Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 26, 2010, 07:09:01 AM
-
He has taken a number of vacations, including pretty much every holiday, and has not spent one of them with the troops. I think he can show a great deal of leadership by spending Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. down range. Instead, he does things like spend Christmas on the one of nicest beaches on earth, takes a small break to go meet with Marines on one of the nicest military installations in the country (location wise). I am not impressed.
Obama, military mingle
The president visits service members and their families at the Kaneohe Marine base
By Craig Gima
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 26, 2010
President Barack Obama took time out of a quiet Christmas with family, friends and basketball to greet servicemen and women during their Christmas dinner on the Marine Corps Base Hawaii yesterday afternoon.
The president and first lady Michelle Obama posed for pictures, shook hands, hugged children and picked up babies. The president even joked about his busted lip.
"I don't think he left before he got a chance to shake hands with everyone who was there," said Maj. Alan Crouch, the public affairs officer for the base. "He seemed appreciative of the service members and family members. It seemed like he got a lot out of it, as well."
The unannounced visit to Anderson Hall happened at about 3:30 p.m. but may not have been much of a surprise. Obama visited with service members at the same dining hall at the same base at about the same times during his last two vacations in Hawaii.
About 200 service members and their families got to meet the president and first lady.
Marines from Kaneohe were part of the surge in Afghanistan ordered by Obama last year. About 1,400 Marines—the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment and a helicopter squadron—deployed to Helmand province in 2009. Some of the Marines went directly from Iraq to Afghanistan to be part of the surge.
Marines and sailors from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Regiment just returned from Afghanistan earlier this month.
The 3rd Battalion, which left Hawaii in May, lost at least three Marines during the seven-month deployment in the Nawa district.
The base's three infantry battalions rotate to southern Afghanistan. The 2nd Battalion is back in Helmand.
The president and his wife spent more than an hour shaking hands and hugging service members who had arrived for a Christmas dinner of prime rib, turkey, ham, stuffing, potatoes, vegetables, salad, pie, pastries and soft-serve ice cream.
"Hey, guys, merry Christmas. How are you?" the president asked Lisa Lao, 21, and Maha Lao, 23, sitting at a booth with their two children.
Obama picked up 3-month-old Jensen Lao and bounced him a couple of times.
"Merry Christmas, Mr. President," one little boy called out.
"Did you get everything you wanted?" Obama asked a little girl. She showed him a new bracelet and the president pointed to Michelle Obama, who also had a new bracelet, and the first lady and the little girl compared bracelets.
With U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and other outposts around the world, the Obamas also used the president's weekly radio and Internet address to encourage Americans to find ways to support service members during the holiday season.
"Let's all remind them this holiday season that we're thinking of them, and that America will forever be here for them, just as they've been there for us," the president said.
Mrs. Obama, who has made working with military families one of her priorities as first lady, said Americans don't need to be experts in military life to give back to those who serve their country. She urged the public to reach out through their schools and churches, or volunteer with organizations that support military families.
"Anybody can send a care package or prepaid calling card to the front lines, or give what's sometimes the most important gift of all: simply saying thank you," Mrs. Obama said.
As the president moved down a dining table, he encountered a large man, taller than the president, wearing a Dallas Cowboys T-shirt.
"We've got to get you on the court," Obama quipped. "I will not get an elbow in the lip if we play with this guy."
Alan Rogers, a chaplain at the base; his wife, Lisa; daughters Sarah and Laurin; and sons John and Jackson spent several minutes talking with the president and first lady about sports, school and another son—Lance Cpl. Jacob Rogers, now serving in Afghanistan.
"It was very affirming," said Sarah Rogers. "The first family recognizes all the sacrafices we make as a military family. They took the time to talk to us about our lives and our brother in Afghanistan."
The public appearance contrasts with the rest of the president's Christmas Day, spent at a luxurious oceanfront home in Kailua with his wife and daughters, Malia and Sasha. The first family celebrated Christmas with a small circle of friends and family, including some of Obama's childhood friends and the president's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who lives here on Oahu, the island where Obama was born and spent much of his childhood.
The Obamas dined on steak, roasted potatoes, green beans and pie, and the sports-obsessed president got a chance to relax and watch some basketball.
The president's Christmas has been far quieter than last year's holiday, when a 23-year-old Nigerian man allegedly attempted to blow up a plane bound for Detroit. The incident raised questions about the nation's terror readiness and consumed the rest of Obama's vacation.
Thus far, Obama's excursions in Hawaii have been mostly to the gym and golf course, although he skipped the gym yesterday morning. On Christmas Eve, he went to the beach with his daughters.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101226_Obama_military_mingle.html
-
For example:
Top US Gen. Visits GIs in Afghanistan on Christmas
Saturday, 25 Dec 2010
MARJAH, Afghanistan – The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan crisscrossed the country on Saturday, making a Christmas visit to coalition troops at some of the main battle fronts in a show of appreciation and support in the tenth year of the war against the Taliban.
Gen. David Petraeus started his visit by traveling in a C-130 cargo plane from the capital, Kabul, to the northern province of Kunduz, telling troops with the U.S. Army's 1-87, 10th Mountain Division that on this day, there was "no place that (he) would rather be than here" where the "focus of our effort" was.
The northern part of the country has seen increased fighting, with the Taliban stepping up their attacks as NATO focuses its sights on the militant movement's southern strongholds. Petraeus was briefed on the situation in the region by German Maj. Gen. Hans-Werner Fritz, the commander of NATO's northern regional command.
In eastern Afghanistan, where NATO forces are focused on trying to prevent insurgents from slipping in from neighboring Pakistan, one U.S. platoon spent their Christmas as they do almost every other day — in a firefight with insurgents. Taliban on nearby hills opened fire twice during the day on their Combat Out Post Badel, sparking short gunbattles as the U.S. soldiers returned fire. There were no American casualties. Badel and other such front-line posts come under similar attacks nearly daily.
Petraeus' visits Saturday also took him to the region of one of the main NATO offensives in the south this year_ the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province, scene of some of the heaviest fighting recently with the Taliban.
He spoke to the Marines on the base, praising them for the improvements in the area, which still sees Taliban attacks.
"You are part of America's new greatest generation. It is not just the courage that you have shown, it is not just the skills that you have shown in arms, although you have had to do that on a near daily basis in tough areas like this," he told the men and women of the 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Unit. "It is the versatility that you demonstrate going outside the wire every day, being ready for a hand grenade or a handshake and knowing what to do if either of those comes your way."
Marjah has become a symbol of the problems facing NATO troops in Afghanistan. More than 7,000 U.S.-led NATO ground troops launched a nighttime invasion of the region of farming hamlets last February to rout insurgents and cut off their income from the drug trade. NATO officials said the effort would pave the way for the Afghan government to move in aid and start delivering public services.
Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Mills on Dec. 7 declared that the battle in Marjah was "essentially over." But the campaign took longer than NATO officials had hoped, and illustrated the complexity of trying to wrest control of an area where Taliban influence remained strong.
Efforts to create a civilian government in Marjah have been painfully slow, and U.S. troops struggled against roadside bombs and sniper attacks from an enemy that could blend in with the local population.
Petraeus said "we probably created expectations that were unduly high, and we worked through that."
Still, he said, the progress that was made in Marjah and in other areas helped pave the way for the unanimity achieved at a November NATO summit in Lisbon, where member states committed to Afghanistan until 2014.
If the situation Marjah had been the same as earlier in the year, Petraeus said, that unanimity would not have been there.
He said that when the campaign in Marjah began, it was "a headquarters for the Taliban," a bomb-making center and location for the illegal narcotics industry.
"Now of course it is flourishing," he said. Where once there was no school, there are now 1,200 attending classes.
It is not known when U.S. troops could be withdrawn in significant numbers from Helmand as heavy fighting continues elsewhere in the area, including the Sangin district where Marines took over from British forces.
Before Marjah, Petraeus stopped in the western province of Farah, where the Italian army's 7th Alpini is stationed.
The U.S. general's visit coincided with one by Gen. Vincenzo Camporini, the Italian chief of defense general staff. Petraeus congratulated the Italian soldiers on the "progress that has been achieved in the first few months that this unit has been here."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/AfghanistanChristmas/2010/12/25/id/381002
-
Who cares if he goes on Christmas or not.
He and Michelle have both "visited' the troops and most recently I believe was this past Veterans Day
-
::)
-
hey Bum - would you like a list of all the times that Obama has visited the troops
will you respond with a double set of eye rolls?
-
Actually, I'd be perfectly fine if the Village Idiot simply shut the heck up. :)
-
Actually, I'd be perfectly fine if the Village Idiot simply shut the heck up. :)
of course you'd prefer it
I expose you for the idiot that you are virtually evey time I post on your threads
-
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! ;D
LOL!!!!
-
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! ;D
LOL!!!!
;D
you should probably go back to ignoring me if you want to maintain the pretense that you're not a moron
-
Why does the Village Idiot keep following me around the board? I've told her, repeatedly, that I don't think she is very bright. I repeatedly ignore her. She is the only poster on the board that I routinely call an idiot (on the rare occasions that I engage her). Yet she persists in trying to engage me. Does she suffer from Battered Woman's Syndrome? :-\
-
Why does the Village Idiot keep following me around the board? I've told her, repeatedly, that I don't think she is very bright. I repeatedly ignore her. She is the only poster on the board that I routinely call an idiot (on the rare occasions that I engage her). Yet she persists in trying to engage me. Does she suffer from Battered Woman's Syndrome? :-\
if you don't like me to responding to your idiotic posts then you have two options
1. stop being so fucking stupid
2. stop posting
-
http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp :-\
-
"President Obama cancels family weekend in Williamsburg, Virginia, and will stay in D.C. due to budget crisis."
I'm actually surprised.
-
"President Obama cancels family weekend in Williamsburg, Virginia, and will stay in D.C. due to budget crisis."
I'm actually surprised.
Poor baby - he will only have to wine, dine, and scarf down caviar, wine, kobe bef, and be waited on by 50 butlers in DC. poor baby. FUCK HIM. He created this mess in the first place by not passing a budget last year.
-
Is this good leadership?
Grassley: Obama hasn’t called me in four years
By Alexander Bolton and Bob Cusack - 06/05/13
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a pivotal deal-maker in Congress, said Tuesday that he has not received a phone call from President Obama in four years.
The lack of communication between the Iowa Republican and the president is an indication that Obama’s new “charm offensive” with Republicans on Capitol Hill has come up short.
Grassley, who struck landmark legislative deals with both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said he is surprised there hasn’t been more outreach from the 44th commander in-chief.
In an hourlong interview with The Hill, Grassley also said Obama has broken his wide-ranging promises on government transparency. He called Obama “the most stonewalling president this country has ever had.”
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has primary jurisdiction over two of the president’s highest domestic priorities: gun violence and immigration reform legislation. But Grassley has received scant personal attention from Obama.
In 2009, Obama basically had Grassley on speed dial, calling him frequently during negotiations over an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system. Grassley at the time was one of three Republicans on the Group of Six, which also included Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and former Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine).
“During that period of time, the president would call me on my cellphone and talk to me. I don’t know if it was a half a dozen times or a dozen times, but enough so you remember he called you,” Grassley said.
The relationship unraveled after a meeting at the White House in August 2009.
“We had a meeting down at the White House about Aug. 5, 2009 — the six of us — and he asked me this question: ‘Would you be willing to be one or two or three Republicans voting with the Democrats to get a bipartisan bill?’ and I said, ‘No,’ ” Grassley recalled.
“I never had a phone call from him since,” Grassley added.
The six-term senator noted that he occasionally has exchanged pleasantries with the president when he’s seen him at an event or has been invited to the White House for a meeting on another subject.
As part of his charm offensive, Obama has twice dined with groups of Senate Republicans. Grassley wasn’t invited.
Grassley says he hasn’t even met Miguel Rodriguez, the assistant to the president and White House director of legislative affairs.
Democrats charge that Grassley wasn’t interested in striking a healthcare deal in 2009, claiming he was just trying to run out the clock.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Grassley have worked together on a range of issues for more than a decade, including taxes, Medicare drug coverage and trade.
After Obama was elected in 2008, many conservatives worried about an Obama-Grassley alliance. It never materialized for a variety of reasons; one cited by political observers is that there was speculation Grassley was going to draw a primary challenge in the 2010 cycle.
Another factor in the breakdown of the Obama-Grassley relationship is the senator’s aggressive oversight activities.
Grassley blasted the president for failing to keep his promise, made at the start of his first term, to run the most transparent administration in history.
“Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government,” Obama declared at his first inauguration.
Grassley said the president has fallen far short of that pledge.
“Historically in my time in the Senate, I’ve had problems with both Republican and Democratic presidents, but this president is the worst from this standpoint — his own benchmark,” Grassley said. “By his own benchmark this is the most stonewalling president this country has ever had.”
. . . .
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/303501-sen-grassley-the-president-hasnt-called-me-in-four-years
-
Maybe Chris Matthews is right about this?
-
Is this good leadership?
Grassley: Obama hasn’t called me in four years
By Alexander Bolton and Bob Cusack - 06/05/13
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a pivotal deal-maker in Congress, said Tuesday that he has not received a phone call from President Obama in four years.
The lack of communication between the Iowa Republican and the president is an indication that Obama’s new “charm offensive” with Republicans on Capitol Hill has come up short.
Grassley, who struck landmark legislative deals with both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said he is surprised there hasn’t been more outreach from the 44th commander in-chief.
In an hourlong interview with The Hill, Grassley also said Obama has broken his wide-ranging promises on government transparency. He called Obama “the most stonewalling president this country has ever had.”
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has primary jurisdiction over two of the president’s highest domestic priorities: gun violence and immigration reform legislation. But Grassley has received scant personal attention from Obama.
In 2009, Obama basically had Grassley on speed dial, calling him frequently during negotiations over an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system. Grassley at the time was one of three Republicans on the Group of Six, which also included Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and former Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine).
“During that period of time, the president would call me on my cellphone and talk to me. I don’t know if it was a half a dozen times or a dozen times, but enough so you remember he called you,” Grassley said.
The relationship unraveled after a meeting at the White House in August 2009.
“We had a meeting down at the White House about Aug. 5, 2009 — the six of us — and he asked me this question: ‘Would you be willing to be one or two or three Republicans voting with the Democrats to get a bipartisan bill?’ and I said, ‘No,’ ” Grassley recalled.
“I never had a phone call from him since,” Grassley added.
The six-term senator noted that he occasionally has exchanged pleasantries with the president when he’s seen him at an event or has been invited to the White House for a meeting on another subject.
As part of his charm offensive, Obama has twice dined with groups of Senate Republicans. Grassley wasn’t invited.
Grassley says he hasn’t even met Miguel Rodriguez, the assistant to the president and White House director of legislative affairs.
Democrats charge that Grassley wasn’t interested in striking a healthcare deal in 2009, claiming he was just trying to run out the clock.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Grassley have worked together on a range of issues for more than a decade, including taxes, Medicare drug coverage and trade.
After Obama was elected in 2008, many conservatives worried about an Obama-Grassley alliance. It never materialized for a variety of reasons; one cited by political observers is that there was speculation Grassley was going to draw a primary challenge in the 2010 cycle.
Another factor in the breakdown of the Obama-Grassley relationship is the senator’s aggressive oversight activities.
Grassley blasted the president for failing to keep his promise, made at the start of his first term, to run the most transparent administration in history.
“Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government,” Obama declared at his first inauguration.
Grassley said the president has fallen far short of that pledge.
“Historically in my time in the Senate, I’ve had problems with both Republican and Democratic presidents, but this president is the worst from this standpoint — his own benchmark,” Grassley said. “By his own benchmark this is the most stonewalling president this country has ever had.”
. . . .
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/303501-sen-grassley-the-president-hasnt-called-me-in-four-years
No, it's bad leadership. But Grassley can be the grown up and keep pressing to engage Obama and keep pressing to pass helpful legislation like a jobs bill (or whatever).
-
That's right leader of the free world: run from the tough questions, and sit down with a comedian.
Obama Refuses to Talk to America About Terror Threat
by Keith Koffler on August 6, 2013
President Obama continues to say nothing to a jittery nation about what some who have been briefed on the danger are describing as the worst terrorist threat since 9/11, declining to either offer reassurance or an explanation of the peril the nation faces.
Certainly, the president does not want to take questions about a threat he had minimized during the 2012 campaign. But what’s striking is that he has not addressed the nation in a formal manner on the potential for a major attack.
Incredibly, the first question Obama might take on the situation could come from a comedian. Obama is scheduled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this evening in California, and the topic is sure to come up. He has an event earlier in the day, but it’s a campaign-style appearance at a high school in Phoenix, also an odd venue to be discussing potential terrorist attacks.
Not everyone has been excluded from receiving a high-level briefing. Vice President Joe Biden has met with members of Congress to discuss the threat, and some of the most specific information about what the United States is faced with has come from lawmakers.
Briefing reporters Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not minimize the problem. “This threat is significant and we are taking it seriously for that reason,” he said.
But Carney refused to specifically characterize the extent of the danger to the United States itself.
“I would say that the threat is emanating from and may be directed towards the Arabian Peninsula, but it is beyond that, potentially,” he said.
Avoiding sharing much useful information, Carney spoke generally of the administration’s stance on terror. “I think that the threat from al Qaeda and affiliated organizations to the United States and to the American people has been a reality that we’ve talked about for a long time now.”
Instead of a proper grilling on the issue, the best the press has been able to do is shout “happy birthday” to Obama as he returned from two-day celebration with friends at Camp David Sunday.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/06/obama-refuses-talk-america-terror-threat/
-
And there he is having an intense discussion with Jay Leno.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130806205608-obama-leno-story-top.jpg)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/06/obama-says-embassy-closings-arent-an-overreaction/
-
What leadership?
-
:o
Chris Matthews: Obama Is Missing Key Leadership Skills
Tuesday, 20 Aug 2013
By Wanda Carruthers
Liberal Democrat and MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews says President Barack Obama lacks leadership skills when compared with other presidents like John F. Kennedy or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
"The key political asset is the ability to sit in a room with four or five other people, and have them accept your leadership," the MSNBC host of "Hardball" said on the cable network's "Morning Joe" program.
Matthews said that while it took years for Kennedy and Roosevelt to develop their speaking skills, they worked first to build personal relationships.
"They were developing the back room skills, one-on-one skills. How you make friends. How you become [the popular] class president. How you establish the loyalty of people one-on-one," Matthews said on "Morning Joe."
While Obama had the "speaking skill way ahead of schedule," Matthews said he neglected to develop relationships among leaders in Washington and the world during his short time in the Senate and first term as president.
"He never developed a love of politics, love of other politicians — love to sit around and play cards with them, get to know them, their nuances, hooks, triggers, buttons. "Get to know them and figure out how you can work with some of them," Matthews said.
He added that "even tough customers like [House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor, [GOP political consultant]Larry McCarthy, [and House Speaker John] Boehner, get to know the tea party sentiment."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chris-matthews-msnbc-morning/2013/08/20/id/521309#ixzz2cXExDsF6
-
OTwink is back on his stupid ass bus tour in NYS wasting our time again.
-
Obama Skips Congressional Conference Call on Syria, Talks Jobs With Magic Johnson
By Noel Sheppard | August 30, 2013
The United States is about to start a war with Syria, yet President Obama still had time Thursday to meet with NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson to discuss - wait for it! - jobs.
Johnson announced the news on Twitter, and even called the current White House resident "the smartest and most powerful leader in the world":
Obama's senior advisor Valerie Jarrett later thanked Johnson for the "great meeting."
Isn't that special?
Our nation is talking about going to war, and the President of the United States has time to discuss jobs with a former basketball player.
What makes this even more disturbing is that National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed members of Congress about the situation in Syria Thursday.
It appears Obama was not involved in the conference call.
So our President doesn't have time to talk to Congress about a looming war, but he does have time to chat with a former basketball player.
That of course shouldn't be at all surprising, for back in June Obama delayed a meeting about Syria to talk to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
A man has to have his priorities you know!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/30/magic-johnson-talks-jobs-barack-smartest-and-most-powerful-leader-wor#ixzz2dTiPr8Fi
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/after-british-vote-unusual-isolation-for-us-on-syria.html?hp&_r=1&
Cant even get the UK to back him up.
