Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Barack Obama Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on January 21, 2015 8 Comments
In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama made a lot of promises. From free community college, to middle class tax breaks, to massive tax hikes on the wealthy and investors, the President served up a bill of goods that, given a Republican-controlled Congress, will take a miracle to become reality. This is nothing new for Obama, who has a pretty poor record of delivering on his most high-profile promises. He hasn't allowed Congress to address our broken immigration system; he hasn't eliminated the threat of al-Qaeda; he hasn't closed the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay; and he certainly hasn't brought the kind of "change" that America wants or deserves. Based on an informal tally, President Obama has broken a whopping 112 SOTU promises during his time as President. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that no president has ever added aspirational policy goals to his annual address to the nation, but coming from a man who came into office claiming revolutionary status, the number seems...high? Grabien compiled a video montage of all 112 broken promises. Click below the fold for an all-too-long list of bullet points highlighting all the ways Obama has failed to live up to his promises. 112, and counting. I wonder how long this list will be come 2016?

Posted by Amy Miller on January 20, 2015 11 Comments
A new poll from Pew reveals that the words most often used to describe President Obama are "Incompetent" and "Good Guy." Behold: Barack Obama, undisputed leader of the free world, commander in chief of the most lethal fighting force on the planet...lovable doofus? No wonder our international reputation is circling the drain. More:
However, some new words have emerged in the descriptions of Obama: Among the roughly half of respondents asked the question (N=746), dictator is mentioned by 12, while eight describe Obama as impressive. Neither word had been used in nine prior surveys asking for one-word descriptions of Obama since he became president. And a perennial critique of Obama – socialist – is not as prominent on the list of descriptions as in the past; in the new survey, five respondents describe Obama as a socialist. In April 2009, when Obama was generally described in positive terms (and his job approval was much higher than it is today), socialist stood out among the negatives. Still, many of the descriptions of Obama are the same as those used in the past. Some supporters continue to point to his intelligence (21 mentions; another nine call him smart), while opponents describe him as an idiot or stupid (12). Nearly equal numbers call him honest (12) and a liar (11).
There's even a fun infographic that throws the miserable truth into full relief!

Posted by Amy Miller on January 20, 2015 13 Comments
When President Obama walks into the House chamber tonight to deliver the State of the Union address, most in attendance will already know exactly which policy items he has chosen as his priorities for the next year. According to a report by the Washington Times, Obama has the worst State of the Union record since Gerald Ford was in office, which says a lot not only about how Washington feels about his leadership, but about how the American people feel about his pet policies. So, what's the point of all the pomp and circumstance? Emotionally-triggering buzzwords, of course. Although most of America doesn't stand at attention when the President makes a speech, people in general know what the State of the Union is, either because they watch the event on TV, or because they media bombards them with clips and talking points for a week after it's over. Policy primers don't win hearts and minds, but soaring speeches serve as a wonderful distraction. The people at The Atlantic wanted to find out what types of buzzwords Presidents tend to pick up and recycle. The result? An interactive data visualization tool that you can use to find out how many times each President talked about, say, the Constitution: SOTU constitution chart Or war:

