Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Barack Obama Tag

Posted by Jay Caruso on May 13, 2015 24 Comments
When scanning the spectrum of President Obama's presidency, it's difficult to find anything that he does with any kind of competence or skill. That said, when it comes to erecting straw man arguments, it's hard to find an equal to President Obama. As demonstrated before, Obama routinely engages in this practice by making a claim and then presenting an alternative or a solution to a problem that does not exist. The President recently participated in a panel discussion on poverty with Arthur Brooks from The American Enterprise Institute, Georgetown University President Joe DeGioia, and Robert Putnam of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; during his remarks, Obama raised scenarios that simply did not exist. The first was a recall of the good old days when rich people and poor people co-mingled in the same neighborhoods, contrasted with the current "reality" where successful people separate themselves and thus have no clue about life in the middle class:

Posted by Amy Miller on May 13, 2015 9 Comments
Whoever would have guessed that trade policy could turn into the US Senate's latest stumbling block? Yesterday, Senate Democrats voted to block the start of debate on a bipartisan bill that would renew and broaden the President's negotiating authority over international trade agreements. The bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority renewal legislation was introduced back in mid-April by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). If passed, it would give the President authority to negotiate trade deals that would then be sent off to Congress for either rejection or approval. Because the TPA legislation would not permit Congressional amendments to the deals, the update is seen as a "fast track" option. If passed, the TPA could be used to fast-track approval (or rejection) of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; the Partnership would include 11 other nations (both developed and developing), and stands to affect up to 40% of all US imports and exports if approved. The block isn't the end of the TPA renewal, but it represents a divide in the caucus, and the willingness of Democrat leadership to go against the agenda promoted by the White House.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 13, 2015 19 Comments
Elizabeth Warren had a reputation in academia as a climber with sharp elbows, said New York Magazine in 2011 ("A Saint with Sharp Elbows), and The Boston Globe in 2012:
Behind the scenes, some of her peers bristled at her ascent, viewing her as smart and capable but also as a climber with sharp elbows.
Warren brought those sharp elbows to her 2012 Senate campaign against Scott Brown, and when Brown elbowed back he was accused of sexism. Brent Budowsky at The Hill accused Brown of "sexist slime" for raising the obvious question as to whether Warren's false claim to be Native American in a law directory used for hiring might have juiced her career. Budowsky wrote:
First Brown implied that Warren was a Harvard elitist. Presumably Brown would attack John F. Kennedy for the same reason. Now Brown suggests that Elizabeth Warren is not really qualified to teach at Harvard. Huh? Brown's using the old Karl Rove-style "dog whistle" attack, suggesting Warren just maybe got the Harvard job because of affirmative action. What sexist garbage it is that Scott Brown is trying to sell? Elizabeth Warren got the Harvard job because she was supremely qualified, as are most women who are attacked in this way.
The Warren campaign made the same sexism charge:

Posted by Mike LaChance on May 13, 2015 19 Comments
Obama's obsession with FOX News is well documented. In 2009, shortly after being sworn in as president, his administration said FOX wasn't a real news network and accused FOX News of being a wing of the Republican Party. It doesn't matter to Obama that he's received the most fawning media coverage of any president in the last fifty years; he just can't sleep at night knowing that there's one cable news network that has dared to question him. The president's thin skin was on full display yesterday when he appeared at a "poverty summit" at Georgetown University. While invoking straw men who apparently hate poor people, Obama couldn't resist demonizing his old standby enemy. Transcript via John Nolte of Breitbart:
I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

Posted by Amy Miller on May 11, 2015 21 Comments
Well, that's embarrassing. What if you threw a summit and no one came? That's Obama's reality this week as four of six Persian Gulf heads of state have declined his invitation to a summit at Camp David later this week. The kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have dropped out entirely, as have the heads of state from the United Arab Emirates and Oman. (Kuwait and Qatar haven't dropped out yet, but there's still time.) This is a huge deal, considering the purpose of the summit is (in part) to address Iran's growing influence in the region, and to discuss security guarantees from the Obama administration. Although Saudi and the other absentee nations will be sending deputies, the absence of their figureheads sends a strong message about the state of relations between the Middle East, and Barack Obama. Via Fox News:
"We first learned of the King's possible change of plans from Saudis on Friday night," a senior U.S. administration official told Fox News. "This was confirmed by the Saudis on Saturday. We coordinated closely with our Saudi partners on the alternate arrangement and timing of the announcement and look forward to welcoming Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. This is not in response to any substantive issue."