FAIL!!!!
-
I am not impressed.
He's not interested in impressing you, to be honest.
Obama's "audience" isn't military voters. in fact, politically speaking, it could HURT him with his base - anti war tree hugging homosexuals that vote 4 times - to be seen with the troops.
So while such a trip benefits repubs in office a lot - we all know obama puts politics first. Anyone who is impressed that a POTUS is spending thanksgiving with the troops is probably voting repubs in 2016 already.
And this isn't even flaming, beach bum, so don't bother coming at me... I'm being serious here. Obama sees the troops as a prop that doesn't help with his voting base.
-
He's not interested in impressing you, to be honest.
Obama's "audience" isn't military voters. in fact, politically speaking, it could HURT him with his base - anti war tree hugging homosexuals that vote 4 times - to be seen with the troops.
So while such a trip benefits repubs in office a lot - we all know obama puts politics first. Anyone who is impressed that a POTUS is spending thanksgiving with the troops is probably voting repubs in 2016 already.
And this isn't even flaming, beach bum, so don't bother coming at me... I'm being serious here. Obama sees the troops as a prop that doesn't help with his voting base.
I read your post. I'd like that sixty seconds of my life back please. :)
-
Obama belongs in jail
He's not interested in impressing you, to be honest.
Obama's "audience" isn't military voters. in fact, politically speaking, it could HURT him with his base - anti war tree hugging homosexuals that vote 4 times - to be seen with the troops.
So while such a trip benefits repubs in office a lot - we all know obama puts politics first. Anyone who is impressed that a POTUS is spending thanksgiving with the troops is probably voting repubs in 2016 already.
And this isn't even flaming, beach bum, so don't bother coming at me... I'm being serious here. Obama sees the troops as a prop that doesn't help with his voting base.
-
I read your post. I'd like that sixty seconds of my life back please. :)
yeah, but i'm right though. At this point, obama posing with soldiers and their guns will do two things:
1) Paint him as a warmonger about to invade syria with his base, hurting him in donations/votes with the left.
2) Piss off republicans, who will then donate/vote against him.
I'm not defending it, I'm explaining it. You're free to call him names and pass judgment on him, by all means. I'm just giving my 2 cents on why obama is avoiding the troops - my theory is that its political.
-
yeah, but i'm right though. At this point, obama posing with soldiers and their guns will do two things:
1) Paint him as a warmonger about to invade syria with his base, hurting him in donations/votes with the left.
2) Piss off republicans, who will then donate/vote against him.
I'm not defending it, I'm explaining it. You're free to call him names and pass judgment on him, by all means. I'm just giving my 2 cents on why obama is avoiding the troops - my theory is that its political.
Great. My theory is he is a poor leader. And I've been posting articles to support my theory. I frankly don't care what you think about him posing with Soliders . . . or pretty much anything else.
-
Great. My theory is he is a poor leader. And I've been posting articles to support my theory. I frankly don't care what you think about him posing with Soliders . . . or pretty much anything else.
'poor leader' is such a vague phrase, and believe me, obama would much rather be an 'effective politician' than a good leader. Pleasing his base, and not motivating the opposition base.
I guess we're just differing on obama's goals... you think he aspires to be a leader, i think his primary goal is to be an effective politician.
-
'poor leader' is such a vague phrase, and believe me, obama would much rather be an 'effective politician' than a good leader. Pleasing his base, and not motivating the opposition base.
I guess we're just differing on obama's goals... you think he aspires to be a leader, i think his primary goal is to be an effective politician.
LOL - this douchebag cant even get the UK to go along w us.
-
'poor leader' is such a vague phrase, and believe me, obama would much rather be an 'effective politician' than a good leader. Pleasing his base, and not motivating the opposition base.
I guess we're just differing on obama's goals... you think he aspires to be a leader, i think his primary goal is to be an effective politician.
I didn't say any such thing. I simply said he's a poor leader. That's an unfortunate fact.
-
LOL - this douchebag cant even get the UK to go along w us.
I didn't know the Brits were the moral compass to which we should adhere ourselves.
Should we follow their lead when it comes to dentistry as well?
-
240...as usual your not getting it. He can't get anybody to go along with him. He can't get anybody to respect him. He is good at one thing. He can get elected...based only because he was black....thats it, otherwise Hil would be sitting here. He's bullshitted his whole life..now that string has run out. He's considered a pansy world wide..and that makes things very dangerous for us.
-
"H]e has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed. The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of the Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign policy all by his lonesome. This has been the most closely held American foreign-policy-making process since Nixon and Kissinger, only there’s no Kissinger. There is no éminence grise—think of someone like Brent Scowcroft—who can say to Obama with real power and credibility, Mr. President, you’re doing the wrong thing here.
[H]e has done himself, and the nation, great and unnecessary harm. The road back to credibility and respect will be extremely difficult."
Joe Kline, Time Magazine
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/11/obama-and-syria-stumbling-toward-damascus/
-
:-[
Who Do You Trust?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 10, 2013
WASHINGTON — Vladimir Putin, who keeps Edward Snowden on a leash and lets members of a riotous girl band rot in jail, has thrown President Obama a lifeline.
The Russian president had coldly brushed back Obama on Snowden and Syria, and only last week called John Kerry a liar.
Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria — just a teensy-weensy bit — Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out? If it were a movie, we’d know it was a trick. We can’t trust the soulless Putin — his Botox has given the former K.G.B. officer even more of a poker face — or the heartless Bashar al-Assad. By Tuesday, Putin the Peacemaker was already setting conditions.
Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.
Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.
Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.
A State Department spokeswoman walked back Kerry’s first slip, but once the White House realized it was the only emergency exit sign around, Kerry walked back the walking back, claiming at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that he did not “misspeak.”
The president countered Kerry’s second slip with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie Monday night, declaring that “The U.S. does not do pinpricks,” which Kerry parroted at the hearing Tuesday, declaring that “We don’t do pinpricks.” For good measure, Obama, in his address to the nation Tuesday night, made sure the world knew: “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”
Where the mindlessly certain W. adopted a fig leaf of diplomacy to use force in Iraq, the mindfully uncertain Obama is adopting a fig leaf of force to use diplomacy in Syria.
Even as Democrats tiptoed away from the red line, eager to kick the can of Sarin down the road, their own harsh rhetoric haunted them. Kerry compared Assad to Hitler last week, and Harry Reid evoked ”Nazi death camps” on the Senate floor Monday.
Again, an echo of the misbegotten Iraq. Making his hyperbolic case for war, W. was huffy with Germans on a visit in 2002, irritated that they did not seem to grasp the horror of “a dictator who gassed his own people,” as he put it to a Berlin reporter.
Obama cried over the children of Newtown. He is stricken, as he said in his address Tuesday, by “images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor” from “poison gas.” He thought — or thought he thought — that avenging the gassing was the right thing to do. But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.
While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster, they recoil at the Middle East now; they’ve had it with Shiites vs. Sunnis, with Alawites and all the ancient hatreds. Kerry can bluster that “we’re not waiting for long” for Assad to cough up the weapons, but it will be hard for him to back it up, given that a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that Joe Sixpack is now a peacenik; in 2005, 60 percent of Republicans agreed with W. that America should foster democracy in the world; now only 19 percent of Republicans believe it.
W., Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld launched a social engineering scheme to change the mind-set in the Middle East about democracy and the mind-set at home about the post-Vietnam reluctance to be muscular about imposing our values through war. They did manage to drastically change the mind-set in the Middle East and at home, but in the opposite way than they intended.
In a crouch after 9/11, the country was happy to punish an Arab villain, even the wrong one. That mass delusion, plus the economic vertigo, has sent Americans into a permanent crouch. And that’s too bad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=1&
-
240...as usual your not getting it. He can't get anybody to go along with him. He can't get anybody to respect him. He is good at one thing. He can get elected...based only because he was black....thats it, otherwise Hil would be sitting here. He's bullshitted his whole life..now that string has run out. He's considered a pansy world wide..and that makes things very dangerous for us.
I always get a laugh watching you guys tell console yourselves with this nonsense
That's why we're going to elect Hermain Cain next time around or Jessie Jackson
-
Not surprised.
Peggy Noonan: WH Staffers Nickname President 'Obam-me'
Friday, 20 Sep 2013
By Dan Weil
White House staffers have adopted a new and unflattering nickname for their boss:"Obam-me," Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan says she heard in chats with a few senators.
And how did the staffers come up with that name?
"Because it's all about him and his big thoughts," Noonan writes in a column. "I guess the second-term team is not quite as adoring as the first."
Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, joins a wide swath of Republicans who have complained about the president's apparent self-absorption.
Just this week he was taken to task for going ahead with a speech attacking the GOP on the economy just as news of the Washington Navy Yard slaughter was coming out.
Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough said Obama seemed "bored or disconnected or out of touch or something," adding, "He's president of the United States. He should be smart enough."
The Weekly Standard's Stehen Hayes called the decision to press on with the speech "small and petty."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/noonan-obama-staffers-nickname/2013/09/20/id/526886#ixzz2fTBLEA4w
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
-
No surprise.
Not surprised.
Peggy Noonan: WH Staffers Nickname President 'Obam-me'
Friday, 20 Sep 2013
By Dan Weil
White House staffers have adopted a new and unflattering nickname for their boss:"Obam-me," Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan says she heard in chats with a few senators.
And how did the staffers come up with that name?
"Because it's all about him and his big thoughts," Noonan writes in a column. "I guess the second-term team is not quite as adoring as the first."
Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, joins a wide swath of Republicans who have complained about the president's apparent self-absorption.
Just this week he was taken to task for going ahead with a speech attacking the GOP on the economy just as news of the Washington Navy Yard slaughter was coming out.
Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough said Obama seemed "bored or disconnected or out of touch or something," adding, "He's president of the United States. He should be smart enough."
The Weekly Standard's Stehen Hayes called the decision to press on with the speech "small and petty."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/noonan-obama-staffers-nickname/2013/09/20/id/526886#ixzz2fTBLEA4w
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
-
The accolades of some of our former presidents compared to president Obama.
Jimmy Carter - Naval Officer Nuclear Engineer, large-scale farmer, Governor of Georga, Georgia Senator.
Ronald Reagan - Actor, radio broadcaster, US Army Officer, Two-Time Governor of California.
George H W Bush - WW2 Veteran, fighter pilot, Head of CIA, Vice President, CEO of major business conglomerates.
Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar, Governor of Arkansas
George W Bush - Fighter pilot, baseball team owner, oil company owner, Two-time Texas Governor
Barack Obama - community organizer.....and even his supporters aren't sure what he has done, where he has been, and what, if anything, he accomplished.
Obama.....incompetent, unqualified, and completely unremarkable.
-
Weakened Obama Opens UN Talks as Friends, Foes Doubt Leadership
Monday, 23 Sep 2013
President Barack Obama opens meetings at the United Nations with diplomatic opportunities on three vexing issues: Iran's disputed nuclear program, Syria's chemical weapons use, and elusive peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
All three pathways are fraught with potential pitfalls and hinge on cooperation from often unreliable nations. Obama also risks being branded as naive and misguided if the efforts fail, particularly in Syria, where he's used the prospect of diplomacy to put off a military strike in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
Still, the recent developments mark a significant shift on a trio of issues that have long proved problematic for Obama at the United Nations. His former Iranian counterpart used the annual U.N. General Assembly meetings as a venue for fiery, anti-American speeches. Failed Middle East peace talks led the Palestinians to seek statehood recognition at the U.N. despite staunch American objections. And the Obama administration has been stymied on Syria at the U.N. Security Council due to intractable Russian opposition.
But this year, Iran has a new leader who is making friendly overtures toward Obama, raising the prospect of a meeting at the United Nations. U.S.-brokered peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians have resumed — though on an uncertain course. And Russia has joined with the U.S. on a diplomatic deal to strip Syria of its chemical weapons.
Joel Rubin, a former State Department official who now works at the nonproliferation organization Ploughshares, said the confluence of events underscores an often frustrating aspect of diplomacy.
"You never know when it's going to break," said Rubin. He said Obama's biggest test now is to recognize if opportunities morph into stalling tactics.
Obama's advisers cast the sudden signs of progress as an outgrowth of the president's long-standing preference for resolving disputes through diplomacy and, in the case of Iran and Syria, with pressure built up through economic sanctions and the threat of military action.
"He said we'd be open to diplomacy, we'd pursue engagement, but that there would be pressure if Iran failed to take that opportunity," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser. And on Syria, Rhodes said it was the credible threat of a U.S. military strike "that opened the door for this diplomacy."
Obama was due to arrive in New York Monday afternoon. He will address the U.N. on Tuesday, a speech aides say will touch on developments in Iran, Syria and Middle East peace. The issues will also be at the forefront of some of the president's bilateral meetings with world leaders, including a sit-down with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, whose country is burdened by the flow of refugees from neighboring Syria.
But Obama's most closely watched meeting may end up being with Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. No encounter is scheduled, but U.S. officials have left open the possibility the two men might talk on the sidelines of the international gathering.
If they do, it would mark the first meeting of U.S. and Iranian leaders in more than 30 years. A meeting could also be a precursor to renewed talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear program — though bridging differences over Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain those stockpiles will be a far tougher task than arranging a handshake.
The election of Rouhani, a moderate cleric, signaled frustration among many Iranians with their country's international isolation and the crippling impact of Western sanctions. Obama and Rouhani have already exchanged letters. And the new Iranian president's rhetoric has so far been more palatable to the U.S. than former leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who would threaten Israel as well as lambast the U.S. in his annual remarks at the U.N.
Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, said Rouhani shares with Obama a need to prove to a domestic audience that diplomacy can produce concrete results.
"If he can't show that his diplomatic approach will pay more dividends for Iran that Ahmadinejad's theatrics, then it's back to the conservatives being in the driver's seat. And the flexibility that Rouhani currently has will be lost," Parsi said.
As Rouhani considers re-engaging with the U.S., he's closely watching diplomatic developments in Syria, an Iranian ally.
A chemical weapons attack near Damascus in August brought the U.S. to the brink of a military strike. But an idea floated by Secretary of State John Kerry turned into a last-minute overture from Russia — another backer of Syrian President Bashar Assad — and resulted in a deal to turn Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles over to the international community.
The breakthrough was particularly unexpected given that Russia has thwarted U.S. efforts to punish Assad through the U.N. Security Council. When Obama was on the verge of launching a strike against Assad's regime, he said the U.N. had an "incapacity" to address Syria's violation of international agreements banning the deployment of deadly gases.
Now the U.S. once again sees a role for the Security Council. The U.S. wants the panel to approve a resolution making the U.S.-Russian agreement legally binding in a way that is verifiable and enforceable. But a key obstacle remains, given U.S. and Russian disagreement over whether to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.
Chapter 7 deals with threats to international peace and security and has provisions for enforcement by military or nonmilitary means, such as sanctions. Russia is sure to veto a resolution that includes a mandate for military action.
The prospect of diplomacy in Iran and Syria has overshadowed tenuous progress in recent months in restarting direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. Talks resumed this summer after months of prodding by Kerry, but the prospect of a resolution on issues that have long had the Israelis and Palestinians at odds remain as slim as ever.
Palestinian leaders, frustrated by the stalemate, have taken their case in recent years to the United Nations, where there is broad support for their bid for statehood. While the U.S. supports Palestinian statehood, it says that status can only be achieved through direct negotiations with the Israelis.
That's put Obama in the awkward position of arguing against Palestinian efforts during his previous trips to the U.N. American opposition stymied Palestinian efforts to become full U.N. members in 2011, but the Palestinians succeeded in a bid to gain implicit statehood recognition last year.
The 2012 measure passed overwhelmingly, with the U.S. and just a handful of other nations voting no.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-Diplomacy/2013/09/23/id/527171
-
The accolades of some of our former presidents compared to president Obama.
Jimmy Carter - Naval Officer Nuclear Engineer, large-scale farmer, Governor of Georga, Georgia Senator.
Ronald Reagan - Actor, radio broadcaster, US Army Officer, Two-Time Governor of California.
George H W Bush - WW2 Veteran, fighter pilot, Head of CIA, Vice President, CEO of major business conglomerates.
Bill Clinton - Rhodes Scholar, Governor of Arkansas
George W Bush - Fighter pilot, baseball team owner, oil company owner, Two-time Texas Governor
Barack Obama - community organizer.....and even his supporters aren't sure what he has done, where he has been, and what, if anything, he accomplished.
Obama.....incompetent, unqualified, and completely unremarkable.
Being a bit harsh on Obama aren't you......how about law professor, attorney, US Senator, Community Organizer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and of course...44th President of the United States.
And Bush wasn't no fucking fighter pilot because he never fought anyone.....no different than Ventura claiming to be a SEAL when he never even went to Vietnam ::)
-
Being a bit harsh on Obama aren't you......how about law professor, attorney, US Senator, Community Organizer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and of course...44th President of the United States.
And Bush wasn't no fucking fighter pilot because he never fought anyone.....no different than Ventura claiming to be a SEAL when he never even went to Vietnam ::)
LMFAO!!!!
Nobel Prize winner - LOL!!!!!
How about drug addicted ghetto thieving sludge who pandered to gay white wealthy libs to fleece them of $$$ and suckered gullible delusional blacks into thinking he was the messiah?
-
Obama’s Big Problem: He has no Credibility
by Keith Koffler on October 11, 2013
I want to let you know about a new article I have running in Politico today, Obama’s Crisis of Credibility. Obama has a more serious problem than people seem to recognize: He’s no longer viewed as a credible individual.
From the piece:
President Barack Obama is like a novice flier thrust into the cockpit of a 747. He’s pushing buttons, flipping switches and radioing air traffic control, but nothing’s happening. The plane is just slowly descending on its own, and while it may or may not crash, it at least doesn’t appear to be headed to any particularly useful destination.
Obama’s ineffectiveness, always a hallmark of his presidency, has reached a new cruising altitude this year . . .
Obama has something worse on his hands than being hated. All presidents get hated. But Obama is being ignored. And that’s because he has no credibility.
I hope you get a chance to look at the piece. And check out the comments too. Lots of them and pretty heated on both sides.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/11/obamas-big-problem-credibility/
The full piece on politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamas-crisis-of-credibility-98153.html?hp=r2
-
CNN Anchor: Obama Administration Not Afraid to Threaten Jobs of Journalists Who Actually Do Their Job
Bubba Atkinson | On 28, Oct 2013
It’s not a good sign when the White House tries to stop the press from doing its job (via Newsbusters):
COSTELLO: And Will really does have a point. Because I felt it first hand when I was, you know, reporting on the presidential race. I mean President Obama’s people can be quite nasty. They don’t like you to say anything bad about their boss, and they’re not afraid to use whatever means they have at hand to stop you from doing that, including threatening your job.
As the Washington Post reported earlier, the Department of Justice spied on the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen. Maybe Obama’s favorable coverage is not all because of what a swell guy he is, after all…
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/90368-cnn-anchor-obama-administration-afraid-threaten-jobs-journalists-actually-job/
-
Fox News Poll: Half think Obama 'knowingly lied' to pass health care law
Dana Blanton
By Dana Blanton
Published November 13, 2013
FoxNews.com
. . .
Perceptions of Obama’s leadership are also under water. Forty percent rate his leadership skills positively (excellent or good). On the other side, 60 percent rate him as only fair or poor.
Voters are three times as likely to view Obama’s leadership skills as poor (39 percent) compared to excellent (13 percent).
On health care specifically, more than half of voters lack confidence in the president’s leadership (56 percent), and most voters doubt the health care exchange website will be working by the new November 30 deadline (69 percent).
The poll also finds 63 percent think implementation of Obamacare should be delayed a year, up from 57 percent who felt that way a month ago.
Forty-four percent of Democrats want the law delayed until more details are ironed out.
The consensus among voters is their health plan hasn’t changed because of Obamacare (71 percent). Among those seeing a change, they are much more likely to say it’s a change for the worse (21 percent) than the better (6 percent).
At the same time, the number saying they feel “worried” about their personal health care in the future is down a couple notches to 63 percent. Sixty-six percent were worried six months ago (June 2013). Some 27 percent feel “reassured” by Obamacare now.