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 20, 2015 29 Comments
Last night on Special Report with Bret Baier, Bret asked Charles Krauthammer for his thoughts on Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains tax. Krauthammer pointed out that like all things Obama says and does, this is about left wing political ideology. Via National Review:
Krauthammer’s Take: Obama ‘Wants to Punish the Rich Regardless of Effect on Economy’ The president’s proposal to raise the capital gains tax has nothing to do with America’s economic vitality, and everything to do with ideology, says Charles Krauthammer. “Obama was asked about whether raising the capital gains tax is something he would support even — this was a famous question asked by Charlie Gibson in the run-up to the 2008 campaign — even if it lowered revenues, which it does, which is of course totally illogical; you raise taxes to bring in revenue. Obama’s answer, a famous answer, was, yes, in the name of ‘fairness.’”​ “This is a man who wants to punish the rich regardless of its effect on the economy,” said Krauthammer.
Watch the exchange: Obama seems set on denying the reality of the new Republican-controlled Senate.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 18, 2015 8 Comments
Coverage of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris this month may be about spun out, but questions regarding media censorship of the attacks, the cover of Charlie Hebdo, and Obama's absence from the Paris unity march rage on. On Meet the Press this weekend, Chuck Todd spoke with the new editor of Charlie Hebdo, Gerard Biard, about American media outlets' decision to blur out the cover of the satirical magazine.
“Listen,” Briard replied, “we cannot blame newspapers that already suffer much difficulty in getting published and distributed in totalitarian regimes for not publishing a cartoon that could get them at best jail, at worst death.” “But,” he said, “I’m quite critical of newspapers published in democratic countries. This cartoon is not just a little figure — a little Muhammad — it’s a symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of freedom of democracy and secularism. It is this symbol that they refuse to publish.” “What they must understand,” Briard continued, “is that when they blur it out — when they decline to publish it — they blur out democracy, secularism, freedom of religion, and they insult the citizenship.”
Not every journalist shares the sentiments of those who chose to censor their reporting. Last week, Jake Tapper rocked everyone's world when he said that he was ashamed by the absence of U.S. leaders from the Paris rallies; he called out not only the Obama administration, but also current Congressional leadership and potential candidates for president.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 18, 2015 32 Comments
President Obama will lay out an official policy of picking winners and losers in this Tuesday's State of the Union address. We already know that the Administration's new messaging tactic involves a lot less policy and a lot more emotional manipulation, but its latest announcement regarding a plan to penalize the nation's top earners takes populist sentiment to a new level. Via Bloomberg (emphasis mine):
The president’s address is intended to lay out an agenda for his final two years in office and help the Democratic Party retain the White House in the 2016 election with a legacy of policies that appeal to middle- and lower-income voters, who continued to lose ground as the economy rebounded from the recession. He would increase the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 28 percent from 23.8 percent. The rate was 15 percent when Obama took office in 2009, meaning that he’s proposing to almost double it over his two terms in office. He would also impose capital-gains taxes on asset transfers at death, ending what the White House calls “the largest capital gains loophole.” Under current law, assets held until death aren’t subject to those levies, creating an incentive for wealthy people to hold onto them. Heirs only have to pay capital-gains taxes when they sell and only on the value above what the assets were worth at death.
These changes will stash away $320 billion over the next to years and make it possible for the President to carve out new tax credits for higher education, child care, and dual-income households. It's vintage Obama, and not unexpected from a President who has made a name for himself by advocating against the interests of those who create jobs and drive the economy.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 16, 2015 13 Comments
Most Americans would be happy to hear that Obama is going on offense against ISIS, the people who carried out the attacks in Paris, or any of the other enemies of America. Unfortunately, there's only one group Obama consistently views as a threat: Republicans. Last night's headline on the Drudge Report was a story by Manu Raju of Politico. It looks like Obama is all fired up and ready to go:
Obama to Senate Dems: ‘I’m going to play offense’ President Barack Obama made clear Thursday in a closed-door session with Senate Democrats that he’s prepared to veto hostile legislation from the GOP-controlled Congress, including an Iran sanctions package on the front-burner of Capitol Hill. According to several sources at the Thursday summit in Baltimore, Obama vowed to defend his agenda against Republicans in Congress, promised to stand firm against GOP efforts to dismantle his agenda and called on his Democratic colleagues to help sustain his expected vetoes. The president also was explicit over his administration’s opposition to an Iran sanctions bill, promising to veto legislation with his administration in the midst of multilateral nuclear negotiations with the Middle Eastern regime. Even though Obama’s position on Iran sanctions differs from a number of powerful Democrats, the session, several sources said, was more of a pep rally than confrontation. Despite his lame-duck status, the president promised that he would not sit on the sidelines in the next two years. He vowed more executive actions to implement his agenda, something bound to prompt anger from Republicans who have called the president’s unilateral moves, particularly on immigration, an unconstitutional power grab.
Noah Rothman outlined Obama's current political stance in a new article for Townhall:

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 14, 2015 31 Comments
What is wrong with this picture? Neil Munro of The Daily Caller reports that Obama is planning to use his influence as president to run interference in the media on behalf of Jihadists. Naturally, he's doing it for the troops:
White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12. “The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing. The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Here's a video report:

