Image 01 Image 03

Barack Obama Tag

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?

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.

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:

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.

The brutal truth of electoral politics is that, not unlike Supreme Court reasoning, wins, losses, and philosophies exist on a pendulum. Whether the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog, the power of one party over the other waxes and wanes as sure as the sun rises and sets. The midterm elections ushered in a massive pendulum swing away from progressive power plays and toward the comparatively common sense conservatism of both established Republicans and eager newcomers. The right ran against Obama, his caucus, and their destructive policies, while the left ran against the increasingly faded spectres of microaggression; the result? They failed miserably, embarrassingly, and in toto. Roger Simon writes for PJ Media:
Liberalism n’existe pas — and almost everybody knows it. It is completely out of ideas. Obama was the last gasp of a dying ideology. All they have left is some pathetic and teetering identity politics. That is why the Democratic Party was so flummoxed over the last few days over the words of their stalwart Chuck Schumer, when he criticized the risibly titled Affordable Care Act. The New York senator said his party (and Obama clearly), rather than trying to reform healthcare, should have concentrated on improving the state of the middle class. But crucially, Schumer didn’t say how. That’s because in his ideology, there is no more how. It’s all been tried and shown to be useless or, worse, destructive of the people it pretends to be helping. At this point, we no longer need Gertrude Stein to tell us there’s no there there.
No more how, and for progressives like Schumer, no more need for how. How implies solutions that look ahead toward a better future; what progressives offered this cycle---and indeed, during the totality of the Obama Administration thus far---was a catharsis for loyal Democrat voters who at this point have got to be questioning the Commander in Chief's figurehead status.

According to a new report from FOX News, illegal immigrants who fit certain criteria set forth by Obama last week will be eligible for taxpayer funded programs:
Illegal immigrants to be eligible for Social Security, Medicare Illegal immigrants who apply for work permits in the U.S. under President Obama’s new executive actions will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, the White House says. Under the sweeping actions, immigrants who are spared deportation could obtain work permits and a Social Security number, which would allow them to pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes. No such "lawfully present" immigrant, however, would be immediately entitled to the benefits because like all Social Security and Medicare recipients they would have to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement payments and health care. To remain qualified, either Congress or future administrations would have to extend Obama's actions so that those immigrants would still be considered lawfully present in the country.
As Instapundit says, who could have seen this coming?

The Ferguson verdict is in: No indictment. The people who deserve the most sympathy in Ferguson are the parents of Michael Brown who lost their son. That makes them the biggest losers and I mean that in a sympathetic way. The second biggest loser in Ferguson is the liberal media which flocked to the scene and stoked racial bias. Now that the facts are in, they look like complete fools. I mean that in a non-sympathetic way. The third biggest loser in Ferguson is President Obama who made a hasty statement on the situation which opened with these words:
First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law.
We are? Really? Watch Obama's statement below:

I don't watch Saturday Night Live anymore but when I saw this clip from Tina Nguyen on Mediaite, I have to admit it made me laugh. It's a spoof of the well known Schoolhouse Rock cartoon:
SNL’s Obama Shoves The Schoolhouse Rock Bill Down The Capitol Steps Finally, the first biting political spoof from Saturday Night Live in a while: the Bill from Schoolhouse Rock explains to a student how he becomes a law, only to be violently beat up by Barack Obama and his new best friend, “Executive Order.” Even then, the poor Executive Order still thinks he’s used for simple things, like declaring holidays and creating national parks, until Obama informs him that he’s going to be used to grant amnesty to 5 million undocumented immigrants. His reaction: “Whoa.”
Watch: As long as we're showing the spoof, let's watch the original as well.

Wow. It's not often that I can say it but this new video from the GOP is really powerful. Whoever made this video deserves a promotion. The ad uses an audio track of Hillary Clinton criticizing George W. Bush's so-called "imperial presidency." Via the Washington Free Beacon:
An Imperial Presidency A new video released by the GOP on Friday calls out former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy on the issue of executive action. In 2008, Clinton said the George W. Bush administration was transforming the executive branch into an “imperial presidency.” In 2014, Clinton said she supported President Obama’s decision to grant citizenship to more than four million illegal immigrants. Clinton unknowingly provided the narration for the GOP’s newest video. “Unfortunately our current president does not seem to understand the basic character of the office he holds,” Clinton said of Bush in April 2008. “Rather than faithfully execute the laws, he has rewritten them through signing statements, ignored them through secret legal opinions, undermined them by elevating ideology over facts. Rather than defending the constitution, he has defied its principles and traditions.”
Check it out:
“This administration’s unbridled ambition to transform the executive into an imperial presidency in an attempt to strengthen the office has weakened our nation.”
But that was then. This is now:

Remember those "intended immigration consequences" I was talking about yesterday? The word is out. Brendan Bordelon of National Review captured this exchange on CNN:
Illegal Immigrant Tells CNN She Was Inspired to Cross Border by Obama Amnesty “Did the possibility of immigration reform inspire you to come now?” CNN’s Alina Machado asked the Central American migrant waiting for a bus ticket on Thursday. “Yes, that’s right,” the woman said. “That inspired us.” “Now?” the reporter pressed. “Yes, now,” the woman replied.
Watch the video: Media responses to Obama's plan have been mixed but I like this piece by David Harsanyi of The Federalist:

You know who's really excited about Obama's new immigration plan? Future illegal immigrants. Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reported:
ICE readies 2,400 beds for new spring surge of illegal immigrants through Texas The Obama administration is bracing for another surge of illegal immigrants next spring, bringing online a family detention center that will have 2,400 beds. “We must be prepared for traditional, seasonal increases in illegal migration. The Dilley facility will provide invaluable surge capacity should apprehensions of adults with children once again surge this spring,” said Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas S. Winkowski. In advance of the president’s new pro-immigrant announcement set for Thursday night, ICE is readying its strategy for next year when over 100,000 illegals are expected to flood over the U.S.-Mexico border. The agency said in a statement that it hopes illegal immigrants look at what they are doing in building holding facilities like the 2,400 bed center in Dilley, Texas, and will decide the trip isn’t worth it.
Uh huh. Good luck with that. Charles Kruathammer recently nailed the issue with a prediction.

2014 has been a great year for Republicans: we maintained the House, took back the Senate, made inroads with new voters and solidified the voting base, and sent the mainstream media spiraling. Good for us. Now it's time to get back to work. If this were a sane world, we'd be justified in resting on our laurels for the next few months; but this is politics, there are no laurels, and we're all still so hopped up on caffeine and victory that we might as well ride the lightning while its flashing. Especially since Democrats are. Groups like Battleground Texas may have suffered crushing defeat in the midterms, but they're not going to let the loss of fluff candidates like Wendy Davis derail their mission. Organizing for Action has a new video out, aimed at reaching the very demographics they lost ground with in 2014:
OFA is a movement of millions fighting for real, lasting change. This isn't for everyone — we're community organizers, and we're proud of it. If you’re someone who'd rather get involved than sit back, if you refuse to be cynical about what we can get done together, then you should be part of this. Let's go.

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.

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."

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.