Overall, 46 percent want to throw out the health care law and “start over,” while 42 percent say “keep trying to fix it” and another 10 percent say we should “leave it alone.”
. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/fox-news-poll-half-think-obama-knowingly-lied-to-pass-health-care-law/
-
He is right. Good leaders know when to ask for (and accept) advice.
Dr. Ben Carson: Obama Needed Advice From Insurance Experts
Friday, 15 Nov 2013
By Cathy Burke and Steve Malzberg
President Barack Obama can't be blamed for not understanding the insurance business, but he should be blamed for "not surrounding himself with people who do" as he tries to quick-fix his signature healthcare law, columnist Dr. Ben Carson said Friday.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV at the Restoration Weekend gathering in Palm Beach, Fla., Carson said Obamacare has proven the president is more ideologue than leader — "and it's very difficult for people who are ideologues to accept that their ideology is wrong."
"You can't be an expert in every area, but you have to know what you don't know in order to be an effective leader," the retired neurosurgeon and conservative writer said. "To come out with the kind of statements that he made [promising that people would be able to keep their existing plans under Obamacare] indicates that no one around him is counseling him about the very basic things about this."
Carson said he has watched Obama go through "a metamorphosis where you begin believing that your way is the only right way, there is no other way that works, and if anybody doesn't believe that, it's only because they don't fully understand."
"And therefore you can't really wait until they understand — you have to impose it on them," he added.
But Carson said the current fix to Obamacare "is just playing politics," and urges a total rethinking of healthcare.
"For people to say that there are no ideas out there and this is only way to go, that is blatantly untrue," he said. "Our goals are to return healthcare to the practitioner and to the patient, and not have a third party making medical decisions for people, and finding an appropriate way to pay for it. That's what we want to do."
Carson said his plan for healthcare would be to bring "the whole medical system into the free market."
"That's what controls costs," he said. "Government doesn't control cost. That's what creates innovation. We have progressively taken things out of the free market and placed them in the government where they're inefficient, where they traditionally have been inefficient, where they will always be inefficient, because that's not what the government is for."
Carson said he's been traveling across the country to speak with Americans, but is not saying if he'd be ready to launch his own political campaign.
"The most important thing is to continue going around the country and waking people up and letting them know that they do have power and that they don't have to sit down and take this," he said. "We've got to bring courage and bravery back. Stop letting them beat you down."
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ben-carson-obama-health-insurance/2013/11/15/id/536982?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2l1AzbVl2
-
Good leaders don't use such petty language.
Obama (Allegedly) Uses ‘Tea-Baggers’ in Handwritten Response to Texas Teacher; Only Center-Right Notices
By Tom Blumer | November 29, 2013
Readers here may remember during the presidency of George W. Bush how he reacted to a constituent's written concerns about how "I watched you make fun of moonbats" opposed to the Iraq war who were being "targeted and ridiculed." In a handwritten letter on White House stationery, Bush told the person that “I do have to challenge you, though, on the notion that any citizen that disagrees with me has been 'targeted and ridiculed' or that I have 'made fun' of 'moonbats.'"
Any reader who does recall this has a bad memory, because it didn't happen. But as the New York Post's Emily Smith reported on Wednesday, President Obama allegedly penned a worse response to a Texas teacher who expressed concern about how "any citizen that disagrees with your administration is targeted and ridiculed," and that "I watched you make fun of tea baggers." Obama handwrote the word "tea-baggers" in his response:
(http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ObamaTeaBaggerLetter1113.png)
Again, though it appears quite real, it apparently remains "alleged" until the White House acknowledges that Obama actually wrote what is seen above — which of course begs the question of whether anyone in the press corps will bother to ask Jay Carney about its authenticity. Or perhaps the Texas teacher, who plans to auction off the letter, will consult a handwriting expert.
If it is indeed real — and the burden of proof is clearly on the White House to demonstrate otherwise — Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air evaluated the possibilities on Wednesday (some line breaks added by me; bolds are mine):
A couple options, here:
- Obama carelessly used “tea-baggers” after reading it in Ritter’s letter and meant to use Tea Partiers.
- Obama deliberately used the term “tea-bagger” to annoy Ritter, in which case it was quite a lot of effort to sit down and give a “tea-bagger” the honor of a letter from the President of the United States.
- Or, and this is my theory, Obama is so thoroughly surrounded by people who refer to Tea Partiers as “tea-baggers” nonchalantly that it slipped out without him even thinking about it.
And, finally, no matter what the reason, the letter’s certainly emblematic of Obama’s utter inability to actually appeal to people who disagree with him despite fancying himself quite the bridge-builder.
The President of the United States, allegedly one of the smartest people to grace our country, sat down to write a hand-written letter to a political dissenter and used the most charged, rude, dirty term possible while claiming he’d never do anything but treat this “tea-bagger” with the utmost respect. His own lofty self-concept survives contact with all conflicting facts, even when they come from his own pen.
On the upside, “tea-bagger” has now been used by a president on presidential stationery. You’re welcome, George Washington. Love, 2013.
"Tea bagger" is a term coined by the Left during the early stages of the Tea Party movement, and is "a derogatory term leveled at Tea Party members which refers to a lewd sexual act."
The teacher's plans to auction Obama's written response would appear to lend credence to his claim that the response is authentic. Imagine the wrath which would rain down on him from government agencies if he tried to auction off a fake (he's probably in line to get his fill just for publicizing Obama's response).
Google News searches at 10:00 a.m. on "Obama teabaggers" and "Obama tea-baggers" (each not in quotes and sorted by date) each returned 10 results, none of which came from establishment press outlets.
Is there any chance at all that my made-up "moonbat" example from George W. Bush would have been similarly ignored if it had really occurred?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/11/29/obama-allegedly-uses-tea-baggers-handwritten-response-texas-teacher-only#ixzz2m4oVx6GP
-
What a petchulant child
-
I doubt it too.
Healthcare.gov a Teaching Moment for Obama?
by KEITH KOFFLER on DECEMBER 2, 2013
I doubt it. This president’s capacity to learn and grow in office seems quite limited.
But it was a bit of a revelation when President Obama said the other day that the reason his campaign website worked so well but Healthcare.gov does not is that when it comes to building a campaign website, “I’m not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules.”
So dismissive. Almost sounded like he’s talking about Republicans.
The RNC made a pretty effective propaganda video out of it.
This reminded me of when the late George McGovern discovered, some 16 years after carrying the liberal banner unsuccessfully in 1972 against Richard Nixon, that Republicans might not be all wrong.
See, after losing his Senate seat, McGOVERN ACTUALLY TRIED TO START A BUSINESS. Some of you may remember this. And after it failed, he blamed some of the red tape he himself had helped create and the litigousness Democrats love to promote.
Eating a piece of humble pie that surely will never make it to Obama’s table, McGovern wrote about his experience:
Calvin Coolidge was too simplistic when he observed that “the business of America is business.” But like most sweeping political statements, even Coolidge’s contains some truth — enough, as I’ve learned, to make me wish I had known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American businesspeople while I was a U.S. senator and later a presidential nominee. That knowledge would have made me a better legislator and a more worthy aspirant to the White House.
In 1988 I yielded to a longtime desire to own an inn with conference facilities, where I could provide good food, comfortable rooms, and lively public discussion sessions.
After two and a half years that mixed pleasure and satisfaction with the loss of all my earnings from nearly a decade of post-Senate lecture tours, I gave up on the Stratford Inn. But not before learning some painful and valuable lessons.
I learned first of all that over the past 20 years America has become the most litigious society in the world. There was a time not so long ago when a lawsuit was considered a rare and extreme measure, to be resorted to only under the most critical circumstances. But today Americans sue one another at the drop of a hat — almost on the spur of the moment.
As the owner of the Stratford Inn, I was on the receiving end of a couple of lawsuits that fit that description.
The second lesson I learned by owning the Stratford Inn is that legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. business.
As an innkeeper, I wanted excellent safeguards against a fire. But I was startled to be told that our two-story structure, which had large sliding doors opening from every guest room to all-concrete decks, required us to meet fire regulations more appropriate to the Waldorf-Astoria. A costly automatic sprinkler system and new exit doors were items that helped sink the Stratford Inn — items I was convinced added little to the safety of our guests and employees. And a critical promotional campaign never got off the ground, partly because my manager was forced to concentrate for days at a time on needlessly complicated tax forms for both the IRS and the state of Connecticut.
Unlike McGovern, if Obama ever does learn any such lessons, it will be too late. He made it to the Oval Office, and will have already done his damage to small business and the middle class.
Anyway, Obama’s not really the type to start a business. I mean, he’d have to get up early, skip a lot of golf, and make things that are useful to people. It’s just not like government work.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/12/02/healthcaregov-teaching-moment-obama/
-
Obama.....incompetent, unqualified, and completely unremarkable.
See, I disagree. I think he's completely shitty if the goal is a better America.
But since I think obama's goals involve a welfare state, socialized medicine, and a weakened american spirit, descending into soft weak liberal mediocrity...
then YES - his presidency is a wild success. Repubs smile with the whole "Obama is a failure!" but that's cause they assume they know what his goals are. If he is as liberal as they say he is - then his goals are liberal goals. he's getting those done pretty well.
-
Didn't the president say he was committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that if they did so it would be a "game changer"?
Iran enrichment capacity expanded dramatically on Obama's watch
By James Rosen
Published December 04, 2013
FoxNews.com
Before he paused to allow reporters to ask questions about the nuclear deal with Iran that he had just announced in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to anticipate one line of criticism about the accord -- that it effectively cedes to the Islamic regime the right to enrich uranium, despite half a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions declaring the activity illegal. And he moved, preemptively, to address it.
"In 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges," Kerry said in a news conference held in the early hours of Nov. 24. "That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing."
In essence, the secretary of State was suggesting the staggering number of centrifuges that Iran now has effectively forced the hand of the P5+1 negotiators at the talks, making the placement of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program the only realistic prospect the negotiators could pursue. Kerry also suggested that had only President George W. Bush done the right thing a decade ago, the United States and its allies in the P5+1 -- Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- wouldn't have found themselves in such a precarious negotiating posture.
Yet a Fox News review of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and analyses prepared by leading research institutions -- including the Arms Control Association, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Federation of American Scientists -- shows that the vast majority of Iran's enrichment capability came online during the Obama administration.
It is known that by late 2007, Iran possessed about 3,000 centrifuges. Over the course of Bush's final 12 to 15 months in the White House, it can be assumed safely that Iran added to, but probably did not fully double, the number of centrifuges it had installed. A fair estimate would accordingly place the number of the spinning machines that Iran had on hand at the beginning of 2009 at 5,000.
This would mean that roughly 25 percent of the regime's current total of centrifuges had been installed when the Bush-Cheney era ended. Put another way: Roughly 74 percent of the centrifuges Iran now has on hand were installed since the Obama-Biden team assumed office. Analysts say 10,000 of the total are actively enriching uranium to low levels, inconsistent with nuclear weapons production but well suited to the task should a decision be made to pursue that goal.
Yet in a series of interviews he gave before leaving Geneva, Kerry expanded on his theme, telling ABC News' George Stephanopoulos: "In 2003, Iran made an offer to the Bush administration that they would, in fact, do major things with respect to their program. They had 164 centrifuges. Nobody took that [deal] -- nothing has happened. Therefore, here we are in 2013 -- they have 19,000 centrifuges and they're closer to a weapon. You cannot sit there and pretend that you're just going to get the thing you want while they continue to move towards the program that they've been chasing....You can't always start where you want to wind up."
Kerry's concise history of the Iranian nuclear program, which encompassed only the years 2003 and 2013, naturally omitted quite a lot. Determining exactly when the regime crossed a given technical threshold can be difficult, given the opacity of the government and the complex of commercial, military, and scientific institutions that have contributed to the program over the last two decades. The secretary plans to testify before Congress on Iran, for the first time since the deal was announced, in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Dec. 10 -- an opportunity to provide more clarity.
A spokesman for Kerry professed ignorance of the exact numbers involved. "We have not questioned the fact that Iran has made progress on enrichment and on developing a nuclear weapon," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Dec. 2. "That's one of the reasons why we stepped up sanctions over the past couple of years."
But when confronted with the notion that at least 70 percent of the expansion in Iran's centrifuge program took place on President Obama's watch, Psaki countered: "I think what we're focused on at this point is the fact that we're now at a point where we are halting and rolling back the progress of their program and we're working towards a comprehensive agreement to bring an end to it."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/04/iran-enrichment-capacity-expanded-dramatically-on-obama-watch/
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/poof-public-says-americas-world-leadership-has-tumbled-to-40-year-low/article/2540096
Total FAIL FAIL FAIL
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/poof-public-says-americas-world-leadership-has-tumbled-to-40-year-low/article/2540096
Total FAIL FAIL FAIL
Definitely a sign of poor leadership. Text of the article:
For the first time in nearly 40 years, a majority of Americans believe the United States is less important around the world and that it should mind its own business, a stunning rejection of President Obama’s foreign policy just four years after he received the Nobel Prize.
A new Pew Research Center poll found that 53 percent of people believe that the U.S. is playing a less important role as a world leader than a decade ago, the highest figure since 1974.
Worse: 70 percent said that the U.S. is respected less than in the past, almost matching the high reached under former President George W. Bush, whose foreign policy Obama pledged to reverse.
Other key highlights from Pew’s release:
— By a 56 percent to 34 percent margin, more disapprove than approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy. The public also disapproves of his handling of Syria, Iran, China and Afghanistan by wide margins.
Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!
— For the first time, 52 percent believe the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally.”
— Some 51 percent said the U.S. does too much in helping solve world problems.
— Most say the U.S. should engage internationally on economic issues. Fully 77 percent say that growing trade and business ties between the U.S. and other countries is good.
— Just 31 percent of the public say the war in Afghanistan has made the country safer from terrorism.
-
Hemorrhaging.
Gallup: Hispanics split with Obama
By Mario Trujillo
President Obama’s approval rating has taken the steepest dive with Hispanics since his reelection last year, according to a Gallup analysis.
Obama's approval rating recorded a 23-percentage-point drop among Hispanics since last year, compared to an average drop among all Americans of 12 percent.
Fifty-two percent of Hispanics still approve of Obama, but that's a drop from 75 percent in December 2012.
Exit polls showed that Obama won Hispanics by a 71percent to 27 percent margin in the 2012 election against GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
Other voting groups that make up Obama's base also have seen 15-point plus drop offs — including people making less than $24,000 a year, nonwhites and young voters.
Centrist and independent voters also recorded a 16-percent and 15-percent drop, respectively.
Democrats have seen a 13-point drop, while centrist Democratic approval of Obama dropped 16 percent.
A separate poll by Harvard’s Institute of Politics released Wednesday recorded a similar decline in support among young people.
Obama’s approval among 18- to 29-year-olds has dropped 15 points to a low of 46 percent in Gallup’s monthly average. The Harvard poll of young voters found Obama’s overall approval rating had dropped to 41 percent.
Gallup noted that Hispanics have been the most volatile demographic in terms of supporting Obama throughout his presidency.
Obama's approval among Hispanics peaked at 80 percent. Obama's lowest approval rating level recorded for Hispanics is 49 percent.
Overall, the drop off in support has come most drastically from people who tend to have high support for Obama because approval among those who disagree with him cannot get much lower. His approval among Republicans has only dropped 3 points this year, from 11 percent to 8 percent support today.
Obama’s approval rating has dropped among every demographic and his overall approval stands at 41 percent in November's monthly Gallup average.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/192233-poll-obamas-approval-drops-most-with-hispanics
-
CNN: Former WH Official Acknowledges Obama's 'Maybe' Not Good at Governing
Only good at campaigning
8:31 AM, JAN 6, 2014
BY DANIEL HALPER
CNN report Peter Hamby reports on a recent conversation he had with a former White House official:
"I talked to a former Obama White House person, just before Christmas, when Obama was sort of adrift, figuring out what to do, his poll numbers were pretty low. And he said, 'Look, the president needs to find an issue to campaign on. This is what he's good at. He's really good at campaigning. Maybe not governing,' according to this Democrat," Hamby said this morning on CNN.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cnn-former-wh-official-acknowledges-obamas-maybe-not-good-governing_773339.html
-
Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’
By Bob Woodward, Tuesday, January 7, 2:41 PM
In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”
Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.
As a candidate, Obama had made plain his opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion while embracing the Afghanistan war as a necessary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, requiring even more military resources to succeed. In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair.
It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.
Gates’s severe criticism is even more surprising — some might say contradictory — because toward the end of “Duty,” he says of Obama’s chief Afghanistan policies, “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.” That particular view is not a universal one; like much of the debate about the best path to take in Afghanistan, there is disagreement on how well the surge strategy worked, including among military officials.
The sometimes bitter tone in Gates’s 594-page account contrasts sharply with the even-tempered image that he cultivated during his many years of government service, including stints at the CIA and National Security Council. That image endured through his nearly five years in the Pentagon’s top job, beginning in President George W. Bush’s second term and continuing after Obama asked him to remain in the post. In “Duty,” Gates describes his outwardly calm demeanor as a facade. Underneath, he writes, he was frequently “seething” and “running out of patience on multiple fronts.”
The book, published by Knopf, is scheduled for release Jan. 14.
[PHOTOS: A look at Robert Gates’s career in government]
Gates writes about Obama with an ambivalence that he does not resolve, praising him as “a man of personal integrity” even as he faults his leadership. Though the book simmers with disappointment in Obama, it reflects outright contempt for Vice President Joe Biden and many of Obama’s top aides.
Biden is accused of “poisoning the well” against the military leadership. Thomas Donilon, initially Obama’s deputy national security adviser, and then-Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House coordinator for the wars, are described as regularly engaged in “aggressive, suspicious, and sometimes condescending and insulting questioning of our military leaders.”
Gates is 70, nearly 20 years older than Obama. He has worked for every president going back to Richard Nixon, with the exception of Bill Clinton. Throughout his government career, he was known for his bipartisan detachment, the consummate team player. “Duty” is likely to provide ammunition for those who believe it is risky for a president to fill such a key Cabinet post with a holdover from the opposition party.
He writes, “I have tried to be fair in describing actions and motivations of others.” He seems well aware that Obama and his aides will not see it that way.
While serving as defense secretary, Gates gave Obama high marks, saying privately in the summer of 2010 that the president is “very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive.” He added, “I think we have a similar approach to dealing with national security issues.”
Obama echoed Gates’s comments in a July 10, 2010, interview for my book “Obama’s Wars.” The president said: “Bob Gates has, I think, served me extraordinarily well. And part of the reason is, you know, I’m not sure if he considers this an insult or a compliment, but he and I actually think a lot alike, in broad terms.”
During that interview, Obama said he believed he “had garnered confidence and trust in Gates.” In “Duty,” Gates complains repeatedly that confidence and trust was what he felt was lacking in his dealings with Obama and his team. “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody, as I have detailed in these pages?” he writes. “Why was I so often angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?”
His answer is that “the broad dysfunction in Washington wore me down, especially as I tried to maintain a public posture of nonpartisan calm, reason and conciliation.”
His lament about Washington was not the only factor contributing to his unhappiness. Gates also writes of the toll taken by the difficulty of overseeing wars against terrorism and insurgencies in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Such wars do not end with a clear surrender; Gates acknowledges having ambiguous feelings about both conflicts. For example, he writes that he does not know what he would have recommended if he had been asked his opinion on Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq.
Three years later, Bush recruited Gates — who had served his father for 15 months as CIA director in the early 1990s — to take on the defense job. The first half of “Duty” covers those final two years in the Bush administration. Gates reveals some disagreements from that period, but none as fundamental or as personal as those he describes with Obama and his aides in the book’s second half.
“All too early in the [Obama] administration,” he writes, “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.”
Gates offers a catalogue of various meetings, based in part on notes that he and his aides made at the time, including an exchange between Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that he calls “remarkable.”
He writes: “Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”
Earlier in the book, he describes Hillary Clinton in the sort of glowing terms that might be used in a political endorsement. “I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world,” he wrote.