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 07, 2015 14 Comments
The new Republican congress was sworn in yesterday, and one of their first orders of business is an attempt to advance plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Unfortunately, obstructionist Democrats in the Obama administration are standing in the way of progress. Timothy Gardner and Richard Cowan of Reuters reported:
Republicans push Keystone bill, White House threatens veto Republican senators kicked off the new U.S. Congress with legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada, but the White House promptly threatened a veto. With Republicans assuming full control of Congress on Tuesday after victories in the November elections, they have put Keystone at the center of their agenda and plan weeks of debate. They believe that the public spotlight on Keystone will pressure President Barack Obama to eventually approve the project. The White House was adamant that Obama would not sign the Keystone bill. "There is already a well-established process in place to consider whether or not infrastructure projects like this are in the best interest of the country," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.
A vote is set for Thursday.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 01, 2015 11 Comments
The Obama administration has made no effort to hide its disdain for the coal industry, so this report from John Ruberry of Marathon Pundit shouldn't surprise anyone:
War on Coal: Mine closings in Kentucky kill 670 jobs On Monday Patriot Coal Corporation closed two western Kentucky mines. On New Year's Eve the company announced the mines will be closed. The effects will be felt beyond Kentucky, as a Republican member of Illinois' Saline County Board, Joe Jackson, points out. From the Southern Illinoisan:
Jackson said the negative impact on Saline County is from regulations placed on coal mines by the government. "We know that those places wouldn't be closing if it wasn't for (President) Obama and the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the regulations on burning coal,” he said. State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said while the shutdown does affect residents in his area, he is not sure how many people were impacted.
Professor Jacobson addressed Obama's disregard for the constitution and his efforts to hamper the coal industry in his recent column for USA Today:

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 30, 2014 15 Comments
Obama recently sat down for an interview with National Public Radio during which he was asked how he is going to work with the new Republican controlled congress for the remainder of his presidency. His response was rather telling. Brendan Bordelon of National Review has the story:
Obama: ‘I’m Obviously Frustrated’ Dems Didn’t Run on My ‘Great Record’ in November In an interview released Monday by National Public Radio, President Obama made clear what’s long been suspected by White House observers — he believes Democratic politicians sowed the seeds of their own defeat in November by failing to support his “great record” as president... “I’m obviously frustrated with the results of the midterm election,” he said. “I think we had a great record for members of Congress to run on. And I don’t think we — myself, and the Democratic Party — made as good of a case as we should have. And, you know, as a consequence we had really low voter turnout, and the results were bad.”
Watch the segment below: Of course, some liberal media types are already trying to correct the mistake the American people made in November.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 27, 2014 4 Comments
As 2014 comes to a close, it's expected for some writers to look back on the last twelve months and analyze the year that was. Two recent columns from well known outlets offer a very different view of where we are. Michael Grunwald of Politico is pretty sure everything is coming up roses:
Everything Is Awesome! Good news! The U.S. economy grew at a rollicking 5 percent rate in the third quarter. Oh, and it added 320,000 jobs in November, the best of its unprecedented 57 straight months of private-sector employment growth. Just in time for Christmas, the Dow just hit an all-time high and the uninsured rate is approaching an all-time low. Consumer confidence is soaring, inflation is low, gas prices are plunging, and the budget deficit is shrinking. You no longer hear much about the Ebola crisis that dominated the headlines in the fall, much less the border crisis that dominated the headlines over the summer. As Fox News host Andrea Tantaros proclaimed earlier this month: “The United States is awesome! We are awesome!” OK, she was talking about the Senate torture report, not the state of the union, but things in the U.S. do look rather awesome. Mitt Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6 percent in his first term; it’s already down to 5.8 percent, half the struggling eurozone’s rate. Newt Gingrich promised $2.50 gas; it’s down to $2.38. Crime, abortion, teen pregnancy and oil imports are also way down, while renewable power is way up and the American auto industry is booming again. You don’t have to give credit to President Barack Obama for “America’s resurgence,” as he has started calling it, but there’s overwhelming evidence the resurgence is real.
Wow. Sounds great, huh? Not so fast.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 27, 2014 8 Comments
2016 is still quite a way off but that hasn't stopped speculation about the chances for each of the major parties. Bill Barrow of the Associated Press looks back at the last few elections and raises an important question for the next one:
Can GOP shatter 'Obama coalition' in 2016? Republicans crowed in 2004 that freshly re-elected President George W. Bush had established a "permanent governing majority" for the GOP. Eight years later, Democrats were touting the enduring power of the "Obama coalition" to keep their party in the White House. But Democrats couldn't sustain that coalition for this year's midterm elections, leading to Republican gains in Congress, governorships and state legislatures nationwide. "The notion of demographics as destiny is overblown," said Republican pollster and media strategist Wes Anderson. "Just like (Bush aide Karl) Rove was wrong with that 'permanent majority' talk, Democrats have to remember that the pendulum is always swinging." So how will it swing in 2016? Is the path to 270 electoral votes so fixed that one side just can't win? Does Obama's unpopularity carry over into the next race for the White House? Or will an increasingly diverse electorate pick a Democrat for a third consecutive presidential election for the first time since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman won five straight elections from 1932 to 1948?
Again, it's still early. Neither party has even begun the primary process. Still, when it comes to the so-called Obama coalition, Democrats are going to realize that their coalition and Obama's are two separate things.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 23, 2014 7 Comments
President Obama has never enjoyed a very high approval rating from members of America's armed forces, but the end of 2014 finds him at a remarkable new low. Charlie Spiering of Breitbart reported:
President Obama's Approval Ratings Crater With Active Duty Military Active duty members of the United States military are not happy with their commander-in-chief. According to a Military Times survey, President Obama’s popularity rating has cratered to just 15 percent in 2014. That is a new low for the President, falling from an already low approval rating of 35 percent in 2009. The poll of nearly 2,300 active duty members also shows that Obama’s disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent. The particularly low rating comes as Obama has launched air strikes in response to Islamic State terrorists taking territory and resources in both Iraq and Syria, vowing to keep combat ground troops out of the conflict. He has also deployed members of the military to combat the Ebola threat in Africa.
The Military Times survey cited by Spiering is very frank. Stephen Losey writes:
Obama’s mark on the military Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon's personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.
Speaking of the Pentagon, can you guess who's sending more troops back to Iraq?