Posted by Amy Miller on April 09, 2015 27 Comments
Back in 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the body of the United Nations with a piece of poster board and a red marker. During the two weeks prior to that moment, he had been waging a public battle with the Obama Administration over the dangerous progression of Iran's nuclear program---sound familiar---and made the decision to cut through the rhetoric in hopes that a visual aid might wake up the rest of the world. So, he picked up his marker and drew a literal red line that served as an ultimatum: “At this late hour there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs, and that is by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” Remember? NATIONS-articleLarge Yesterday, the Obama paid passive-aggressive homage to Netanyahu's famous "bomb" with one of their own:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 07, 2015 34 Comments
At this point, I've pretty much given up on the idea that I'll be able to make it through a week without somehow being maligned, insulted, or "made to care" about something by the President of the United States. He is who he is, and he's made it abundantly clear that he's not going to turn a 180 anytime soon. Yet I was somehow still shocked when I heard that he had taken a beat during a recent speech to lob an insult at Christians in general for being...un-Christian, or something. Did I mention this happened during his speech at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast?
“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.” As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, “But that’s a topic for another day.” “I was about to veer off,” he explained. “I’m pulling it back.” “Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed,” Obama said, returning to his prepared remarks. “Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God.”
Watch:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 06, 2015 24 Comments
Last week's "nuke deal" with Iran has drawn criticism both at home and overseas as being less of a "deal" and more of a capitulation to a belligerent enemy of freedom. (I wouldn't argue with those criticisms one bit.) It has caused many to call into question President Obama's motives for making such a deal, and forced discussions about what a nuclear Iran would mean for the future of the Middle East as we know it. Of course, the elephant in the room is Israel, a country whose future depends on the efforts of more powerful allies to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Not only have we have failed to do so, we have also set Benjamin Netanyahu up as the chief fall guy in the event of a breakdown in negotiations. CNN's Jim Acosta interviewed Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, and spent a lot of time focusing on the breakdown of the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 31, 2015 18 Comments
At this point, it should be obvious to most people that Obama doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind. Even Democratic members of the Senate are coming around. The Times of Israel:
Senators warn Obama against rescinding UN veto As reports proliferate that US leadership is considering stripping Israel of the protective diplomatic umbrella with which it has historically provided the Jewish state in the international arena — including its previously guaranteed vetoing of UN resolutions damaging to Jerusalem — a bipartisan group of US senators urged President Barack Obama in a letter Monday to avoid threatening Israel with such punitive measures and to reassert Washington’s support for the state. The letter obtained by the Times of Israel was signed by two Democrats and two Republicans who did not directly criticize the president’s policies, but did warn that “using the United Nations to push Israel and the Palestinians to accept terms defined by others will only ensure that the parties themselves are not committed to observing these provisions.”...

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 28, 2015 20 Comments
As if things in the Middle East couldn't get any worse, we're now at a point where our allies don't trust us. It's becoming quite clear that the only person who thinks Obama's pursuit of a deal with Iran is a good idea, is Obama. Daniel Bassali of the Washington Free Beacon:
Richard Engel: Military Officials Say Allies No Longer Trust Us, Fear Intel Might Leak to Iran NBC’s Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time. Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran. “Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don’t trust the United States any more, don’t trust this administration, think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn’t feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that’s a situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,” Engel said.
Watch the segment: Ed Morrissey of Hot Air commented:
Engel’s report strongly suggests that it’s not just incompetence that has the Saudis and other US allies rattled, but a suspicion that they’re being purposefully sold out by Obama to get a deal with Iran that will unleash their ambitions to dominate the region.