[READ: The Fix on what Gates’s memoir could mean for a Clinton campaign]
March 3, 2010
“Duty” reflects the memoir genre, declaring that this is how the writer saw it, warts and all, including his own. That focus tends to give short shrift to the fuller, established record. For example, in recounting the difficult discussions that led to the Afghan surge strategy in 2009, Gates makes no reference to the six-page “terms sheet” that Obama drafted at the end, laying out the rationale for the surge and withdrawal timetable. Obama asked everyone involved to sign on, signaling agreement.
According to the meeting notes of another participant, Gates is quoted as telling Obama, “You sound the bugle . . . Mr. President, and Mike [Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I will be the first to charge the hill.”
Gates does not include such a moment in “Duty.” He picks up the story a bit later, after Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the central commander in charge of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, made remarks to the press suggesting he was not comfortable with setting a fixed date to start withdrawal.
At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.
According to Gates, Obama concluded, “ ‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”
Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
[READ: World Views: Gates was wrong ont he most important issue he ever faced]
‘Breaches of faith’
Lack of trust is a major thread in Gates’s account, along with his unsparing criticism of Obama’s aides. At times, the two threads intertwine. For example, after the devastating 2010 Haitian earthquake that had left tens of thousands dead, Gates met with Obama and Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, about disaster relief.
Donilon was “complaining about how long we were taking,” Gates writes. “Then he went too far, questioning in front of the president and a roomful of people whether General [Douglas] Fraser [head of the U.S. Southern Command] was competent to lead this effort. I’ve rarely been angrier in the Oval Office than I was at that moment. . . . My initial instinct was to storm out, telling the president on the way that he didn’t need two secretaries of defense. It took every bit of my self-discipline to stay seated on the sofa.”
Gates confirms a previously reported statement in which he told Obama’s first national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, that he thought Donilon would be a “disaster” if he succeeded Jones (as Donilon did in late 2010). Gates writes that Obama quizzed him about this characterization; a one-on-one meeting with Donilon followed, and that “cleared the air,” according to Gates.
His second year with Obama proved as tough as the first. “For me, 2010 was a year of continued conflict and a couple of important White House breaches of faith,” he writes.
The first, he says, was Obama’s decision to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays serving in the military. Though Gates says he supported the decision, there had been months and months of debate, with details still to work out. On one day’s notice, Obama informed Gates and Mullen that he would announce his request for a repeal of the law. Obama had “blindsided Admiral Mullen and me,” Gates writes.
Similarly, in a battle over defense spending, “I was extremely angry with President Obama,” Gates writes. “I felt he had breached faith with me . . . on the budget numbers.” As with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”
Gates acknowledges forthrightly in “Duty” that he did not reveal his dismay. “I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as [Hillary] Clinton, [then-CIA Director Leon] Panetta, and others) saw as the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.”
It got so bad during internal debates over whether to intervene in Libya in 2011 that Gates says he felt compelled to deliver a “rant” because the White House staff was “talking about military options with the president without Defense being involved.”
Gates says his instructions to the Pentagon were: “Don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on the military options. They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.” Power, then on the national security staff and now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been a strong advocate for humanitarian intervention.
Another time, after Donilon and Biden tried to pass orders to Gates, he told the two, “The last time I checked, neither of you are in the chain of command,” and said he expected to get orders directly from Obama.
Life at the top was no picnic, Gates writes. He did little or no socializing. “Every evening I could not wait to get home, get my office homework out of the way, write condolence letters to the families of the fallen, pour a stiff drink, wolf down a frozen dinner or carry out,” since his wife, Becky, often remained at their home in Washington state.
“I got up at five every morning to run two miles around the Mall in Washington, past the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam memorials, and in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And every morning before dawn, I would ritually look up at that stunning white statue of Lincoln, say good morning, and sadly ask him, How did you do it?”
The memoir’s title comes from a quote, “God help me to do my duty,” that Gates says he kept on his desk. The quote has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln’s war secretary, Edwin Stanton.
At his confirmation hearings to be Bush’s defense secretary in late 2006, Gates told the senators that he had not “come back to Washington to be a bump on a log and not say exactly what I think, and to speak candidly and, frankly, boldly to people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue about what I believe and what I think needs to be done.”
But Gates says he did not speak his mind when the committee chairman listed the problems he would face as secretary. “I remember sitting at the witness table listening to this litany of woe and thinking, “What the hell am I doing here? I have walked right into the middle of a category-five shitstorm. It was the first of many, many times I would sit at the witness table thinking something very different from what I was saying.”
“Duty” offers the familiar criticism of Congress and its culture, describing it as “truly ugly.” Gates’s cold feelings toward the legislative branch stand in stark contrast to his warmth for the military. He repeatedly describes his affection for the troops, especially those in combat.
Gates wanted to quit at the end of 2010 but agreed to stay at Obama’s urging, finally leaving in mid-2011. He later joined a consulting firm with two of George W. Bush’s closest foreign policy advisers — former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser during Bush’s second term. The firm is called RiceHadleyGates. In October, he became president-elect of the Boy Scouts of America.
Gates writes, “I did not enjoy being secretary of defense,” or as he e-mailed one friend while still serving, “People have no idea how much I detest this job.”
READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:
-
Dang. Not surprised. :-\
-
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/07/in-memoir-gates-slams-biden-reveals-he-nearly-quit
Slammed
-
Krauthammer: Gates' Revelations on Obama's Leadership 'Shocking'
Wednesday, 08 Jan 2014
By Melanie Batley
President Barack Obama is receiving harsh criticism for his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq following revelations by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicating the president did not have faith in the merit of the administration's strategy, despite his decision to order a "surge" in troops to the region.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer expressed his shock about the details that emerged in Gates' forthcoming book, "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," specifically about how Gates realized three months after Obama announced the escalating troop levels that the president indicated he didn't believe it was the right way forward.
"Think about this—you're the secretary of defense. The president is sending 30,000 more troops into battle, and three months later, the secretary of defense realizes that Obama doesn't believe in the surge or believe in the war or believe in his own actions," Krauthammer said, speaking on Fox News' "Special Report."
"He doesn't believe in [Gen. David] Petraeus. He hates Karzi. He thinks the war isn't his. How can a commander-in-chief in good conscience do that?"
He reflected that Obama, having announced both the surge and at the same time the withdrawal of troops, has never publicly explained why the surge was important.
"He now has the lowest public approval of any war in modern history because it has no leadership. But I think this is a shocking revelation. I assumed that he didn't believe in this war from his own actions. But here's from somebody sitting with the president three months in. And I do think this is an indictment of the president that rises above everything else he's done in his presidency," Krauthammer said.
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham also weighed in on the revelations from the book, saying Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are to blame for the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq.
"I blame Obama and Biden for not listening to their commanders, rejecting sound advice and Bob Gates talks about that in his book, how military commanders were overruled by the political people in the White House," Graham said on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," according to Politico.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/krauthammer-gates-book-obama/2014/01/08/id/545940#ixzz2ppnuxBCR
-
Obama Aborts the Opposition
by KEITH KOFFLER on JANUARY 23, 2014
If you want clear evidence that all President Obama’s rhetoric about reaching out to Republicans and uniting people has all been a plate of pork and beef baloney, then have a look at this, Obama’s celebratory statement Wednesday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.
We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.
And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
This is among the most divisive and passionately debated issues in the nation’s history. And not a word for those who oppose abortion?
And who, please, is “we.” We affirm, we resolve, we recommit . . . Mr. President, it’s not we, it’s YOU.
Don’t claim to speak for America when you don’t even make an attempt to include all Americans in your statements.
Obama’s “we” is actually no more than him and the smug company of his fellow liberals who have not the least bit of intellectual curiosity about opposing opinions and not a trace of question within their minds about their essential goodness and infallible reasoning.
The opposition is evil, wrong and dumb. Why include them in a statement? They don’t even get to be part of the American “we.”
America thought it had elected a visionary. But the man it put in office is nothing more than a very prosaic leftist, determined to exclude opposing opinions as he crusades for his agenda, immune to thoughts that someone else might have a point.
It’s all very run of the mill. And not the least bit presidential.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/01/23/obama-aborts-opposition/
-
Poll: U.S. thinks Obama not respected abroad
By LUCY MCCALMONT | 2/24/14
For the first time, a majority of Americans think President Barack Obama is not respected among world leaders, according to a new poll that found opinion has plunged “dramatically” in the past year.
Fifty-three percent now say Obama is not respected on the international stage, up from 43 percent a year ago, the Gallup poll on Monday shows. And the number who say they believe the president is respected has dropped to 41 percent from 51 percent over the same time, the poll found.
The pollster attributes the decline to the spate of difficult international issues the president has dealt with over the past year, including tensions with Russia and Israel, the situation in Syria and the tapping of phones calls of foreign leaders.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama jokes with '2016' governors)
Obama’s shift in his foreign approval comes largely from both Democrats and independents. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say he is respected by other world leaders, down from 80 percent in 2013. Similarly, only 34 percent of independents say he is respected, down from 49 percent in 2013. Remaining consistent are Republicans. Nineteen percent say the president is not respected by other leaders, down 2 points from 2013.
Nevertheless, while Obama’s numbers are at their lowest, Gallup notes the all-time low since the question was first asked in 1994, was reached in 2007 when only 21 percent of respondents said former President George W. Bush was respected by other world leaders. The pollster also says former President Bill Clinton saw similar numbers to Obama’s in 1994 and 2000.
Americans’ view of their country is more favorable. Fifty-one percent say the U.S. is respected within the international community, 47 percent believe it is viewed unfavorably. However, 61 percent are dissatisfied with America’s position in the world today.
The Gallup poll was conducted Feb. 6-9 and surveyed 1,023 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/poll-us-thinks-obama-not-respected-abroad-103840.html#ixzz2uGyexcRT
-
He has been an ineffective leader on Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Benghazi, Russia, and now Ukraine. Is it 2016 yet?
-
Besides that he's been great..................O K left tell me where he's clearly come out on top on any one of these foreign policy messes. he got Bin laden.....that's it....great, no shit.
-
Besides that he's been great..................O K left tell me where he's clearly come out on top on any one of these foreign policy messes. he got Bin laden.....that's it....great, no shit.
If O-Twink gets credit for Bin Laden - does he get blame for the 26 SEALs who went down in that ridiculous mission in the Chinuk?
-
What leadership?
-
The guy got re-elected. As much as i hate him, it says more of the lack of leadership coming from the only party that was capable of winning it in an election that should have been a landslide.
-
You expected a landslide? I picked the uselesscommunity organizer to win.
Right now, even if the GOP provides a viable candidate, he or she will be rejected by the media. Why? Because it's time to make history again. Let's continue with the social experiments. First a black is selected, now it's a woman's turn. Next, a homo.
On top of that, USA is an entitlement driven nation at this time. What can you give me for my vote?
This country will have to reach rockbottom before it wakes up. It's not there yet.
-
You expected a landslide? I picked the uselesscommunity organizer to win.
Right now, even if the GOP provides a viable candidate, he or she will be rejected by the media. Why? Because it's time to make history again. Let's continue with the social experiments. First a black is selected, now it's a woman's turn. Next, a homo.
On top of that, USA is an entitlement driven nation at this time. What can you give me for my vote?
This country will have to reach rockbottom before it wakes up. It's not there yet.
I didn't expect a landslide. But alot of people did, even here.
I don't think its all about the media rejecting a candidate. We are not that far removed from a strong GOP. I think its more about the GOP fracturing a little and their inability to produce a viable candidate that moves the people. Someone with charisma, resolve and leadership. The media is a giant whore. Whores work for money, so does the media. Serve up a a good candidate that the people like and the media has no choice. Serve up, what they did last election, and we get Hillary or the Jimmy Carter equivalent.
-
The guy got re-elected. As much as i hate him, it says more of the lack of leadership coming from the only party that was capable of winning it in an election that should have been a landslide.
I don't think a landslide was realistic given the solid partisan voting bloc any Democrat (or Republican) has. Plus the media gave him a lot of cover. They cooked the unemployment numbers right before the election. The smear campaign painting Romney as some kind of mafia kingpin hiding money in offshore accounts and not paying taxes, from the floor of the U.S. Senate no less, certainly helped Obama.
I thought Romney was going to win, but not in a landslide.
Still, Obama's leadership sucks.
-
O-Twink is leading us into oblivion. Only a complete ass believed in his bs
-
And before people start spouting, "oh FOX gets the most viewers" blah, blah, blah.
Two months ago Christie was tied with Clinton on many polls.
The bridge issue comes up and the libtard media spends hours EVERY DAY over something that has not been proven to be his doing. They attacked him after building him up as a possible opponent for Hillary and after showing what he was able to do in a Democratic leaning state. Yet, they turn on him as soon as they get a chance and now he is not even in the picture. In NJ his approval went from 70% to 49%.
When the majority of the media, not just on TV BUT ALSO ON PRINT, takes the time and effort to destroy one candidate and protect another, you will always get the same result.
-
I agree O.....who's that guy on the Republican side? Cruz pisses off to many people..but is a straight shooter..Christie is a RINO...but he comes off as forceful.
-
First, getting re-elected doesn't mean you are a leader.
Bush is forever linked to stupidity and considered the worst president by libtards, YET HE WAS RE-ELECTED!! So, was he a leader?
Second, please stop downplaying the role of the media here. They can affect the outcome of a race. I just cited the Christie example, but just look at what happened with Romney and Obama. Everything was fact checked on Romney by the media. EVERYTHING. But, the media, outside of FOX, wouldn't dig into Benghazi, nor would they look further into crapcare. I still remember fat Crowley defending obama when he clearly was wrong in that debate.
Third, Romney was not the ideal conservative candidate. I do accept that. He couldn't attack crapcare because his Massachusetts plan was the model. That was a big weakness. Plus he was passive on his attacks on Obama.
I still believe, even if the GOP picks someone with "charisma", who is a conservative and not a RINO, most of the media will label her/him a racist homophobe, who wants to throw grandma off the cliff and wants to starve inner city kids by cutting entitlements. Eventhough, entitlements along with other programs need to be reduced in order to save this country financially.
But this truth is too difficult to accept right now. So, like I said, the country needs to get destroyed first by libtard economic and social stupidities before the masses return to the altar of capitalism.
-
Right now. There are SO MANY problems with crapcare and with the economy.
But what is the media talking about? Most of the media, which are libtards, before Russia invaded Crimea were busy with bridgegate and hyping up Clinton.
Bash Christie, elevate Clinton and forget about how the stim bill was a failure, how crapcare is a disaster, how the economy is at the slowest growth rate ever for any "RECOVERING" economy.
-
lol
-
Obama tries to be cool and the media loves him. He tries smart power and speaking in big words he learned in Harvard. But at the end of the day...Obama is the kid who tries to stick up to the bully by talking to him, by taking the moral high ground, by demeaning the bully in front of the class with big words....and then gets his fucking jaw broken. The bully might be dumb...but Obama's drinking dinner for six months through a straw.
Atleast Carter pulled out of the Moscow Olympics.
-
First, getting re-elected doesn't mean you are a leader.
Bush is forever linked to stupidity and considered the worst president by libtards, YET HE WAS RE-ELECTED!! So, was he a leader?
Second, please stop downplaying the role of the media here. They can affect the outcome of a race. I just cited the Christie example, but just look at what happened with Romney and Obama. Everything was fact checked on Romney by the media. EVERYTHING. But, the media, outside of FOX, wouldn't dig into Benghazi, nor would they look further into crapcare. I still remember fat Crowley defending obama when he clearly was wrong in that debate.
Third, Romney was not the ideal conservative candidate. I do accept that. He couldn't attack crapcare because his Massachusetts plan was the model. That was a big weakness. Plus he was passive on his attacks on Obama.
I still believe, even if the GOP picks someone with "charisma", who is a conservative and not a RINO, most of the media will label her/him a racist homophobe, who wants to throw grandma off the cliff and wants to starve inner city kids by cutting entitlements. Eventhough, entitlements along with other programs need to be reduced in order to save this country financially.
But this truth is too difficult to accept right now. So, like I said, the country needs to get destroyed first by libtard economic and social stupidities before the masses return to the altar of capitalism.
I am not saying the media can't affect the outcome of a race. What i am saying the right candidate can give the media no choice. Serving up crap like Romney is no where near close.
You'd think after 2008-10 we were destroyed enough. guess not.
-
Romney was kind of a bland dude....no real scandals and they sure as hell invented shit.
-
Romney was a good candidate. Head and shoulders better and more qualified than Obama. The man has succeeded in everything he's done, except running for president.
-
Romney was a good candidate. Head and shoulders better and more qualified than Obama. The man has succeeded in everything he's done, except running for president.
Romney was not good at being a pos and a communist drug addicted worthless ghetto traitor like Obama - that was his problem.
-
Romney was not good at being a pos and a communist drug addicted worthless ghetto traitor like Obama - that was his problem.
Definitely wasn't good at acting like a Chicago politician.
-
Definitely wasn't good at acting like a Chicago politician.
Look at 240, licker, blackass, etc - still trying to grasp at anything for excuses for Obama - beyond embarrassing.
-
Romney was a good candidate. Head and shoulders better and more qualified than Obama. The man has succeeded in everything he's done, except running for president.
The problem is not enough other people thought so.
He looked like a soft kiss-ass who didn't inspire the masses.
Like it or not, being the best qualified isn't enough for the POTUS. They need to be able to inspire change in people, lead, and get things done with the opposition.
-
The problem is not enough other people thought so.
He looked like a soft kiss-ass who didn't inspire the masses.
Like it or not, being the best qualified isn't enough for the POTUS. They need to be able to inspire change in people, lead, and get things done with the opposition.
He looked like a tax cheat who was hiding money overseas. I know at least two people who didn't vote for him for that reason. Had to be many other nationwide. The smear campaign worked. Harry Reid from the Senate floor talking about what he heard through the coconut wireless. One of the worst things I've seen since McCarthy.
-
He looked like a tax cheat who was hiding money overseas. I know at least two people who didn't vote for him for that reason. Had to be many other nationwide. The smear campaign worked. Harry Reid from the Senate floor talking about what he heard through the coconut wireless. One of the worst things I've seen since McCarthy.
As opposed to Obama who was better right? LMFAO!!!! LMFAO!!!!
-
He looked like a tax cheat who was hiding money overseas. I know at least two people who didn't vote for him for that reason. Had to be many other nationwide. The smear campaign worked. Harry Reid from the Senate floor talking about what he heard through the coconut wireless. One of the worst things I've seen since McCarthy.
That too.
smear campaign doesn't work as well on a strong candidate. He wasn't a good one, and wasn't a strong one.
-
As opposed to Obama who was better right? LMFAO!!!! LMFAO!!!!
I didn't think he was a tax cheat. That's the way Obama, Reid et al. made him look. Definitely impacted the election IMO.
-
That too.
smear campaign doesn't work as well on a strong candidate. He wasn't a good one, and wasn't a strong one.
I disagree, as the 2012 elections shows. They used Alinksy's rules for radicals. Demonized their opponent. It worked. The conversation shifted to Romney's overseas back accounts and his tax returns, rather than his education, work ethic, incredible success in the private sector, saving the Olympics, and a successful term as a Republican governor in a Democrat state.
-
I disagree, as the 2012 elections shows. They used Alinksy's rules for radicals. Demonized their opponent. It worked. The conversation shifted to Romney's overseas back accounts and his tax returns, rather than his education, work ethic, incredible success in the private sector, saving the Olympics, and a successful term as a Republican governor in a Democrat state.
Let me get this straight, do you think the primary factor in Obama winning was the Obama campaign's successful demonization of Romney? You might want to do a little research on this topic before you answer...
-
Let me get this straight, do you think the primary factor in Obama winning was the Obama campaign's successful demonization of Romney? You might want to do a little research on this topic before you answer...
I think it was a factor. And I don't need to research that.
-
I think it was a factor.
....
But not the primary one. Gotcha.
That's fair enough (as long as one recognizes that you're being liberal in your use of the word "demonization" in that you simply mean to draw attention to your opponent's weak points as most modern candidates of both parties frequently do).
-
But not the primary one. Gotcha.
That's fair enough (as long as one recognizes that you're being liberal in your use of the word "demonization" in that you simply mean to draw attention to your opponent's weak points as most modern candidates of both parties frequently do).
No, accusing someone of being a felon, with zero evidence, is not simply drawing attention to weak points. It's right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
-
No, accusing someone of being a felon, with zero evidence, is not simply drawing attention to weak points. It's right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
\
A "felon"? Isn't a felon someone who's been convicted of a felony in court?
I guess you mean "accusing someone of having committed a felony", right?
And I guess you must be referring to allegations that were made about Romney misrepresenting his relationship to Bain on when he filled out federal tax forms?
Now, I don't know if those allegations were true or not but I do know that if you think that had much at all to do with why Romney lost you are clueless about how most folks think.
Basically, Romney lost because too many people thought he didn't give a shit about them.
He didn't need a whole lot of help from Obama to make folks think that way.
When video footage was shown of Romney saying that shit about 47% of folks are moochers (or whatever) Romney himself stupidly provided clear-cut evidence that he WAS the out-of-touch rich guy that his detractors accused him of being.
People aren't so dumb; They know that the BS is flying hot and heavy in political ads. But when they see video and audio of a candidate saying shit that might as well have been scripted by his opponent...well, he well and truly fucked himself with that because most folks will believe their eyes and ears over any sort of "spin".
That he's a private person who has trouble coming across as warm and empathetic when in the spotlight did not help him either.
Don't delude yourself, BB. The only reason anyone would care about him cheating on his taxes was that it made him seem like exactly what he was; A rich financial industry guy trying to become elected when so many in the country were still suffering from getting completely fucked by the industry he was a part of. Unfortunate timing for him.
Shee-it, if you asked me I'd say that even if he'd had the "star power" of a young Michael Jackson, he'd still have lost.
Now go get your shine box. ;D
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/46773427.jpg)I must have missed all of beach bums posts condemning the swift boat hacks when they were telling bullshit stories about Kerry ::)
-
He looked like a tax cheat who was hiding money overseas. I know at least two people who didn't vote for him for that reason. Had to be many other nationwide. The smear campaign worked. Harry Reid from the Senate floor talking about what he heard through the coconut wireless. One of the worst things I've seen since McCarthy.
And you my friend, have hit the nail on the head.
The politics in this nation has gotten to the point that a libtard can smear, lie and exaggerate claims against a conservative to the most extreme levels and never be called out for it by the media (outside of FOX) or by most citizens. But, the moment a conservative even remotely suggest anything negative about their libtard opponent, he or she is ridiculed to no end.
It's an unjust double standard. Libtards can get away with making unfounded accusations against conservatives, but conservatives are told don't "use inflammatory rhetoric".
Case in point is what Beach Bum pointed out. The other example is when ads ran blaming Romney for the death of an employee at a company that Mitt had financial interest in. How low can you go? Yet, did the libtard media condemn it. No. It's par for the course.
Romney should have been just as nasty, but I understand why he didn't do it. Because the moment he brought anything negative to the table about the jokeinthewhitehouse he would be slammed for not talking ABOUT THE ISSUES facing the country. Issues that the clownintheovaloffice spent most of his campaigning avoiding like a plague.
-
lol
-
ts hilarious - o-fag has turned out every bit as awful as many of us predicted and these delusional cultists still cant see reality for what it is
-
And you my friend, have hit the nail on the head.
The politics in this nation has gotten to the point that a libtard can smear, lie and exaggerate claims against a conservative to the most extreme levels and never be called out for it by the media (outside of FOX) or by most citizens. But, the moment a conservative even remotely suggest anything negative about their libtard opponent, he or she is ridiculed to no end.
It's an unjust double standard. Libtards can get away with making unfounded accusations against conservatives, but conservatives are told don't "use inflammatory rhetoric".
Case in point is what Beach Bum pointed out. The other example is when ads ran blaming Romney for the death of an employee at a company that Mitt had financial interest in. How low can you go? Yet, did the libtard media condemn it. No. It's par for the course.
Romney should have been just as nasty, but I understand why he didn't do it. Because the moment he brought anything negative to the table about the jokeinthewhitehouse he would be slammed for not talking ABOUT THE ISSUES facing the country. Issues that the clownintheovaloffice spent most of his campaigning avoiding like a plague.
words don't mean anything if not backed by action,read that somewhere :D
-
\
A "felon"? Isn't a felon someone who's been convicted of a felony in court?
I guess you mean "accusing someone of having committed a felony", right?
And I guess you must be referring to allegations that were made about Romney misrepresenting his relationship to Bain on when he filled out federal tax forms?
Now, I don't know if those allegations were true or not but I do know that if you think that had much at all to do with why Romney lost you are clueless about how most folks think.
Basically, Romney lost because too many people thought he didn't give a shit about them.
He didn't need a whole lot of help from Obama to make folks think that way.
When video footage was shown of Romney saying that shit about 47% of folks are moochers (or whatever) Romney himself stupidly provided clear-cut evidence that he WAS the out-of-touch rich guy that his detractors accused him of being.
People aren't so dumb; They know that the BS is flying hot and heavy in political ads. But when they see video and audio of a candidate saying shit that might as well have been scripted by his opponent...well, he well and truly fucked himself with that because most folks will believe their eyes and ears over any sort of "spin".
That he's a private person who has trouble coming across as warm and empathetic when in the spotlight did not help him either.
Don't delude yourself, BB. The only reason anyone would care about him cheating on his taxes was that it made him seem like exactly what he was; A rich financial industry guy trying to become elected when so many in the country were still suffering from getting completely fucked by the industry he was a part of. Unfortunate timing for him.
Shee-it, if you asked me I'd say that even if he'd had the "star power" of a young Michael Jackson, he'd still have lost.
Now go get your shine box. ;D
Romney lost for the reasons I stated, not because of this drivel.
-
And you my friend, have hit the nail on the head.
The politics in this nation has gotten to the point that a libtard can smear, lie and exaggerate claims against a conservative to the most extreme levels and never be called out for it by the media (outside of FOX) or by most citizens. But, the moment a conservative even remotely suggest anything negative about their libtard opponent, he or she is ridiculed to no end.
It's an unjust double standard. Libtards can get away with making unfounded accusations against conservatives, but conservatives are told don't "use inflammatory rhetoric".
Case in point is what Beach Bum pointed out. The other example is when ads ran blaming Romney for the death of an employee at a company that Mitt had financial interest in. How low can you go? Yet, did the libtard media condemn it. No. It's par for the course.
Romney should have been just as nasty, but I understand why he didn't do it. Because the moment he brought anything negative to the table about the jokeinthewhitehouse he would be slammed for not talking ABOUT THE ISSUES facing the country. Issues that the clownintheovaloffice spent most of his campaigning avoiding like a plague.
Truth. Forgot about the false allegation that he was responsible for someone's death because she lost her health insurance. Scandalous. So he was a killer, tax cheat, and pseudo-mobster hiding money in overseas bank accounts.
The fact the Senate Majority Leader can accuse someone of being a felon from the Senate Floor, without any consequences whatsoever, is shameful. That's partly why so many good people stay out of politics.
-
Romney lost for the reasons I stated, not because of this drivel.
Awwww, c'mon, don't want to discuss it anymore? lol
Not the first time you've admitted defeat this way.
C'mon, BB. No hard feelings. Sincerely.
Ya win some, ya lose some, right?
-
Awwww, c'mon, don't want to discuss it anymore? lol
Not the first time you've admitted defeat this way.
C'mon, BB. No hard feelings. Sincerely.
Ya win some, ya lose some, right?
Nobody wins or loses anything on here. This isn't a contest. Is there something specific you want to discuss?
-
Nobody wins or loses anything on here. This isn't a contest. Is there something specific you want to discuss?
Yeah, actually.
When you're backed into a corner during a discussion where another person is getting the better of you here on this subforum, how do you decide between...
1) Simply reiterating your belief and trying to avoid discussion?
2) Complaining that the other person protests too much and avoiding further discussion?
3) Complaining that the other person has written too much for you to address and avoiding further discussion?
4) Using this emoticon ::) and avoiding further discussion?
Just messing with you some. ;D
I'm writing this because I noticed in another thread (the one about possible GOP candidates, I think) that when Avxo was pretty much owning you, you fell back on the familiar (to me, haha) tactic of saying that he was protesting too much.
FWIW, I think it's lame when a person doesn't seem able to admit that he might be wrong about his opinion or, at least, to occasionally say, "You've given me something to think about about here". It's possible that this isn't you, but it seems like it to me at this point.
I could be wrong, though. ;D ;D
-
Yeah, actually.
When you're backed into a corner during a discussion where another person is getting the better of you here on this subforum, how do you decide between...
1) Simply reiterating your belief and trying to avoid discussion?
2) Complaining that the other person protests too much and avoiding further discussion?
3) Complaining that the other person has written too much for you to address and avoiding further discussion?
4) Using this emoticon ::) and avoiding further discussion?
Just messing with you some. ;D
I'm writing this because I noticed in another thread (the one about possible GOP candidates, I think) that when Avxo was pretty much owning you, you fell back on the familiar (to me, haha) tactic of saying that he was protesting too much.
FWIW, I think it's lame when a person doesn't seem able to admit that he might be wrong about his opinion or, at least, to occasionally say, "You've given me something to think about about here". It's possible that this isn't you, but it seems like it to me at this point.
I could be wrong, though. ;D ;D
Don't know what thread you're talking about. Post the link and I'll read it.
I admit I'm wrong when I think I'm wrong. I make mistakes and am wrong quite a bit. But usually not when I'm talking with an internet dum dum. :)
-
I disagree, as the 2012 elections shows. They used Alinksy's rules for radicals. Demonized their opponent. It worked. The conversation shifted to Romney's overseas back accounts and his tax returns, rather than his education, work ethic, incredible success in the private sector, saving the Olympics, and a successful term as a Republican governor in a Democrat state.
He was a turd as a Presidential candidate. Weak candidates are vulnerable to crap like that.
At some point people need to look in the mirror instead of blaming everything from the media to poor people. Until then, we will have things like crapcare.
-
He was a turd as a Presidential candidate. Weak candidates are vulnerable to crap like that.
At some point people need to look in the mirror instead of blaming everything from the media to poor people. Until then, we will have things like crapcare.
I wasn't all that crazy about him initially, but when I really looked at what he brought to the table, I liked him. Didn't like everything about him, but overall he was solid IMO. I don't really blame him for losing. Only thing I think he really should have done better was improved his ground game on election day.
-
Don't know what thread you're talking about. Post the link and I'll read it.
I admit I'm wrong when I think I'm wrong. I make mistakes and am wrong quite a bit. But usually not when I'm talking with an internet dum dum. :)
No problemo.
Good grief. Protesting too much. I'm not reading all of this. Is there something specific you want me to address? Let me know and I'll consider it.
Or you can just keep furiously tapping out your book chapters. You are really impressing yourself aren't you? lol
You said that in response to Avxo's reply (#25) on page 2 of the thread you started that's titled:
16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
It occurs to me that, as the conservative mod on this board, you're kind of a "gatekeeper" in that you help to separate the better thinkers/writers from the rest. The better ones are those who can figuratively kick your ass until you roll out one of your typical excuses for avoiding further discussion.
I could be wrong, though. It's possible that you're cleverly just trying to provoke more action on the board.
-
...
Only thing I think he really should have done better was improved his ground game on election day.
Oh man, if you'd mentioned Romney's lack of a "ground game" (which I totally agree with) earlier, you'd have saved me a lot of writing...
That was a big difference between the Obama and Romney campaigns and a very important factor in the outcome of the election, imo.
-
No problemo.
You said that in response to Avxo's reply (#25) on page 2 of the thread you started that's titled:
16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
It occurs to me that, as the conservative mod on this board, you're kind of a "gatekeeper" in that you help to separate the better thinkers/writers from the rest. The better ones are those who can figuratively kick your ass until you roll out one of your typical excuses for avoiding further discussion.
I could be wrong, though. It's possible that you're cleverly just trying to provoke more action on the board.
Ok. I read it. What you will notice, since you are an obvious gimmick and have been on the board for a while, is that when someone is unable to discuss the issues, starts acting like a juvenile by constantly attacking the person instead of the issue (which is exactly what you do), then I tend to ignore them.
Also, I'm not about to read some manuscript on here. I have internet ADD and don't have the desire to read responses that are way too long. And I don't care one iota whether you like that or not.
Now, similar to what I said in the thread you referenced, ask me if I give a rip what you think about the way I post on this board? I will definitely answer that question. :)
-
Ok. I read it. What you will notice, since you are an obvious gimmick and have been on the board for a while, is that when someone is unable to discuss the issues, starts acting like a juvenile by constantly attacking the person instead of the issue (which is exactly what you do), then I tend to ignore them.
Also, I'm not about to read some manuscript on here. I have internet ADD and don't have the desire to read responses that are way too long. And I don't care one iota whether you like that or not.
Now, similar to what I said in the thread you referenced, ask me if I give a rip what you think about the way I post on this board? I will definitely answer that question. :)
As you have called me a gimmick and a "dum dum" (isn't that a candy? lol) I shan't speak to you sir.
Besides you're kinda dumb, lack critical thinking skills, and don't seem to understand how many people think.
I seriously doubt if you know many different kinds of folks IRL. Probably some kind of shut-in.
Do you even train?
-
Cruz: Lack of US Leadership Emboldened Putin
Wednesday, 05 Mar 2014
By Melanie Batley
Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggressive show in Ukraine is just one of many examples of the consequences of President Barack Obama's "abdication of global leadership," Sen. Ted Cruz says.
In a column for Foreign Policy magazine, the Texas Republican contends that the Obama administration has pursued a path of appeasement toward Russia, as he has in a number of countries which pose a threat, an approach which has only served to make the world a more dangerous place.
"Ironically, this administration's effort to avoid conflict at all costs makes conflict all the more likely. Putin knows there will be no serious reprisals for aggression from an American president who was only waiting for his re-election to give him the 'flexibility' to make additional concessions at the negotiating table," Cruz wrote.
"Putin's disdain for Washington has been on full display as he barely waited for the Olympic flame at Sochi to be extinguished before he turned his attention to long-suffering Ukraine."
Cruz makes the point that when Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was one of the few who correctly predicted that if the move went unchallenged, it was only a matter of time before Russia did the same to other former Soviet satellites.
Cruz outlines a number of ways he believes the United States could deter the escalating Russian aggression toward Ukraine, starting with urging the G-8 to immediately suspend Russia for not contributing to a civil international order. He also encourages the United States to use its thriving energy industry for exports and assistance to help Ukraine be independent of "energy blackmail" by Russia.
Most notably, Cruz suggests Congress should immediately pass a new free trade treaty with Ukraine and review all existing military treaties between the United States and Russia with the possibility of abrogating them. He added that the United States should also reinstitute plans to move forward with the missile defense system in Europe that were canceled by the Obama administration in 2009.
In an interview with Politico, Cruz says his approach would be the third way between the proposals of other Republicans who support either military intervention or isolationism, but says Obama is ultimately at fault for showing weakness toward Putin and abandoning international allies.
"Ukraine began as a power play when the government was poised to move into the West, into Europe, and Putin pulled them back," Cruz told Politico. "Our support should have been unequivocal at the time — and at this point, when Russian tanks massed on the borders of the Crimean peninsula and then began to move in, the response of the United States was muddled and equivocal, which gave Putin no reason to fear meaningful consequences."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ted-Cruz-Putin-Russia-Ukraine/2014/03/05/id/556145#ixzz2v6XcxkHq
-
I wasn't all that crazy about him initially, but when I really looked at what he brought to the table, I liked him. Didn't like everything about him, but overall he was solid IMO. I don't really blame him for losing. Only thing I think he really should have done better was improved his ground game on election day.
I was the same way. I didn't think much of him until i saw what he had done.
-
:-\
Jimmy Carter: Obama Doesn't Call Me, NSA Spies on Me, Too
Sunday, 23 Mar 2014
By Sandy Fitzgerald
President Barack Obama is the first president who has not solicited advice from former President Jimmy Carter since he left office, Carter told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
“President Clinton did and President George W. Bush and H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan used to call on us to go into sensitive areas,” Carter told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Sunday.
It is difficult to explain with "complete candor" why he and Obama do not have a closer relationship, Carter said, but he thinks it has something to do with his center at Emory University. He believes the Carter Center's views of equal treatment when it comes to the Middle East's countries may have caused tension between him and Obama.
"I think the problem was that — in dealing with the issue of peace in between Israel and Egypt — the Carter Center has taken a very strong and public position of equal treatment between the Palestinians and the Israelis," said Carter. "And I think this was a sensitive area in which the president didn't want to be involved."
Carter also told Mitchell that he left the Southern Baptist Convention last year after it passed rules at its annual meeting "to require that women be subservient to their husbands, and women could no longer serve as a pastoral priest or as a deacon."
The former president had been part of the SBC for years before he left the church, serving as a deacon and Sunday School teacher for six decades, reports The Huffington Post.
Carter also commented on the problem of sexual abuse in the military and on the nation's college and university campuses.
"Presidents of universities and colleges and commanding officers don't want to admit that under their leadership, sexual abuse is taking place, so rapists prevail," Carter said.
Carter also commented on the situation in Ukraine. In 1980, he banned U.S. athletes from participating in the Moscow Olympics after the then-Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and said where the Ukraine is concerned, "there has to be a concerted international prohibition against Putin going any further than Crimea."
Carter also discussed, shortly, the scandal concerning the National Security Agency and its surveillance practices.
"I have felt that my own communications were probably monitored," said Carter. "When I want to communicate with a foreign leader privately, I type or write the letter myself, put it in the mailbox and mail it... I believe if I send an email it will be monitored."
Carter's interview was done just days before the release of his new book, "A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jimmy-carter-obama-call-mideast/2014/03/23/id/561175#ixzz2wtthhDX7
-
Obama has great leadership - in the wrong direction. Thank god he is not a competent communist
-
LMFAO
-
LMFAO
Doh! My only question is whether they actually told the audience to hold their applause? Although it looked like he was waiting for his customary Messiah worship.
-
Fox News Poll: Country weaker under Obama, not tough enough on Russia
Dana Blanton
By Dana Blanton
Published March 26, 2014
FoxNews.com
By a widening margin, more voters think the United States is weaker since Barack Obama became president. And the highest number in a decade feels the country is less safe than it was before 9/11, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.
The poll also finds most voters think President Obama has not been tough enough on Russia, although a majority still says the U.S. should stay out of the situation in Ukraine.
Click here for the poll results.
Some 52 percent of voters think the country is weaker and less powerful today than it was six years ago. That’s three times the 17 percent who say the country is stronger and more powerful. About 3 in 10 think it is unchanged (29 percent).
Last year, 48 percent said weaker, 24 percent stronger and 27 percent unchanged (Feb. 2013).
The number of Democrats saying the country is stronger now has dropped 11 percentage points: it’s 32 percent today, down from 43 percent in 2013. Twenty-two percent of Democrats say the country is weaker and 44 percent say it is the same.
Views among Republicans are lopsided: 78 percent say the country is weaker under Obama vs. five percent stronger.
The poll also shows a significant deterioration in Americans’ sense of security over the past decade. In 2004, by a 35-point margin, more voters said the U.S. was safer than before 9/11. In 2010, nearly two years into Obama’s first term, the margin had narrowed to 23 points. Now the spread is down to 10 points: 49 percent think the country is safer today, while a record-high 39 percent say it is less safe.
Furthermore, the number that believes the U.S. is the world’s “most dominant power” has dropped 26 points since 2002: 85 percent felt that way then, while 59 percent say the same today.
Thirty-four percent think another country is more powerful than the U.S., and the countries these voters cite most frequently are China (60 percent) and Russia (21 percent).
In general, 69 percent of voters are following news about Russia and Ukraine at least somewhat closely, and 76 percent are concerned about what’s happening there.
More voters disapprove (46 percent) than approve (38 percent) of how the Obama administration is handling the situation in Ukraine.
Moreover, 66 percent think Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Russia. That includes a 60-percent majority of Democrats.
So far the U.S. has responded to Russia’s annexation of Crimea with economic sanctions. Voters are divided on this action: while 41 percent think it’s “too weak,” almost as many -- 40 percent -- say it’s “about right.” Just seven percent see it as “too strong.”
While 35 percent of voters say the U.S. should be more involved in Ukraine, a 53-percent majority says the U.S. shouldn’t.
At the same time, many more think military force will be required to stop Russia from taking control of Crimea (50 percent), than think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work (30 percent).
Overall, 40 percent of voters approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 53 percent disapprove. That’s an improvement from earlier this month when he hit a record low of 38 percent approval (54 percent disapproved).
Still, a record-low 43 percent of voters say Obama is a “strong and decisive leader,” while 55 percent disagree. During his first year in office, voters said he was a strong leader by a 60-37 percent margin.
By a five-point margin, more voters think Obama is a “strong negotiator with foreign leaders” than think the same of Russian President Vladimir Putin: 40 percent say Obama is, while 35 percent say Putin is. And there’s been an uptick in approval for how Obama’s handling foreign policy: 37 percent approve, up from a low of 33 percent three weeks ago (March 2-4).
What about the chess test? By a wide 49-31 percent margin, voters think Russian President Vladimir Putin would beat Obama in a game of chess. That includes majorities of Republicans (66 percent) and independents (53 percent) and nearly a third of Democrats (30 percent).
Poll Pourri
Recently the Obama administration announced plans for the U.S. government to give up its oversight of the Internet to an international organization. Most voters disagree with that decision: 66 percent think it’s a bad thing for the U.S. to give up control of the Internet, including majorities of Republicans (77 percent), independents (68 percent) and Democrats (54 percent).
Overall, 20 percent say it’s a good thing for the U.S. to cede control of the Internet.
By a similar margin, most voters disapprove of the U.S. ending the space shuttle program (63 percent disapprove, while 25 percent approve).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,015 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from March 23 to March 25, 2014. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for the total sample.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/26/fox-news-poll-country-weaker-under-obama-not-tough-enough-on-russia/
-
LMFAO
I think I counted about 5 claps total! ;D
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/poof-public-says-americas-world-leadership-has-tumbled-to-40-year-low/article/2540096
Total FAIL FAIL FAIL
dude, 33, you confuse me.
I thought you said we aren't the world's policemen? Yet you're mad when US influence in leading/telling others what to do is lessened?
I though you said you'd like to see military spending cut in HALF in the next 5 years? Yet you freak when obama may reduce tomahawk missiles?
Dude, some of the time, you have to agree with obama.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Even a garbage can gets a steak.
-
Cruz: Putin 'Laughing' at Obama
Thursday, 27 Mar 2014
By Elliot Jager
The U.S. pullback from global leadership during the Obama administration has left a vacuum filled by Moscow, Tehran and Beijing and resulted in the world being a "much more dangerous place," Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz told the Washington Examiner.
Cruz said that Russian President Vladimir Putin respects only strength. "At this point the Russians are openly laughing at the president," he said. Putin's belligerence was "a direct consequence" of the lack of American leadership in the international arena, Cruz said.
The senator characterized U.S. foreign policy, under Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry, as weak and confused. The administration has "undermined our allies and has strengthened our enemies" leaving Putin at an advantage.
The president was now haltingly moving in the right direction on Ukraine, Cruz told the Examiner. He urged the White House to draw up a free trade agreement with Kiev and reiterated his call to bring back the East Europe missile defense shield which the president abandoned in 2009.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-Ukraine/2014/03/27/id/562027#ixzz2xCKQBCIQ
-
Condi Rice Blasts Obama on Weakness, Leadership
Says we can't afford to be war weary.
3:45 PM, MAR 27, 2014 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Barack Obama of dramatically weakening the United States' position in the world, drawing a straight line between Obama’s ever-yielding foreign policy and the increasing troubles around the world.
“Right now, there’s a vacuum,” she told a crowd of more than two thousand attending the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual dinner last night in Washington, D.C. “There’s a vacuum because we’ve decided to lower our voice. We’ve decided to step back. We’ve decided that if we step back and lower our voice, others will lead, other things will fill that vacuum.” Citing Bashar al Assad’s slaughter in Syria, Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, al Qaeda’s triumphant return to Fallujah, Iraq, and China’s nationalist fervor, she concluded: “When America steps back and there is a vacuum, trouble will fill that vacuum.”
Rice – measured in tone, but very tough on substance – excoriated Obama administration policies without ever mentioning the president by name. She mocked the naïve hope that “international norms” would fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat and blasted the president for hiding behind the weariness of the public.
“I fully understand the sense of weariness. I fully understand that we must think: ‘Us, again?’ I know that we’ve been through two wars. I know that we’ve been vigilant against terrorism. I know that it’s hard. But leaders can’t afford to get tired. Leaders can’t afford to be weary.”
Rice’s speech was the highlight of an evening that brought in $15.1 million for House Republicans. The former secretary of state has mostly limited her political appearances since leaving office to major events. She delivered a well-received speech at a donor event that Mitt Romney held in Park City, Utah, in 2012 and addressed the Republican National Convention in Tampa that summer. But those familiar with her thinking say she’s determined to help Republicans pick up the Senate and maintain the House heading into the 2016 presidential elections.
House majority whip Kevin McCarthy introduced Rice and raised the prospect that she might become even more involved in politics in two years. After listing various prestigious positions she’s held, he noted, “There’s one thing that’s not on her resume and I want her to put her mind to it to resolve that in 2016.”
Rice has downplayed those suggestions and there’s little reason to believe she’s angling for a run. Still, she has been increasingly active on behalf of her fellow Republicans. Earlier this month, Rice spoke at a Kentucky fundraiser for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and the spring convention for the California Republican party. Rice appeared in an ad touting Alaska Senate hopeful and Marine reservist Dan Sullivan, a spot paid for by Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads. In the coming months, she will make appearances for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Rice began her speech Wednesday with something of a civics lesson, praising the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution for the limits they placed on government and noting that Americans, despite being the “most individualistic people on this earth, are also the most philanthropic and communitarian.” Rice trundled through well-worn Republican lines on lower taxes and less regulation before once again touting the American system for its recognition of a “vast private space into which the government should not intrude” and a “personal space, where we respect each others’ choices.”
Before turning to foreign policy, Rice urged the crowd, including many Republican House members, to keep America a “nation of immigrants” and strafed liberals who send their kids to private schools but write New York Times op-eds claiming that school choice will ruin public schools.
But the most powerful part of her speech came when Rice expressed her frustration with Obama on national security. “As Ronald Reagan said: Peace only comes through strength,” she recalled.
“So, what are we doing? What are we doing when our defense budget is so small that our military starts to tell us that we may not be able to carry out all of the requirements put upon it? What are we doing, when a couple of weeks before Russia invades Crimea we announce that we are going to have an Army smaller than at any time since the Revolutionary – I’m sorry, not the Revolutionary War, but World War II. What are we doing? What are we doing? What are we signaling when we say that America is no longer ready to stand in the defense of freedom?”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/condi-rice-blasts-obama-weakness-leadership_786123.html
-
:-[
Poll: Obama Ties with Putin as Leader
Marguerite Bowling
April 2, 2014
A new Quinnipiac University national poll released today shows that the American public is divided whether President Barack Obama or Russian president Vladimir Putin is the stronger leader.
“It’s a tossup on who is a tougher leader, President Barack Obama or President Vladimir Putin, as Americans weigh the heavyweight standoff over Ukraine,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the poll that conducts research in several states, in a release.
The poll—which surveyed 1,578 registered U.S. voters nationwide between March 26 to 31—gave Obama low marks for his handling of foreign policy issues, with 55 percent saying they disapproved and 39 percent saying they approved of his actions. Particularly regarding the situation in the Ukraine, 47 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama’s actions while 41 percent supported him.
In an Economist/YouGov poll last month of 1,000 adults, three out of four Americans said Putin is a strong leader, but less than half regarded Obama as one.
Approximately 80 percent of those surveyed in the new Quinnipiac poll said they are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” that the Ukraine situation could lead to a larger crisis that would require U.S. military action, the poll noted.
On the economic front, the poll found that most Americans (55 percent) still oppose the President’s signature health care law, known as Obamacare. Roughly 58 percent of those surveyed said they don’t approve of Obama’s handling of health care while 39 percent supported him.
This story was produced by The Foundry’s news team. Nothing here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation.
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/02/poll-obama-ties-putin-leader/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
There is our president, out there leading by example, paying more taxes, increasing his charitable contributions . . . .
President Obama and Vice President Biden’s 2013 Tax Returns
Jay Carney
April 11, 2014
Today, the President released his 2013 federal income tax returns. He and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $481,098. The Obamas paid $98,169 in total tax.
The President and First Lady also reported donating $59,251 – or about 12.3 percent of their adjusted gross income – to 32 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $8,751 to the Fisher House Foundation. The President’s effective federal income tax rate is 20.4 percent. The President pushed for and signed into law legislation that makes the system more fair and helps the middle class by extending tax cuts to middle class and working families and asks the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. In 2013, as a result of his policies, the President was subject to limitations in tax preferences, as well as additional Medicare and investment income taxes, for high income earners. The President and First Lady also released their Illinois income tax return and reported paying $23,328 in state income tax.
DOWNLOAD THE OBAMAS' TAX RETURNS
The Vice President and Dr. Jill Biden also released their 2013 federal income tax returns, as well as state income tax returns for both Delaware and Virginia. The Bidens filed joint federal and combined Delaware income tax returns. Dr. Biden filed a separate non-resident Virginia tax return. Together, they reported adjusted gross income of $407,009. The Bidens paid $96,378 in total federal tax for 2013, amounting to an effective tax rate of 23.7 percent. They also paid $14,644 in Delaware income tax and Dr. Biden paid $3,470 in Virginia income tax. The Bidens contributed $20,523 to charity in 2013, including contributing the royalties received from Dr. Biden’s children’s book, net of taxes, to the USO.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/11/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-2013-tax-returns
-
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6077675c-c4c4-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zX
More daily fail from Obama......remind me again why he's awesome..... ::)
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6077675c-c4c4-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2zXEsuh57
When Barack Obama took office, he pledged a new overture to the world’s emerging powers. Today each of the Brics – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – is at loggerheads with America, or worse. Last month four of the five abstained in a UN vote condemning the fifth’s annexation of Crimea. Next month India is likely to elect as its new leader Narendra Modi, who says he has “no interest in visiting America other than to attend the UN in New York”. As the world’s largest democracy, and America’s most natural ally among the emerging powers, India’s is a troubling weathervane. How on earth did Mr Obama lose the Brics?
Some of it was unavoidable. Early in his first term Mr Obama called for a “reset” of US relations with Russia. His overture was warmly received by Dmitry Medvedev, then Russia’s president, who was considerably less anti-western than his predecessor, Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, Ukraine, Pussy Riot and many others, Mr Putin repossessed the presidency. The US president can hardly be blamed for that. Things have gone downhill since then
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keystone-xls-continued-delay-is-absurd/2014/04/23/81dab79c-c98c-11e3-95f7-7ecdde72d2ea_story.html
slammed by WAPO for his gross negligence and incompetence
-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/24/225461/lots-of-pomp-but-no-trade-deal.html?sp=/99/104
FAIL
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-millenials-have-historically-low-levels-of-trust-in-government-2014-4
Record low trust in the govt.
-
http://www.economist.com/guy-alarming-its-foes-or-reassuring-its-friends-decline
Obama fail
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7a1964c-d121-11e3-bdbb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30qtsguzV
Halmark of the Obama presidency - impotency
-
Oh he's angry . . . again.
-
::).......The VA is a trainwreck...has always been a trainwreck and now it is worse.
-
I doubt he accepts responsibility.
-
Oh he's angry . . . again.
Oh fng please - a toddler is angry too when it does not get its binky. Same w o-twink
-
Except he's getting a government sponsored binky..with golf trips and cool ass helicopters and planes and celebrities and dinners and fawning media...and he gets to stick it to former colonial powers like England, revered institutions like the Military and shits all over the Constitution. .
-
-
-
-
Cruz: Putin 'Laughing' at Obama
Thursday, 27 Mar 2014
By Elliot Jager
The U.S. pullback from global leadership during the Obama administration has left a vacuum filled by Moscow, Tehran and Beijing and resulted in the world being a "much more dangerous place," Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz told the Washington Examiner.
Cruz said that Russian President Vladimir Putin respects only strength. "At this point the Russians are openly laughing at the president," he said.
Is there video of the Russians "laughing"? That's a HUGE charge to levy against an American president. Was he just being dramatic here?
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/21/with-va-obama-management-style-under-fire-again
;)
-
Ouch. But he is right: leadership failure of epic proportions.
BARACK OBAMA: AN EPIC INCOMPETENT
POSTED ON MAY 21, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN BARACK OBAMA
At Commentary, Pete Wehner sums up the emerging consensus on President Obama. Wehner’s indictment is all the more searing for being delivered in his characteristically measured tone:
The last eight months have battered the Obama administration. From the botched rollout of the health-care website to the VA scandal, events are now cementing certain impressions about Mr. Obama. Among the most damaging is this: He is unusually, even epically, incompetent. …
The emerging narrative of Barack Obama, the one that actually comports to reality, is that he is a rare political talent but a disaster when it comes to actually governing. The list of his failures is nothing short of staggering, from shovel-ready jobs that weren’t so shovel ready to the failures of healthcare.gov to the VA debacle. But it also includes the president’s failure to tame the debt, lower poverty, decrease income inequality, and increase job creation. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay and didn’t. His administration promised to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a civilian jury in New York but they were forced to retreat because of outrage in his own party. Early on in his administration Mr. Obama put his prestige on the line to secure the Olympics for Chicago in 2016 and he failed.
Overseas the range of Obama’s failures include the Russian “reset” and Syrian “red lines” to Iran’s Green Revolution, the Egyptian overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, and Libya post-Gaddafi. The first American ambassador since the 1970s was murdered after requests for greater security for the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi were denied. …
But that’s not all. The White House response to everything from the VA and IRS scandals to the seizure of AP phone records by the Department of Justice is that it learned about them from press reports. More and more Mr. Obama speaks as if he’s a passive actor, a bystander in his own administration, an MSNBC commentator speaking about events he has no real control over. We saw that earlier today, when the president, in trying to address the public’s growing outrage at what’s happening at the VA, insisted he “will not stand for it” and “will not tolerate” what he has stood for and tolerated for almost six years. His anger at what’s happening to our veterans seems to have coincided with the political damage it is now causing him.
Has Barack Obama ever actually been president? He doesn’t seem to think so. Obama takes it as an affront when anyone suggests that one of his administration’s almost countless failures might have something to do with him. It is as though he really believed that fundraising, golfing and occasional ceremonial appearances are a president’s only job duties. After 5 1/2 years, his “Who, me?” routine has worn very thin.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/barack-obama-an-epic-incompetent.php
-
:D
Ouch. But he is right: leadership failure of epic proportions.
BARACK OBAMA: AN EPIC INCOMPETENT
POSTED ON MAY 21, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN BARACK OBAMA
At Commentary, Pete Wehner sums up the emerging consensus on President Obama. Wehner’s indictment is all the more searing for being delivered in his characteristically measured tone:
The last eight months have battered the Obama administration. From the botched rollout of the health-care website to the VA scandal, events are now cementing certain impressions about Mr. Obama. Among the most damaging is this: He is unusually, even epically, incompetent. …
The emerging narrative of Barack Obama, the one that actually comports to reality, is that he is a rare political talent but a disaster when it comes to actually governing. The list of his failures is nothing short of staggering, from shovel-ready jobs that weren’t so shovel ready to the failures of healthcare.gov to the VA debacle. But it also includes the president’s failure to tame the debt, lower poverty, decrease income inequality, and increase job creation. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay and didn’t. His administration promised to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a civilian jury in New York but they were forced to retreat because of outrage in his own party. Early on in his administration Mr. Obama put his prestige on the line to secure the Olympics for Chicago in 2016 and he failed.
Overseas the range of Obama’s failures include the Russian “reset” and Syrian “red lines” to Iran’s Green Revolution, the Egyptian overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, and Libya post-Gaddafi. The first American ambassador since the 1970s was murdered after requests for greater security for the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi were denied. …
But that’s not all. The White House response to everything from the VA and IRS scandals to the seizure of AP phone records by the Department of Justice is that it learned about them from press reports. More and more Mr. Obama speaks as if he’s a passive actor, a bystander in his own administration, an MSNBC commentator speaking about events he has no real control over. We saw that earlier today, when the president, in trying to address the public’s growing outrage at what’s happening at the VA, insisted he “will not stand for it” and “will not tolerate” what he has stood for and tolerated for almost six years. His anger at what’s happening to our veterans seems to have coincided with the political damage it is now causing him.
Has Barack Obama ever actually been president? He doesn’t seem to think so. Obama takes it as an affront when anyone suggests that one of his administration’s almost countless failures might have something to do with him. It is as though he really believed that fundraising, golfing and occasional ceremonial appearances are a president’s only job duties. After 5 1/2 years, his “Who, me?” routine has worn very thin.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/barack-obama-an-epic-incompetent.php
-
Story courtesy of headhunter.
The chilly response is no surprise, since a majority of military personnel surveyed in a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month gave the president a poor review. Only 42 percent of post-9/11 veterans polled said that Obama is a good commander in chief, while 65 percent said the same of George W. Bush.
-
‘Breaking Point’: Democrats Privately Call Obama ‘Detached’ and ‘Incompetent,’ Says CNN’s John King
May 25, 2014 By Matthew Burke
“The veterans’ health scandal is more than just another 2008 promise,” begins the normally Obama-sycophantic CNN host John King, then showing a clip from 2008 of Obama talking about veterans’ healthcare, saying, “I want to make sure they’re being treated with honor and respect.”
King says that Obama’s press conference this week on the VA (Veterans’ Affairs) scandal, in which he made, in King’s own words, a “wait-and-see” approach to addressing the scandal in which untold number of veterans were left to die waiting for care from the government-run health care agency, could be remembered as the “breaking point.”
King explained to his “Inside Politics” audience that Democrats are privately making “scathing” comments about Obama, calling him, “detached, flat-footed and even incompetent,” in the wake of the VA scandal, combined with his non-action in dealing with his other many scandals:
More and more Democrats in 2014 races are calling for the president to get a spine, they say, and fire his Veterans’ Affairs secretary. And, what more and more Democrats are saying privately is scathing, calling the president and his team ‘detached, flat-footed,’ even ‘incompetent.’
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/25/breaking-point-democrats-privately-call-obama-detached-and-incompetent-says-cnns-john-king/
-
LMFAO!!!!! They are only realizing this now? Obama has been this way his entire FNG life!
‘Breaking Point’: Democrats Privately Call Obama ‘Detached’ and ‘Incompetent,’ Says CNN’s John King
May 25, 2014 By Matthew Burke
“The veterans’ health scandal is more than just another 2008 promise,” begins the normally Obama-sycophantic CNN host John King, then showing a clip from 2008 of Obama talking about veterans’ healthcare, saying, “I want to make sure they’re being treated with honor and respect.”
King says that Obama’s press conference this week on the VA (Veterans’ Affairs) scandal, in which he made, in King’s own words, a “wait-and-see” approach to addressing the scandal in which untold number of veterans were left to die waiting for care from the government-run health care agency, could be remembered as the “breaking point.”
King explained to his “Inside Politics” audience that Democrats are privately making “scathing” comments about Obama, calling him, “detached, flat-footed and even incompetent,” in the wake of the VA scandal, combined with his non-action in dealing with his other many scandals:
More and more Democrats in 2014 races are calling for the president to get a spine, they say, and fire his Veterans’ Affairs secretary. And, what more and more Democrats are saying privately is scathing, calling the president and his team ‘detached, flat-footed,’ even ‘incompetent.’
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/25/breaking-point-democrats-privately-call-obama-detached-and-incompetent-says-cnns-john-king/
-
Is Obama done with Washington?
Share on facebook
1.1K
Share on twitter
288
Share on google_plusone_share
More Sharing Services
179
Share on email
1304 .
Getty Images
By Amie Parnes and Niall Stanage - 06/15/14 12:00 PM EDT
Is President Obama done with Washington?
The 44th president has never been the capital’s biggest fan, but his frustration with life in D.C. is bubbling to the surface in ways both casual and substantive.
The president twice went for unscheduled walkabouts last week, taking a trip to a Starbucks near the White House with his chief of staff Denis McDonough on Monday and, the next day, turning up at a burger joint in Alexandria, Va.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The bear is loose!” is the president’s favorite phrase at such moments, and he deployed it again last week. Even the metaphor suggests a man straining at the leash after more than five years in the White House.
Yet there seems to be more to Obama’s frustration than cabin fever.
Last Tuesday, Obama was asked about gun control during a question-and-answer session hosted by the social networking website Tumblr. He didn’t try to assert that progress on legislation was realistically possible, instead launching into a personal broadside, permeated with a sense of resignation, against “this town.”
Referring back to the massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, and the abortive push for new gun control regulations that followed, Obama said:
“I have been in Washington for a while now and most things don’t surprise me. The fact that 20 six-year-olds were gunned down in the most violent fashion possible and this town couldn’t do anything about it was stunning to me.”
Obama also declared that “most members of Congress — and I have to say to some degree this is bipartisan — are terrified of the NRA,” adding that, “right now, it’s not even possible to get even the mildest restrictions through Congress. And we should be ashamed of that.”
“He’s at a point in his presidency where he’s not running for anything ever again and feels very free to speak his mind,” said Tommy Vietor, who served as a spokesman in the Obama White House and has been with the president since his Senate days.
“He seems to care less and less whether he breaks a little china and I think that’s great.”
“He’s never really made it a secret that he’s not a fan of this place,” concurred Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist. “I think he finds the pettiness of this place annoying. People are focused on tactics not results, and he sees himself as a more results-oriented guy. He’s more willing to do things with a longer lens of history.”
Obama’s distaste for Washington has always had a political element, of course. Way back during his first run for the White House, he often invoked Washington as a symbol of business-as-usual ineffectiveness and stasis. It was also a place to which, not coincidentally, he could tie his chief opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton.
In late 2007, he told a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa, “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take.”
Nowadays, some observers wonder if even the most apparently superficial examples of his straining-against-the-leash, such as his downtown walkabouts, also serve a political purpose.
Breaking out of the confines of the White House, "reminds people of what they originally saw in him,” said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell. “I think they’re doing this because it reminds people what they like about him: his connection with folks on the campaign trail. … Before he became president, he was an ordinary guy paying off his student loans who came out of nowhere.”
But Obama also seems to savor interactions with “civilians”, people whom he sees as being part of the real world rather than the rarefied Washington sphere. He has been indulging tat impulse a little more lately, wishing people a happy father’s day and working a rope line on Friday before departing for a weekend in California.
During the weekend, he is doing some fundraising events, but will also be spending some downtime with the First Lady.
The Obamas have gone on numerous restaurant dates in DC, but they also seem to relish escaping the Beltway. In April, for example, they took in a Broadway performance of “A Raisin in the Sun” with family friend and advisor Valerie Jarrett.
The couple have also never sold their family home in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, a fact that prompts speculation they will return there after his White House tenure ends.
“Every president professes to miss the anonymity, and I think he really does,” said Vietor.
One former senior administration official, who has worked with Obama since the 2008 campaign, says that the president seems to be feeling some kind of liberation at the moment.
“It’s not exactly a full Bulworth moment, but it’s freeing,” the former official said. “It’s frustrating being in the bubble constantly, particularly for six or seven years.” The official added that it was important to “make sure he doesn’t go stir-crazy,” adding wryly, “I would be.”
But a different former senior administration official cautioned against reading too much into Obama’s activities. The official, though, did not bother to argue that Obama enjoys the ways of Washington.
“I think he has always liked getting outside the bubble,” the source said. Obama’s frustration with DC, he added, has “been pretty steady.”
.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/209373-is-obama-done-with-washington#ixzz34or7JkCI
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
-
Law Prof. Turley: Obama Risks Constitutional Crisis With Executive Action
Monday, 30 Jun 2014
By Greg Richter
President Barack Obama is acting like "a bad gambler at Vegas" by doubling down on executive actions less than a week after a stinging Supreme Court defeat, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
A defiant Obama promised to take even more executive actions on Monday because Congress has told him it will not pass any immigration reform laws this year.
"If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill. Solve a problem," Obama said in a Rose Garden press conference.
Turley, appearing on Fox News Channel's "Special Report, " called that "a pretty surprising statement" considering that "the ink is barely dry" on Thursday's 9-0 decision saying Obama was wrong to have made recess appointments when the Senate had declared itself to be in session.
"For him now to double down makes him look like a bad gambler at Vegas," said Turley, who agrees with many of Obama's policies, but has warned of a constitutional crisis if Obama continues implementing those policies by bypassing Congress.
"At some point this is going to cause serious problems for his administration. He's going to start to lose Democrats," Turley said. "The president of the United States can't say the solution to gridlock is you simply have to resolve it on my terms."
There's a reason the issues aren't being resolved, Turley said: "Congress is divided because the public is divided in these areas."
Turley said the past 10 days have been "abysmal" for the administration.
"He was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment on privacy, then another case found him in violation of separation of powers. Now he's been found in violation of religious rights in the First Amendment" in the Hobby Lobby case, Turley said.
"It doesn't get much worse than this for a president."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gambler-executive-Jonathan-Turley/2014/06/30/id/580138#ixzz36ENIdBxB
-
Turdley is an insignificant nobody angling for a mid-level position in the DOJ in the next GOP administration. A useless political hack.
The DJIA has doubled since Obama took office. That's what matters.
I respect him for speaking the truth.
-
Turdley is an insignificant nobody angling for a mid-level position in the DOJ in the next GOP administration. A useless political hack.
The DJIA has doubled since Obama took office. That's what matters.
FAIL
Turley said he agrees w Obama on political issues but that his admn is lawless
-
Obama’s Dance With Radical Islam
Frontpage ^ | 7/2/2014 | Daniel Mandel
Posted on 7/2/2014 6:19:32 AM by markomalley
Last month, President Barack Obama chose to support and fund a Palestinian Authority (PA) government that includes Hamas, a U.S. and EU-designated terrorist group that calls in its charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). Also last month, Obama freed five senior Taliban terrorist commanders in exchange for an American serviceman who may have been a deserter.
Obama could have cut funding to the PA, which would have made sense strategically, and could have supported a close, long-standing American ally, Israel. He could have refused any exchange of senior Taliban leaders. Why didn’t he?
Because he supports engagement with radical Islam – not merely moderate Muslims, Arab liberals, or secular reformers. Al-Qaeda notwithstanding, Obama believes radical Muslims are potential allies and friends. This is confirmed by his decisions at every important point in his presidency.
Thus, when Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, he insisted on inviting members of the parliamentary bloc of the (then-banned) radical Muslim Brotherhood over the objections of U.S. ally, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – though the Obama administration later denied that it did so. (A furious Mubarak refused to attend.)
It was no secret that numerous surveys had shown before 2011 that large majorities of Egyptians favor discriminatory sharia, the death penalty for apostates and so on – meaning that it was almost certain that radical Muslims would triumph in elections. Yet, when a groundswell of opposition to Mubarak’s rule arose in February 2011, Obama called for Mubarak to step down “now” while his spokesman called for early elections involving “non-secular actors.”
When the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was, unsurprisingly, elected president, Obama did not discontinue arming the regime, even though its future policies were as yet entirely unknown. Yet, when in July 2013, Morsi was ousted by the Egyptian military under Field Marshal Abdul el-Sisi, Obama suspended military aid.
The Iranian regime is one whose leaders have called for the destruction of both America and Israel. Tehran has been developing a nuclear weapons capacity that would give it the means to act on these designs. Yet, Obama has not sought to undermine or replace the regime. In 2009, when Iranians were brutalized on Tehran’s streets for protesting the rigged re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama did not call for Ahmadinejad to step down – he pointedly refused to get involved, saying “it’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.”
For over a year upon becoming President, Obama prevented any new congressional sanctions on Iran coming to a vote. He subsequently diluted and delayed those that in the end passed. The 2010 UN Security Council sanctions Obama did support did not cover Iran’s vital oil, financial, and insurance sectors, and included huge exemptions for numerous countries like China, which has huge contracts in Iran’s energy sector developing oil refineries, and Russia, which supplies S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.
Then, in 2013, having at least tightened UN sanctions, Obama agreed to immediately undo them, granting Iran some $20 billion in sanctions relief (not merely $6-7 billion, as the Administration initially claimed) under the terms of the Geneva interim agreement. That agreement permitted Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program – its Arak plutonium plant; continued uranium enrichment; intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programs, even retention of its enriched uranium stocks. (Iran was simply required to reduce them to an oxide which can be restored in weeks to weapons-grade uranium.)
The conclusion is clear: Obama, contrary to his oft-repeated promise to do “everything, everything” to prevent Iran going nuclear, is willing to let Tehran become the next nuclear power. That’s why in July 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. would extend a “missile shield” over the Middle East if that occurred. It also explains why Obama in 2013 nominated as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, an outspoken opponent of stopping Iran by military or even economic means.
In Syria, Obama is arming the opposition to Bashar Assad’s Baathist regime. It might indeed be welcome if Assad fell, but some 80% of the forces fighting him are Islamists, including al-Qaeda. Where will that leave Syria and the region should Islamists succeed in replacing Assad?
Turkey long ceased to be a close U.S. ally. In June 2010, it opposed U.S-supported UN sanctions on Iran. In 2012, it excluded Israel from two counter-terrorism conferences in Istanbul, and Madrid. Its Islamist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has called Israel a “terrorist state” and Zionism “a crime against humanity.” He has also a record of anti-Semitism that goes back to the 1970s. Yet, by Obama’s own admission, Erdogan is one of Obama’s closest friends among foreign leaders.
Now, having chosen not to penalize Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah/Palestinian Authority for forming a unity regime with Hamas, a package of $440 million in U.S. aid to the PA is set to proceed, even though we now know that Hamas members kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers.
The record shows that Obama favors accommodation with radical Islam, their regimes and their leaders. He has less interest in traditional U.S. allies and is willing to pick fights with them or abandon them.
-
Zogby: Most Don't Believe Obama Can Lead
Wednesday, 02 Jul 2014
By Lisa Degnen
Pollster John Zogby says President Obama is "not only racing for his legacy but for his relevancy."
A report in the Washington Examiner says that those who are most disappointed in Obama are Republicans, conservatives, whites and a majority of people over 50 years old. The poll finds that the President's support has also dropped among men and women in general. His support among liberals dropped 7 points, with Hispanics he is down 6 points and among African Americans he has dropped 10 points. And almost half of all voters think Obama is "unable to lead."
"Mr. Obama finds himself in the uncomfortable position where every age group, independents, and whites all agree that the public has given up on his ability to accomplish anything before the end of his term," The Examiner quoted Zogby as saying. "In short, we see a president in full salvage mode."
The good news for the White House is that the American public has an even lower opinion of Congress according to the report.
The Zogby findings come on the heels of a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday that said Obama is considered the worst US President since World War II.
According to the Washington Examiner, continued scandals like the Benghazi attacks, mismanagement at the VA, the Internal Revenue Service conceding they targeted of conservative groups and the trade of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban officers have all contributed to Obama being ranked lower than George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/worst-president-obama-zogby/2014/07/02/id/580606#ixzz36MML165S
-
“What I’ve said to my team is ‘Get me out of Washington,’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-bear-is-loose-is-obama-breaking-free-or-running-away/2014/07/10/eecfd7aa-07a4-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html
;)
-
The BBQ joint where NO ONE cuts the line... except Obama: Controversy as President becomes the
UK Daily Mail ^ | July 11, 2014 | Staff
Posted on July 11, 2014 at 9:20:16 AM EDT by C19fan
Barack Obama may have lost a few approval rating points with this move. The president was seen cutting the line at Austin's Franklin Barbecue Thursday afternoon, while in town to raise money for the Democratic Party. Lives at the eatery are infamously long, and have been known to stretch as long as three hours wait.But Mr Obama did no waiting today, as he showed up at the restaurant, shook a few hands and made his way straight to the register to order more than $300 worth of meat. 'I know this is a long line. I feel real bad, but – I’m gonna cut' Obama said. Even restaurant owner Aaron Franklin said the move was unheard of. 'That's out thing, no one skips the line...except Obama,' Mr Franklin told the Statesman.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/10/senator-sessions-border-crisis-direct-failure-presidential-leadership/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
FAIL
-
http://www.wor710.com/articles/politics-104707/american-statesmanship-is-depressingly-mia-on-12585818
LOL - even libs are saying what a disgrace ofag is
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/22/obama_heads_off_to_raise_money_on_west_coast_123406.html
::)
-
I no longer talk to Obama: Turkey's Erdogan
Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he has stopped talking to US President Barack Obama on the phone, amid growing strains between Ankara and Washington over Syria and the Gaza conflict.
Turkey, a fierce opponent of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and an open supporter of armed rebel fighters, felt betrayed when the United States backed away from military action against Damascus in September.
"In the past, I was calling him (Obama) directly. Because I can't get the expected results on Syria, our foreign ministers are now talking to each other," Erdogan said in a live interview on pro-government ATV channel late Monday.
"And I have talked to (US Vice President Joe) Biden. He calls me and I call him.
"I expect justice in this process. I couldn't imagine something like this from those who are championing justice," Erdogan added without elaborating, in an apparent jibe at Washington.
The last phone conversation between the two leaders took place on February 20 after which the White House released a statement accusing Erdogan of misrepresenting the content of the conversation.
A staunch advocate of the Palestinian cause, Erdogan has recently been at loggerheads with Washington over Israel's offensive in the besieged Gaza Strip that has killed more than 580 Palestinians in two weeks.
Erdogan accused the Jewish state of carrying out "state terrorism" and a "genocide" of Palestinians and criticised the United States for defending Israel's "disproportionate" tactics.
The US State Department branded his comments on Israel "offensive and wrong" but the prime minister hit back by saying the United States needed to engage in "self-criticism".
Erdogan is standing in August 10 presidential elections that he is expected to win, with analysts awaiting a more assertive foreign policy from Ankara if he becomes head of state.
http://guy-talk-obama-turkeys-erdogan-100909241.html
-
Is this good leadership?
Obama sets out on Dem fundraising sprint amid mounting crises
Published July 23, 2014
FoxNews.com
President Obama began his three-day West Coast fundraising tour in Seattle with an admission that mushrooming global crises were adding anxiety to an American public already concerned about the economy.
"Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet where we need to be based on the new order," said Obama, who later cautioned against letting those anxieties lead to cynicism and a lack of interest in democracy.
"People who really need government to work for them on their behalf, they withdraw, they opt out, and that makes government even more dysfunctional," he said.
The president already has taken heat for making time for a burger stop and fundraisers last week shortly after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed over Ukraine, killing hundreds. While the president repeatedly has addressed the tragedy in public, he also spent his Sunday playing golf at Fort Belvoir.
Later Tuesday, Obama will attend a Democratic Party fundraiser in Seattle, before catching Air Force One to San Francisco. He'll end the three-day swing later this week in Los Angeles.
The White House has defended the president's busy political schedule, which the president's team largely has not changed in response to world events.
"What the president is looking at and what his team is looking at is, does he have what he needs to do his job?" White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday, in response to questions about the president's fundraising.
Asked about Obama's fundraising last week in New York, Earnest said it was not a mistake and noted that the president made calls to the leaders of Ukraine and Malaysia amid the Flight 17 tragedy.
"When the president travels, he travels with an array of staff and advisers and communications equipment that allows him to do his job from wherever he happens to be," Earnest said. "And if it becomes clear that there's a need for him to come back to the White House in order to fulfill those functions, then we'll make a change in his schedule. Right now, it's not apparent that that's the case."
But Republican critics have questioned the president's stay-the-course strategy on fundraisers.
In response to the White House defense of its own itinerary, the Republican National Committee tweeted: "The White House still feels Obama's choice of burgers & fundraisers over responding to crises was the right one."
Aside from the Malaysia Airlines tragedy and deliberations over how to respond to the suspected Russian connection, the administration continues to grapple with the surge of illegal immigrant minors along the U.S.-Texas border, and with the mounting death toll in the war between Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
After Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced the deployment of National Guard personnel to the border in his state to deal with the surge, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, ribbed the president for his schedule.
"The fact is if the president weren't so busy playing golf or pool, he would know the integration has been happening," Gohmert told Fox News, referring to collaboration along the border between various Border Patrol and security officials.
Obama did abandon one idea for the trip, however. The White House had been in touch with late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel about a presidential appearance on his show during the stop in Los Angeles, but is not going forward.
"We elected not to do it this time, but hope we can arrange to do it in the near future," a White House official said.
But on the fundraising trail, Obama remains a potent draw among the Democratic Party's wealthy donors, who pay up to $32,400 to be in intimate settings with the president.
The fundraising highlight of the trip will be a Democratic National Committee event Wednesday at the Beverly Hills home of Shonda Rhimes, the producer of the ABC series "Scandal," a drama set in modern-day Washington. Kerry Washington, who plays the lead role in the show, is among the hosts.
So far this 2013-14 election cycle, Obama has attended 73 fundraising events for Democratic Party groups. During the 2009-10 midterm cycle, when Republicans won control of the House, Obama attended 98 fundraisers, according to CBS News White House reporter Mark Knoller, who keeps detailed records of presidential travels and events.
Obama has outpaced his predecessor in fundraising, having attended 395 fundraisers during his presidency as of this week. According to Knoller's statistics, then-President George W. Bush had attended 217 at the same point in his second term.
The 395 is more than Bush attended during his entire presidency.
Obama has devoted much of his effort to the Democratic National Committee, which last month raised $9 million and cut its debt to $3 million from a one-time high of $23 million. Obama also will raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the political arm of the party that assists Democratic House incumbents and candidates.
While the House is expected to remain in Republican hands after the election, the fate of the Democratic-controlled Senate is much more in question, raising the stakes for fundraising.
Obama has at least one bit of policy-driven business set aside for the trip. In Los Angeles on Thursday he plans to go to a community college to draw attention to jobs training, particularly for work requiring specialized skills, like health care.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/obama-sets-out-on-dem-fundraising-sprint-amid-mounting-crises/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Krauthammer: The Vacant Presidency
The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green.
By Charles Krauthammer, The National Review
The president’s demeanor is worrying a lot of people. From the immigration crisis on the Mexican border to the Islamic State rising in Mesopotamia, Barack Obama seems totally detached. When he does interrupt his endless rounds of golf, fundraising, and photo ops, it’s for some affectless, mechanical, almost forced public statement.
Regarding Ukraine, his detachment — the rote, impassive voice — borders on dissociation. His U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, delivers an impassioned denunciation of Russia. Obama cautions that we not “get out ahead of the facts,” as if the facts of this case — Vladimir Putin’s proxies’ shooting down a civilian airliner — are in doubt.
The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.
Perhaps. But I’d propose an alternate theory that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is one of Obama’s favorite sayings. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands.
Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin “an off-ramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.
If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for.
The shooting down of a civilian airliner seemed to validate Obama’s passivity. “Violence and conflict inevitably lead to unforeseen consequences,” explained Obama. See. You play with fire, it will blow up in your face. Just as I warned. Now world opinion will turn against Putin.
To which I say: So what? World opinion, by itself, is useless: malleable, ephemeral and, unless mobilized by leadership, powerless. History doesn’t act autonomously. It needs agency.
Germany’s Angela Merkel still doesn’t want to jeopardize trade with Russia. France’s François Hollande will proceed with delivery of a Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia. And Obama speaks of future “costs” if Russia persists — a broken record since Crimea, carrying zero credibility.
Or did Obama think Putin would be shamed into regret and restraint by the blood of 298 innocents? On the contrary. Putin’s response has been brazen defiance: denying everything and unleashing a massive campaign of lies, fabrications, and conspiracy theories blaming Ukraine and the U.S.
Putin doesn’t give a damn about world opinion. He cares about domestic opinion, which has soared to more than 80 percent approval since Crimea. If anything, he’s been emboldened. On Wednesday, his proxies shot down two more jets — a finger to the world and a declaration that his campaign continues.
A real U.S. president would give Kiev the weapons it needs, impose devastating sectoral sanctions on Moscow, reinstate our Central European missile-defense system, and make a Reaganesque speech explaining why.