Posted by Amy Miller on December 16, 2014 11 Comments
While a small group of Senate Republicans were busy causing procedural chaos over the #CRomnibus, a lower-profile court case bringing a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Obama's "executive amnesty" was quietly making its way through the federal court system. And guess what---the conservative position won. Although the decision declaring executive amnesty unconstitutional came down within the context of a criminal case, meaning that we don't yet know what the courts would do in the civil context, the holding delivers a blow to those who have chosen to back Obama's disregard for the separation of powers. Via Politico:
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab issued the first-of-its-kind ruling Tuesday in the case of Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, a Honduran immigrant charged in federal court with unlawful re-entry after being arrested earlier this year in Pennsylvania for drunk driving. "President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," Schwab wrote in his 38-page opinion (posted here). "President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."
Most notably, the court shot down the government's argument that President Obama's actions were justified because Congress failed to act. They disallowed Obama's ticking clock theory, and instead redirected focus on the importance of maintaining the power balance.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on December 10, 2014 46 Comments
Yeah, they went there. "The killings of Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin clearly shows that we don't live in a post-racial society as many expected when you were elected," Ramos says. Obama chuckled, "Well, I didn't expect that. You probably didn't either." "But many people expected you to do more on race relations, dealing with white privilege. Do you get angry with this? Is it your responsibility?" Then President Obama claimed Americans experience more equality now than before he took office, and also that Eric Holder was awesome. When Ramos pressed on saying, "but there's not really been a lot of improvement," Obama retorted, "The folks who say there's not a lot of improvement, I don't think were living in the 50's and remembering what it was like to be black or Hispanic and interacting with the police then." Take a look:

Fact Check:

Flashback to November 2, 2008. The Washington Post had this to say:

Posted by Amy Miller on December 02, 2014 30 Comments
The madding crowd has claimed another meaningless scalp, and it couldn't be happier about it. The internet exploded on Thanksgiving after Congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten criticized the First Teens for their less-than enthusiastic attitude at the annual Presidential Turkey Pardoning. Yesterday, nearly a week after the offending Facebook post, Lauten resigned her job rather than allow the backlash to harm the reputations of her boss and fellow staffers. Anyone who has ever worked for an elected official knows that the slightest slip up can quickly turn from foible to gaffe to complete professional nightmare. In terms of self-preservation, staffers are defenseless, which makes them easy targets and a mess-free launchpad for a larger agenda. Let's be clear: the Right has engaged in plenty of staffer-shaming over the years, but it's been a long time since a member of a Congressional office has been so completely and utterly destroyed over comparatively mild Facebook commentary. The media's (both old and new) scalping of Elizabeth Lauten started on Twitter, blossomed in the quirky world of internet news, and then roared to life as mainstream news outlets roused themselves from their tryptophan stupor to engage in some serious journalism. Since that night, Lauten has been targeted online by both the mainstream media and private citizens, and doxed by professional "journalists" at home and abroad. In an act of ruthless messaging, the White House took charge of the situation and pitched the story to national news outlets. We're now at a point where no one knows what Elizabeth said, and furthermore no one cares what she said; her rude comment has been twisted and transformed into a rabid attack on the First Daughters, and there's no amount of commentary that can unring the bell.
Accessibility by WAH