Posted by Jay Caruso on March 24, 2015 35 Comments
Texas Senator Ted Cruz became the first "official" contender to announce he is running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016. One of the more bizarre narratives to quickly form after Cruz made his announcement, has been the comparison between him and President Barack Obama. While there are some similarities --- both first term Senators, both graduates of Harvard, both are prone to more grandiose type speeches and both lacked executive experience, that's where the comparison really ends. However, there are some who arguing Ted Cruz being a first term Senator leads to him being a bad President, were he to win the nomination and ultimately the election in 2016. This accusation is not just being thrown around by random people on social media. It's appearing in Commentary Magazine. After listing a handful of points of comparison between Cruz and Obama the post concludes:
In short, Ted Cruz is not, except for his highly distinguished academic career and legal clerkships, dissimilar to the present incumbent of the White House. It seems to me that the last thing this country needs come January 20th, 2017, is a right-wing Barack Obama.
Charles Krauthammer made a similar point on Fox News during Special Report saying, "We already tried a first term Senator." 

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 21, 2015 14 Comments
Since Netanyahu's victory last week, the Obama administration has offered little more than a cold shoulder to Israel, and seems more interested in talking to Iran. The fact that Israel is our best ally in the region is overlooked while Obama continues working on his so-called "non-binding agreement." This morning on FOX and Friends, Tucker Carlson discussed the issue with Ann Coulter: Obama and others on the left seem to harbor a belief that things would be different if someone other than Netanyahu was the prime minister of Israel.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 20, 2015 15 Comments
Senator Marco Rubio gave one of the best speeches of his career yesterday when he took to the floor in defense of Israel while calling out its critics, including President Obama. Alyssa Canobbio of the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Rubio Delivers Blistering Speech on Obama’s Assault on Israel It has taken two days for Obama to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and congratulate him on his reelection. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have taken part in very sensitive talks with Iran about its nuclear program. Rubio began speaking on how Obama has always been among the first to call controversial leaders and congratulate them on winning their elections but has remained silent when it came to congratulating on the United States’ biggest ally in the Middle East. Rubio continued, making multiple points that the Obama administration has not stood with Israel.
Rubio cites a litany of examples of the unfair treatment of Israel by the Obama administration and its regional enemies such as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. This video is 15 minutes long and well worth your time.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 19, 2015 6 Comments
At a speech to the City Club of Cleveland yesterday afternoon, President Obama summoned once again the hobgoblin of his presidency: Guantanamo Bay. During a Q&A session the President revealed that, if he could start his presidency over, with perfect hindsight, he would close Gitmo on day one. Who does he blame for this error in judgment? The bipartisan coalition to close the facility, of course!
“I thought we had enough consensus there that we could do it in a more deliberate fashion,” Obama added. “But the politics of it got tough, and people got scared by the rhetoric around it. Once that set in, then the path of least resistance was just to leave it open, even though it’s not who we are as a country and it’s used by terrorists around the world to help recruit jihadists.” Instead, Obama said, we’ve been forced to “chip away it” a little bit at a time, releasing a small number of detainees who could not be charged but leaving more than 100 still in captivity with no trials in sight.
Watch:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 18, 2015 3 Comments
So much for The Most Open and Transparent Administration in the History of the World©." Analysis by the Associated Press shows that last year the Obama Administration set a new record for either denying access to or censoring government documents when responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. From the AP:
The government's new figures, published Tuesday, covered all requests to 100 federal agencies during fiscal 2014 under the Freedom of Information law, which is heralded globally as a model for transparent government. They showed that despite disappointments and failed promises by the White House to make meaningful improvements in the way it releases records, the law was more popular than ever. Citizens, journalists, businesses and others made a record 714,231 requests for information. The U.S. spent a record $434 million trying to keep up. It also spent about $28 million on lawyers' fees to keep records secret. The new figures showed the government responded to 647,142 requests, a 4 percent decrease over the previous year. It more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully denied access to them, in 250,581 cases or 39 percent of all requests. Sometimes, the government censored only a few words or an employee's phone number, but other times it completely marked out nearly every paragraph on pages. On 215,584 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper.
In 1 in 3 cases, the Administration admitted when challenged that denials of open records requests were improper under the law. Officials also took longer than previous Administrations to process requests, replied saying they had lost or could not find the requested material, and, according to the AP, "refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy." This report hit just two days after the White House made the call to remove its Office of Information from underneath the FOIA umbrella.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 14, 2015 8 Comments
The cult culture surrounding our president gets so weird that sometimes I don't even get it. Just when we thought we'd finally gotten used to the idea that Barack Obama is about 100 levels cooler than anyone else on the planet, we find out that he is not, in fact, just a phone call away from good times with A-list celebrities and cultural icons like Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and Jay-Z. In this past week's appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Obama put to rest rumors that he hits up Kanye West's home phone (no one has those anymore, Kanye) on the regular for Very Important Discussions© about...whatever it is that the President of the United States would talk about with Kanye West. From CNN:
In a characteristic brag, West recently said during a lecture at Oxford University that he can "call Obama out of the blue," adding that "Obama calls the home phone." The president was complimentary toward the Chicago rapper — who he's previously called a "jackass" — but said he doubted that was true. "Look, I love his music, he's incredibly creative, but I don't think I have his home number," he told Kimmel.
TMZ has video of Kanye defending his honor against shared nemesis Rush Limbaugh, who recently said that, had Kanye rapped the lyrics to the now-infamous racist SAE fraternity chant, it would have become a chart-topping hit:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 13, 2015 15 Comments
Rep. Jared Polis started calling Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton "Tehran Tom" after word got out that the Senator had led a coalition of 47 Republicans in the drafting of a letter to Iran. The "#47Traitors" hashtag took off on Twitter, and over 200,000 people have signed a petition accusing those senators of violating the Logan Act. You'd think we'd never seen anything like this before, right? Well, that's exactly what progressives want you to think. Tom Cotton may have caused a scandal, but he hasn't come close to the misdeeds of Democrats who came before him.

