrorist groups such as Hamas, but his greatest effort has been to provide Iran with the approval to advance its nuclear weapons capability by opening negotiations that, if agreed to, would put it within mere months of being able to put nuclear warheads on missiles and in bombs.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s Revenge”
Go straight to Post

Why Obama Hates Netanyahu

by Daniel Greenfield on Saturday, November 1st, 2014

This is article 1251 of 1254 in the topic International

Obama’s foreign policy was supposed to reboot America’s relationship with the rest of the world. Old allies would become people we occasionally talked to. Old enemies would become new allies. Goodbye Queen, hello Vladimir. Trade the Anglosphere for Latin America’s Marxist dictatorships. Replace allied governments in the Middle East with Islamists and call it a day for the Caliphate.

Very little of that went according to plan.

Obama is still stuck with Europe. The Middle East and Latin American leftists still hate America. The Arab Spring imploded. Japan, South Korea and India have conservative governments.

And then there’s Israel. The original plan was to sideline Israel by focusing on the Muslim world. Instead of directly hammering Israel, the administration would transform the region around it. The American-Israeli relationship would implode not through conflict, but because the Muslim Brotherhood countries would take its place.

That didn’t work out too well. Instead of gracefully pivoting away, Obama loudly snubbed Netanyahu. A photo of him poking his finger in Netanyahu’s chest captured the atmosphere. Netanyahu delivered a speech that Congress cheered. And Obama came to see him as a domestic political opponent.

The torrent of anti-Israel leaks from the administration is a treatment usually reserved for political opponents. The snide remarks by White House spokesmen and the anonymous personal attacks on Netanyahu in the media echo domestic hate campaigns out of the White House like Operation Rushbo.

Netanyahu wasn’t just the leader of a country that the left hated. He had become an honorary Republican.

When Obama met with him, Netanyahu firmly but politely challenged him on policy. He has kept on doing so ever since, including during his most recent visit. At a time when most leaders had gotten the message about shunning Romney, Netanyahu was happy to give him a favorable reception. Netanyahu clearly wanted Romney to win and Obama clearly wished he could pull a Clinton and replace Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s economic policies were working in exactly the same way that Obama’s weren’t.

The two men hate each other not only on a personal level, but also on a political level.

Netanyahu had successfully pushed through a modernization and privatization agenda that on this side of the ocean is associated with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. It’s likely what Romney would have done which is one more reason the two men got along so well. Obama’s visible loathing for Romney is of a piece with his hatred for Netanyahu.

He doesn’t just hate them. He hates what they stand for. That’s why Harper and Netanyahu get along so well. It’s part of why Obama and Netanyahu get along so badly.

But the bigger part of the conflict is neither personal nor political. Obama wanted to sideline Israel; instead he’s stuck dealing with it. Hillary’s lack of foreign policy ambition allowed the Jewish State to come through fairly well in Obama’s first term. For Hillary, being Secretary of State was just a stepping stone to the White House by making her rerun candidacy seem fresh. Her relationship with Israel was bad, but her first job was not to make any waves.

John Kerry ambitiously jumped into multiple foreign policy arenas. His bid for a deal between Israel and the PLO was a predictable disaster.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – Going Mad

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, October 31st, 2014

 It’s Time for Israel to Recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia

ONE GOVERNMENT UNDER ALLAH

The Secretary of State of the United States just ordered Israel to limit prayers in a particular place to Muslims, not Jews. And apparently to ban other non-Muslims too.

Remember when the United States used to uphold religious freedom? These days it sends people to jail for offending Muslims and orders other countries to engage in religious discrimination on behalf of Muslims.

Kerry Says Only Muslims, Not Jews, May Pray at Jewish Holy Site

80% of London Muslims Support ISIS

REMEMBER THE USSR

This is the corrupt ocean that the Clintons swim in. Expecting Hillary to know how jobs are created is like expecting an ex-con to go straight. Crime is all he knows. It’s all that the Clintons, the Obamas and the Warrens know. We are dealing with people who have no concept of how earning a living even works.

Like McAuliffe’s GreenTech, which in true Clinton style involved Hillary Clinton’s brother, dirty Chinese businessmen, an international fugitive, endangering national security, insider lobbying, an SEC investigation, millions in government loans and 2,000 union jobs for Virginia that never materialized.

And those million cars a year that it was supposed to build are nowhere in sight. But that’s how you create jobs in Hillary’s world.

The ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Party

Man Says Islam is Violent, Muslims Violently Beat Him

TRIGGER WARNING

Goldberg’s story was another brick in the wall for a narrative characterizing Netanyahu as “the problem” in the US-Israel relationship. It was supposed to lift the blame for Obama and sell him and the Democrats to Jewish voters.

It might have done that if not for the story being condensed down to a member of the administration calling the Prime Minister of Israel a “coward” and “chickens__t”.

It’s hard to take that money quote and blame Israel.

Jeffrey Goldberg scored his media moment, again, while unintentionally vaporizing his own narrative. Instead of Netanyahu being the problem, suddenly the pettiness and personal antipathy of the administration looks like the problem.

Obama and Jeffrey Goldberg Took Aim at Netanyahu, Shot Themselves in the Foot

Pentagon: Maybe General Susan Rice Shouldn’t be Running War on ISIS

THE VAST JEWISH/CHRISTIAN DOG CONSPIRACY

Mr Syed Azmi Abhalshi, the man behind the controversial “I Want To Touch A Dog” event, has apologised for the furore it has caused.

However, the social activist stressed that the programme was meant to be educational, and not to promote liberalism as alleged by certain quarters.

“I organised this event because of Allah, not to deviate the people’s faiths, try to change the Islamic rules of law, poke fun at the ulama or encourage pluralism,” he told a packed press conference at Kelab Sri Selangor here on Saturday.

By pluralism he means Christianity. Even though he’s Muslim, Muslims accused him of secretly being a Christian.

Why? I’m sorry, you weren’t expecting any of this to make sense, were you?

The user said the dog-familiarization event was part of “a Jewish agenda to Christianise Muslim-Malaysians through subtle measures.”

Very subtle.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Cartoon Round Up

by Alan Caruba on Friday, October 31st, 2014

This is article 25 of 25 in the topic Humorous

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin