Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Barack Obama Tag

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on November 11, 2014 3 Comments
In a recent op-ed for the Daily Beast, Senator Rand Paul became the latest critic of what many see as a long history of Presidential abuse of power stretching back to Richard Nixon. In his piece, entitled "Obama's ISIS war is illegal," Paul made clear his view that the President’s action against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has eclipsed its legality — if there ever was any to begin with — because we have now crossed the 90-day provisional authorization for military force permitted by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. To be sure, it doesn't appear Paul is not advocating for the end of hostilities against the roundly condemned members of ISIS. Rather, he is merely asserting a simple but essential truth about our system of government: Process matters.
I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war… It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended. Congress has a duty to act, one way or the other.
While it is true that we live in a time that exposes our nation to swift attacks on a grand scale, this reality does not justify the manner in which President Obama is circumventing the constitutional prerogative of Congress. Indeed, 90 days was ample time for the President to situate a small number of forces on the ground, carry out targeted airstrikes, and prepare a request to Congress to authorize military force. Yet no such request has been submitted. Obama is not the first President to engage in this realm of constitutionally questionable behavior, but the implications of his continued insistence on going it alone in nearly every aspect of his Presidency — foreign and domestic — threatens to undermine the very framework of the nation’s structure of governance.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 31, 2014 36 Comments
The October surprises just keep on coming, courtesy of President Obama. According to The Weekly Standard, "during a speech in Rhode Island today, President Obama called for more taxpayer-spending on pre-school in order to "make sure that women are full and equal participants in our economy." I can respect that. But then the President followed those remarks by saying (emphasis added):
And sometimes someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay at home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That's not a choice we want Americans to make.
Um, ok. I'm interpreting his remarks to mean that women shouldn't have to choose between lower wages or being stay at home mothers. Sounds noble, but it's not realistic, at least not in most cases. Condescension aside, aggravating is the constant drum beat of the modern "feminist" lie that women can have it all. It's simply not true. Those with successful careers and families are routinely put in a place of choosing one or the other. Men with families also find themselves in the same dilemma, yet no one wants to talk about their struggles, because "feminism."

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 23, 2014 8 Comments
It's remarkable to watch Democrats scrambling to get away from Obama just six years after they and the media declared the death of the GOP. The latest example comes from Josh Kraushaar of National Journal:
Senate Democratic Officials Start Lashing Out at White House The relationship between the White House and Senate Democrats hit a new low Tuesday evening after the administration's press office released a transcript of first lady Michelle Obama's appearance in Iowa on behalf of Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley. The problem: The subject line of the e-mail referred to Braley as the "Democratic candidate for governor." The botch came after the first lady repeatedly referred to the Democratic Senate nominee as "Bruce Bailey" in a campaign appearance earlier this month—and it took an attendee in the crowd to correct her mistake... Indicating the sensitivity of the mistake, top Senate Democratic officials wasted no time lashing out at the Obama administration's political team in response, suggesting it was acting like a junior varsity operation two weeks before the midterms. The slipup comes one day after President Obama told Rev. Al Sharpton on his radio show that Senate Democrats keeping their distance from him are still "folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress." That alarmed Senate Democrats up for reelection this November, most of whom are working hard to distance themselves from an unpopular president. "The ineptitude of the White House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing," one senior Senate Democratic aide told National Journal. Another Senate official told the Washington Post that Obama's comments were "not devised with any input from Senate leadership."
The problem for Democrats is Obama's ego. He just can't stand not being part of the story.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 23, 2014 11 Comments
While most Democrats are desperately trying to distance themselves from President Obama, Illinois Democrats are safe from the President's campaign death kiss. Monday night, President Obama headlined a campaign rally for Illinois Senator Dick Durban and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn. As Rebel Pundit pointed out:
ABC 7 reporter Charles Thomas stated the Jones Convocation Center, was not filled. Thomas did his best to paint the president’s visit as a success, “When it comes to Chicago, especially on the South Side, Obama has not lost his political magic. Sunday night at the Jones Convocation Center, it was filled to near-capacity.” Thomas reported 6,000 attendees at the rally to re-elect Quinn, but the capacity at the center is 7000.
Interestingly, the President is having difficulty filling seats on his home turf. Earlier this week, attendees at a Maryland rally walked out when Obama took the stage; and last month, the Climate Summit held in New York City was missing some pretty crucial world leaders, yet another indicator of Hope and Change's waning star power.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 12, 2014 6 Comments
Last week, the Wall Street Journal released a report on Barack Obama's latest push to fulfill his most famous campaign promise---achieving the permanent closure of U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senior administration officials are saying that the President is serious about coming through on the Gitmo closure, and is considering taking executive action to get the job done. The Wall Street Journal's report reveals Obama's two most likely routes to bypass Congress:
He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks. A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.
Similar efforts are likely on immigration, "climate change" and other areas where Obama is unable to obtain congressional approval. Whichever option he chooses, he's sure to meet with political backlash that won't be limited to anger at the White House. Although the 2014 midterms will be behind us by the time the President makes the choice to act, the use of executive action on the issue could have a detrimental effect on democrats seeking election (or re-election) in 2016.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 12, 2014 30 Comments
This is a fascinating glimpse into the progressive mind. Paul Krugman was interviewed on ABC's This Week and just couldn't say enough about what a great president Obama has been. Ryan Lovelace of National Review has the story:
Krugman: Obama One of the Most Successful Presidents in American History On ABC’s This Week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said President Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in modern American history, ranking third behind Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Krugman explained his reasoning by saying that Obama has made important changes to the economy, implemented new environmental policies, and accomplished health-care reform. And on foreign policy, Krugman said, “He hasn’t done anything really stupid and that is a big improvement over his predecessor.” Krugman wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine noting how his perception of the president has changed, and why he now believes Obama to be one of the “most successful presidents in American history.”
Here's the video segment: Krugman recently wrote an article for Rolling Stone Magazine outlining his position:

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 09, 2014 15 Comments
Plenty of conservatives have faulted President Obama for his handling of ISIS but now even President Jimmy Carter is jumping on board. Jonathan Topaz of Politico reported:
Jimmy Carter: President Obama blew it on ISIL Former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In an interviewed published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength. “[W]e waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group. “Then when [ISIL] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”
Politico is referencing this article by Jim Jones:
Carter unhappy with Obama’s policies in Middle East Former President Jimmy Carter put down his hammer at a Meadowbrook Habitat for Humanity project Tuesday for a wide-ranging interview that touched on subjects such as the Obama administration’s use of drones, women’s rights and faith.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 03, 2014 27 Comments
Some Democrats are running for election or re-election this November but all Democrats are running as fast as they can from Obama. For his part, the president isn't doing them any favors. In a speech at Northwestern University yesterday, Obama tied himself and his deeply unpopular policies directly to the Democratic Party and the 2014 elections. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post reported:
28 words that Democrats really wish President Obama didn’t say today Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): "I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." Boil those four sentences down even further and here's what you are left with: "Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama, that it is instead about a choice between themselves and their opponents.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 25, 2014 8 Comments
When it comes to the (former?) War on Terror, the media has already been caught furiously spinning legitimate news stories in order to set Obama apart from his predecessor. While the revisionism of the New York Times was remarkable, Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast deserves an honorable mention:
Obama’s Iraq Is Not Bush’s Iraq Last week, a Politico reporter phoned me to ascertain my thoughts on the new war. Among the questions: Was there concern among liberals that Barack Obama was in some sense now becoming George Bush, and did I see similarities between the current war and Bush’s Iraq war that, come on, be honest, made me squirm in my seat ever so slightly? My answer ended up on the cutting-room floor, as many answers given to reporters do. But since I’m fortunate enough to have a column, I’d like to broadcast it now, because the answer is a reverberating no. In fact it’s hard for me to imagine how the differences between the two actions could be starker. This is not to say that they might not end up in the same place—creating more problems than they solve. But in moral terms, this war is nothing like that war, and if this war doesn’t end up like Bush’s and somehow actually solves more problems than it creates, that will happen precisely because of the moral differences.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 24, 2014 11 Comments
President Obama addressed the United Nations today with the confidence of a world leader, although some would argue that he has yet to display competence in the area of actual international leadership:
Each of these problems demands urgent attention. But they are also symptoms of a broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world. We have not invested adequately in the public health capacity of developing countries. Too often, we have failed to enforce international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so. And we have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe. Fellow delegates, we come together as United Nations with a choice to make. We can renew the international system that has enabled so much progress, or allow ourselves to be pulled back by an undertow of instability. We can reaffirm our collective responsibility to confront global problems, or be swamped by more and more outbreaks of instability. For America, the choice is clear. We choose hope over fear. We see the future not as something out of our control, but as something we can shape for the better through concerted and collective effort. We reject fatalism or cynicism when it comes to human affairs; we choose to work for the world as it should be, as our children deserve it to be.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 23, 2014 10 Comments
President Obama has come under fire not only from voters but from Congressmen and members of the media over his strategy---or lack thereof---to roll back ISIS in the Middle East. The U.S. has already escalated involvement in the region by initiating air strikes as part of a joint U.S.-Arab offensive against ISIS strongholds:
The U.S. and five Arab nations attacked the Islamic State group's headquarters in eastern Syria in nighttime raids Monday using land- and sea-based U.S. aircraft as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from two Navy ships in the Red Sea and the northern Persian Gulf. American warplanes also carried out eight airstrikes to disrupt what the military described as "imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western interests" by a network of al-Qaida veterans "with significant explosives skills," said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If what Dempsey says is true (and as blunt as he has been in his testimony and media hits, I tend to trust the veracity of what he's saying,) these missions are a necessary part of protecting American interests both in the Middle East and on U.S. soil. What isn't clear yet is how far Barack Obama will take these missions; he's declared time and again that he won't put boots back on the ground, but military officials and analysts are already asking questions about the possibility of doing so if airstrikes aren't sufficient to eradicate the ISIS network. One theory that pundits and academics are floating is troubling, but what's more troubling than the theory itself is its plausibility. Brit Hume laid it out on Monday's edition of Special Report with Bret Baier:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 13, 2014 29 Comments
Obama may be America's commander-in-chief, but he's not a leader who is interested in military strategy. Bearing all that in mind, this report from Dustin Walker of Real Clear Defense is nothing short of stunning:
Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice" As he laid out his strategy to combat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, President Obama rejected the “best military advice” of his top military commander in the Middle East. Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.” Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role. In a press briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the president had rejected Austin’s recommendation because he believes “it is not in the best interest of American national security to send American combat troops in a combat operation to act on the ground in Iraq.”
Accessibility by WAH