1983: Kennedy appeals to Moscow

ted_kennedy_and_the_soviets-620x382 In 1991, the London Times published a memo pulled from the Soviet archives offering proof that in 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy worked with an old law school friend by the name of John Tunney to relay a message from himself to Yuri Andropov, a top official in Russia's Communist regime.

Posted by New Neo on March 12, 2015 49 Comments
I had thought that the press would stand by Hillary Clinton in the same way they've stood by Obama---through thick and thin. After all, Obama has committed acts far worse than Hillary's, has covered up more, and has been just as egregious in his lies. And yet I can't recall Obama having been subjected to questions even remotely as difficult as the ones Hillary faced (and answered poorly) this week, although the press could have grilled him that way any time he appeared before them. They chose not to do that, but they chose to ask some real questions of Hillary Clinton. Why the differential treatment? As soon as the email story broke, the NY Times led the attack. Originally it seemed that they may have wanted to get it over with in a perfunctory way and then let her candidacy continue, or that this was being done at the direction of Obama who wanted another candidate for various reasons. But now I've come to think that the first reason isn't operative (at least, not any more), and that although the second may be true, it doesn't account for the fervor of the criticism. Perhaps part of the reason this thing has gotten bigger is that Clinton has handled it poorly. Perhaps the MSM is piling on because they thought Hillary would be better at dealing with it than she has demonstrated so far, and they're panicking because her performance means she will be a bad candidate come 2016. Or perhaps they know of other scandals, and they want her out before the revelations multiply (and end up reflecting poorly on their favorite, Obama, or on liberalism itself?) If they can't put out this fire they may want to fan the flames so that the sacrifice happens more quickly and a new and more viable candidate is chosen, and they can get credit for "objectivity" (for hurting one of their own) into the bargain.
Accessibility by WAH