Obama has done none of these things.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/07/25/krauthammer-vacant-presidency
-
Aren't you liberals embarrassed to have this woman leading your party?
-
Aren't you liberals embarrassed to have this woman leading your party?
What does this question have to do with the vid you've posted?
Is it because Crowley wants to talk about how things are being perceived by the public ("optics") and Pelosi is responding by talking about what is being done instead of how things look?
-
What does this question have to do with the vid you've posted?
Is it because Crowley wants to talk about how things are being perceived by the public ("optics") and Pelosi is responding by talking about what is being done instead of how things look?
Nancy Pelosi is a space cadet. This is one in a long line of statements that shows she is among the worst partisan ideologues in the country.
Saying Obama's leadership is strong is pathetic. You should be embarrassed that she leads your party. Is there a dumber one-two combination in politics than Harry Reid and Pelosi? I doubt it. :-[
-
Nancy Pelosi is a space cadet. This is one in a long line of statements that shows she is among the worst partisan ideologues in the country.
Saying Obama's leadership is strong is pathetic.
LOL. She is old and often does give the impression that she's half-buzzed on some kind of prescription medication, it's true. This ain't so uncommon among older politicians and old people in general, though.
LOL at your naive "partisan ideologue" comment. Consider me not shocked that the leader of any party is going to refrain from dissing their own party. (Just because Pelosi isn't engaging Crowley on the subject of "optics" doesn't mean she isn't familiar with the subject - I think that she's completely aware of what the optics would be like if she were to diss the president's leadership on camera, don't you?)
You should be embarrassed that she leads your party. Is there a dumber one-two combination in politics than Harry Reid and Pelosi? I doubt it. :-[
If the prominent folks in other parties were any better, I might be embarrassed but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Honestly, the fact that this congress has done very little work bothers me much more than any "rah rah for my party" statements that those on either side might make.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707864/Barack-Obama-checks-job-years-early-The-US-president-played-81-rounds-golf-election-house-hunting-California-tackling-issues-say-critics.html
;)
-
LOL. She is old and often does give the impression that she's half-buzzed on some kind of prescription medication, it's true. This ain't so uncommon among older politicians and old people in general, though.
LOL at your naive "partisan ideologue" comment. Consider me not shocked that the leader of any party is going to refrain from dissing their own party. (Just because Pelosi isn't engaging Crowley on the subject of "optics" doesn't mean she isn't familiar with the subject - I think that she's completely aware of what the optics would be like if she were to diss the president's leadership on camera, don't you?)
If the prominent folks in other parties were any better, I might be embarrassed but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Honestly, the fact that this congress has done very little work bothers me much more than any "rah rah for my party" statements that those on either side might make.
Does not surprise me one bit that you are not embarrassed by Reid or Pelosi. You're from the same ilk.
-
Does not surprise me one bit that you are not embarrassed by Reid or Pelosi. You're from the same ilk.
Whateva, out-of-touch guy. Frankly, you have a lot of goofy old-fashioned opinions about a lot of things so worrying about what you think seems pointless.
BTW, I'm pretty sure you're using the wrong preposition in your last sentence; It's "of the same ilk" not "from the same ilk".
If you're gonna use old-fashioned terms, ya might as well get it right, don't you think?
-
Whateva, out-of-touch guy. Frankly, you have a lot of goofy old-fashioned opinions about a lot of things so worrying about what you think seems pointless.
BTW, I'm pretty sure you're using the wrong preposition in your last sentence; It's "of the same ilk" not "from the same ilk".
If you're gonna use old-fashioned terms, ya might as well get it right, don't you think?
lol. You do an awful lot of projecting. And you're one of those dishonest liberals. But I'm used to your ilk.
And listen grammar Nazi, I don't give a rip about my spelling, punctuation, or word usage on this board.
-
lol. You do an awful lot of projecting. And you're one of those dishonest liberals. But I'm used to your ilk.
And listen grammar Nazi, I don't give a rip about my spelling, punctuation, or word usage on this board.
Ok, you've piqued my curiosity: In your book, what's a dishonest liberal vs an honest one? Is this like one of those deals where you criticize other conservatives for not being conservative enough?
Regarding your excuse for your minor mistake using the word "ilk", it's been apparent to me for a while that accuracy is not important to you. You're much more into "truthiness".
BTW, LOL at you slipping "word usage" into your list of things only a "grammar Nazi" would care about. Amusing and pathetic, lol. ;D :'(
-
Ok, you've piqued my curiosity: In your book, what's a dishonest liberal vs an honest one? Is this like one of those deals where you criticize other conservatives for not being conservative enough?
Regarding your excuse for your minor mistake using the word "ilk", it's been apparent to me for a while that accuracy is not important to you. You're much more into "truthiness".
BTW, LOL at you slipping "word usage" into your list of things only a "grammar Nazi" would care about. Amusing and pathetic, lol. ;D :'(
You don't know what dishonest means? Perhaps that's why you are dishonest. It means not telling the truth. For example, tt's attributing words to people that they never said. It's claiming to read something you have never read. I am so embarrassed for you. :-[
It is apparent to me that you have too much time on your hands, get immersed in minutiae, and have trouble focusing on simple issues. But that's ok too. Nobody is perfect. But you should give an effort to stay on topic. It's not that hard. Well, maybe for you. :-\
-
You don't know what dishonest means? Perhaps that's why you are dishonest. It means not telling the truth. For example, tt's attributing words to people that they never said. It's claiming to read something you have never read. I am so embarrassed for you. :-[
It is apparent to me that you have too much time on your hands, get immersed in minutiae, and have trouble focusing on simple issues. But that's ok too. Nobody is perfect. But you should give an effort to stay on topic. It's not that hard. Well, maybe for you. :-\
Holy reading comprehension, batman. Did I ask for the meaning of the word "dishonest"? No, I asked for YOUR meaning of the term "dishonest liberal". Reasonably, I thought that it might be a semi-slang term I hadn't come across which has some sort of special meaning. Because I wasn't sure, I asked. (Uh-oh, I forgot that to ask means that I'm putting words in your mouth, right? lol)
Now I know that you recently disavowed any respect for the meanings of words and their usage, but I'm thinking that you're acquainted enough with language usage to know that sometimes a term made up of two common words will be coined that means something that isn't so obvious from the meanings of each of the two words by themselves. Examples of such two-word terms are easy to think of if you combine 2 adjectives ("bad ass", for example) but also not unheard of when using an adjective + a noun (like "dishonest liberal") if you think for a minute. "Tall tale" would be an example. Sorry if I'm boring you -- you 'Murikan types who only talk a big game about being patriots often don't have much patience for language talk (especially when it comes to foreign languages.)
And why are you disparaging me for not staying on topic? I tried. Didn't I point out that you thinking that a political party leader spouting the party line (about a fellow politician's "leadership" -- and what a subjective term that is) was in no way remarkable? What would have been newsworthy would have been for Pelosi to say the opposite.
In response, all you did was reiterate that you thought it was terrible and then you tried to make it personal by saying you think I'm terrible, too. You are weak as water sometimes, BB.
IMO, you're just a crabby old guy who should be locked up in a room with John McCain while the two of you are kept awake for 48 hours by rap music and video of screaming kids running across your lawns.
-
^^^ Did not read. Small bites if you want a response.
-
^^^ Did not read. Small bites if you want a response.
Really? Why is that? Narcolepsy, ADD, porn addiction, that short-term memory condition like that of the guy from Memento or what?
Whatever your affliction, that seems pretty debilitating and you have my sympathy.
Hey, don't forget your helmet if you're gonna be walking around outside later, ok?
-
Really? Why is that? Narcolepsy, ADD, porn addiction, that short-term memory condition like that of the guy from Memento or what?
Whatever your affliction, that seems pretty debilitating and you have my sympathy.
Hey, don't forget your helmet if you're gonna be walking around outside later, ok?
Suit yourself. :)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html?_r=0
LMFAO!!!!!
-
Its amazing to me how Obama is frittering away his presidency on such bs
-
Its amazing to me how Obama is frittering away his presidency on such bs
Agree. What's also bad is his supporters don't care that he has checked out.
-
6 Funerals Obama Cared Less About Than Michael Brown
by Ben Shapiro 25 Aug 2014 864 post a comment
On Monday, the funeral of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot under disputed circumstances by Officer Darren Wilson, took place. Slated attendees included Snoop Dogg, Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO), Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), P. Diddy, Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, and giving the eulogy, Al Sharpton.
The White House has also sent three aides to the funeral: Broderick Johnson of My Brother’s Keeper Task Force; Marlon Marshall, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; and Heather Foster, adviser for the Office of Public Engagement.
Which begs the question: why would the Obama administration send not one but three attendees to the funeral of a strong-arm robbery suspect who allegedly punched a police officer in the face – but ignore the funerals of other, more worthy characters?
Here are six people whose funerals the Obama administration took less seriously than Brown’s.
Margaret Thatcher. No senior White House officials were sent to the funeral of our staunchest Cold War ally, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Instead, President Obama sent the charge d’affaires at the US embassy in London, and the former ambassador to Britain, as well as former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker. That drew the ire of the British press, with the UK Sun reporting, “A No 10 source said last night: ‘We are a little surprised by the White House’s reaction as we were expecting a high-profile attendance.” The Guardian said that the White House sent “distinctly low-key official representation.”
Chris Kyle. When the famed sniper was murdered at a Texas shooting range in February 2013, not only did the White House make no statement, the White House sent nobody to his funeral. And while the White House did issue a statement about the death of singer Whitney Housing (she died that same month), the White House never even mentioned Kyle.
Nicholas Oresko, The Medal of Honor recipient for heroism during World War II died at age 96 last year. President Harry Truman gave him the Medal of Honor after he wiped out two enemy bunkers during the Battle of the Bulge despite being gravely wounded. There was no reported White House attendance at his funeral.
Lech Kaczynski. The Polish president was killed in a plane crash in 2010. President Obama originally announced he would attend the funeral, but cancelled, then golfed the day of his funeral.
Aunt Zeituni. Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, played a large role in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Obama called her “Auntie.” She died in South Boston in April 2013. As The New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama helped pay funeral expenses and sent a condolence note, Ms. Onyango’s family members said, but the president did not attend, as he was golfing.”
James Foley. Foley’s funeral is not scheduled until October 18. On Sunday, however, his family held a memorial service for the journalist beheaded at the hands of ISIS. The service, in New Hampshire, drew hundreds, including Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), as well as Governor Maggie Hassan.. There were no reports of representatives from the White House at the event.
President Obama’s delegation to Michael Brown’s funeral sends an important message. That message isn’t lost on the families of the soldiers and cops, teachers and firefighters, citizens who aren’t killed under disputed circumstances, don’t become the subject of riots, and who therefore don’t receive presidential aides at their funerals.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
-
Obama’s failure of leadership summed up in three simple standards
Friday, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM EDT
In the wake of President Obama’s admission that the United States doesn’t have a strategy yet when it comes to dealing with ISIS in Syria, it is a good opportunity to look at the President’s leadership style. On radio this morning, KFMB’s Mike Slater filled in for Glenn and looked at a few of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s leadership standards in relation to Obama’s habits.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
Since the declaration of the caliphate, many have pointed to Obama’s comments in a January 2014 New Yorker article in which he referred to ISIS as a “jayvee team,” but there was another quote in that article that Mike was struck by that speaks to his opinion of leadership.
“One of the things that I’ve learned to appreciate more as president is you are essentially a relay swimmer in a river full of rapids, and that river is history,” Obama said. “You don’t start with a clean slate, and the things you start may not come to full fruition on your timetable.”
“Right there, ladies and gentlemen is the president not only looking but begging for someone to blame,” Mike said. “He’s merely a relay swimmer in a river full of rapids. How dare you be critical of him for not having a plan with ISIS. He’s been pretty busy these past few weeks with his tee times. Rudy [Giuliani] has a few standards for leadership. I want to run by a few of them and ask you if the President follows these rules or not.”
Rule 1: First things first
“Honest question. Has anything in these last six years, has anything been dealt with at all – let alone first things first? There’s a new PR strategy in the White House. It’s very simple: Wait. The old PR strategy used to be: Try to get in front of things and spin it. Now it is just wait.
Think about it. Has anything in the last six years been resolved? Go right down the line. Fast and Furious. The VA. Anything really resolved? Anything changed… The news cycle moves so fast, they wait a day or two. It blows over.
Let me ask you this one: The southern border. It was only a few weeks ago when that was the biggest news story of the year, right? And now that we are not paying attention to it, now that we have been distracted by something else, you think the immigrants have suddenly stopped flooding across our border… No. That’s all still happening… but the White House has successfully waited it out.
Advertisement
Our national attention span, it’s like that of a gnat. So far, from Rudy’s rule of ‘first things first,’ this president’s rule is nothing ever.”
Rule 2: Promise little and deliver much
“It’s a great standard… We were just talking about our foreign policy. The president… just the other day said ISIS is a cancer. How can you say it’s a cancer that needs to be removed, then say you don’t have a strategy? He’s making this up. Yeah, this red line, that red line, but there’s no delivery. That makes us a laughing stock. That makes us a paper tiger. It’s far from promise little and deliver much. It’s quite to the opposite with this president.”
Rule 3: Everyone is accountable
“This one is my favorite. Rudy tells the story of his first day as mayor of New York City. He walks into his beautiful new office building… you can just imagine how grand this office would be. And Rudy walks in and looks out his window onto the streets of New York City, takes a deep breath, as he begins his first tenure as mayor. He sits down at his desk and he sees something on the end of it. He calls his secretary [in] and says, ‘Ma’am, What’s this?’ ‘Oh, that’s your name plate, sir, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.’ ‘No, no. That’s not right.’ ‘What do you mean? That’s your name. This is your office.’ He says, ‘I know, but I want my name plate here on my desk to read something different.’
So they changed it. And throughout his tenure as mayor, Rudy’s nameplate on his desk read: ‘I am responsible.
That is leadership. Rudy’s third principle: Everyone is accountable all the time. But our president today, he’s just a relay swimmer in a river of rapids. Wow.”
Front page image courtesy of the AP
-
Breibart - Big Government ^ | 8-29-2014 | Jonathan Strong
Posted on August 29, 2014 at 11:25:42 PM EDT by Sir Napsalot
At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in New York Friday, President Obama attributed people's pervasive sense the world is falling apart to “social media.”
“The world’s always been messy… we’re just noticing now in part because of social media,” Obama said.
.....
“If you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart,” Obama said. He said this is a time of extraordinary changes around the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/obamamessage_20140905_134317.jpg)
-
A liberal saying Obama is on the verge of doing Jimmy Carter-like damage to Democrats on foreign policy.
-
:D
-
Is this good leadership?
Obama’s UN Speech Praises Muslim Cleric Who Reportedly Backed 2004 Fatwa on U.S. Soldiers
BY
FOX NEWS INSIDER
// SEP 24 2014 // 10:12PM AS SEEN ON
THE KELLY FILE
In his U.N. speech today, President Barack Obama appeared to praise a controversial Muslim cleric, Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah. He called the cleric a moderate Muslim leader who could help combat ISIS.
However the cleric’s group backed a fatwa, calling for the deaths of American soldiers in 2004.
Still, the administration says he is not radical because in March 2013, he was at the center of a group of 200 Muslim scholars who met at a forum for promoting peace.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was on “The Kelly File” tonight where he said that clever groups condemn the means of groups like ISIS, but they still believe in the same end – supremacism of the Islamic state.
“The narrative in this administration is against the moderates, and it’s actually promoting the status quo,” he said.
Megyn Kelly noted that at the very minimum, Bin Bayyah is controversial and said she doesn’t know why Obama promoted him.
Meanwhile, the White House stands by the president’s statements.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/24/obama’s-un-speech-praises-muslim-cleric-who-reportedly-backed-2004-fatwa-us-soldiers
-
His inability to admit mistakes is one of the primary reasons I didn't vote for him 2008.
“This was the ‘dog ate my homework speech’,” Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who has long called for Mr Obama to arm moderate rebel forces in Syria, told Fox News, adding that Mr Obama should follow other presidents and admit his mistake.
“Every president in history had made a mistake, acknowledged it and then moved on. President Reagan with Iran contra, President Clinton in Bosnia, President George W Bush after the debacle in Iraq, when he started the surge - but it doesn’t seem to be in this president’s DNA,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/11129473/Fury-as-Obama-blames-intelligence-agencies-for-Isil-surprise.html
-
Unamed Pentagon Official: The President is lying to America
The Daily Caller ^ | 10-1-14 | "Joseph Miller"
Posted on 10/1/2014 8:27:03 AM by afraidfortherepublic
Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.
President Barack Obama has taken a lot of flack since his Sunday night “60 Minutes” interview, in which he blamed the intelligence community for his failure to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. And that is right and proper. Because not only was his excuse of blaming us a lie, but when questioned on his lie, White House press secretary Josh Earnest doubled down with a whole new lie — both of which are easily, publicly proven false.
On Sunday, Obama said the intelligence community had underestimated the rise of ISIS, saying in an interview with CBS, “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”
But we know that isn’t true, as nearly a dozen administration officials have testified to the threat posed by ISIS publicly over the last year.
The fact that the president chose to use the word “they” instead of “we” immediately drew condemnation from friend and foe alike, who saw it as the president’s attempt to pass the buck. (RELATED: Obama Has Spent More Time Playing Golf Than In Intel Briefings)
To mitigate the fallout, Earnest’s office issued a statement stating that, “…A lot of that [decision-making] was predicated on the will of the Iraqi security forces to fight for their country.”
But this was also not true.
In 2010, General Lloyd Austin, then-commander of United State Forces in Iraq, directly informed the president that over 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to maintain the gains made by U.S. forces against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and to mentor the fledgling Iraqi security forces– because he knew they were not ready to go out on their own. (MILLER: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States)
But in order for Austin’s plan to work, the United States would have to negotiate and sign a security agreement with the government of Iraq to give the U.S. legal authority to keep U.S. military forces in that country beyond December 2010. The White House claims they were forced to withdraw because then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to grant U.S. force serving in Iraq post 2010 immunity from Iraqi prosecution– a prerequisite for the presence of U.S. forces anywhere else in the world. But the administration made no attempt to seriously negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis, and cited our withdrawal from Iraq as a major achievement during the 2012 elections, giving the American intelligence community the distinct feeling that the move was politically motivated. (MILLER: Obama’s Current Strategy Is Doomed To Fail)
Instead of investing any time in negotiating the agreement, the Obama administration used the Maliki regimes refusal to grant immunity as a political out for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2010. That saw the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and the end of Operation New Dawn, the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom. It also saw the rise of ISIS, and brings us to where we are today. (MILLER: What It Will Take To Win The War Against The Islamic State)
Today, Gen. Lloyd Austin is in command of U.S. Central Command– the U.S. combatant command in charge of fighting all wars in the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of North and East Africa. From that post, he once again recommended to the president that ground forces would be required in order to achieve the White House’s goals, this time against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. (MILLER: Iraq A Symptom Of Larger Obama Failure — Syria)
Once again, the president overruled his commanding general and has chosen to use air strikes alone to “destroy” a terrorist army of 30,000.
The president clearly does not think the mission is worth the cost necessary to complete it; but by pursuing his ends without authorizing the necessary means, he is dooming that mission to failure. (MILLER: Special Forces, Not #Hashtags, Mr. President.
The United States military and intelligence community have learned a lot over the past decade of conflict. Our commander in chief, unfortunately, has not. Since the start of his administration, President Barack Obama has ignored his generals and the intelligence community. Over the past few weeks, he has half-heartedly pursued a strategy that destines us to fail in our mission, and over the past three days, he and his White House have lied to prove otherwise. To those who wear our nation’s uniform, or serve in her intelligence community, that’s insult — and injury.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/06/leon_panetta_obama_has_lost_his_way.html
;)
-
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/13/the_obama_administration_has_a_kiss_and_tell_problem_terrorism_Turkey_ISIS_Kurdish_Slovenia_Coalition
>:(
-
Clueless in the White House
Townhall.com ^ | October 15, 2014 | Donald Lambro
Posted on 10/15/2014 11:31:59 AM by Kaslin
Former governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney tells an Obama joke that is drawing roars of laughter from GOP audiences.
Romney's story, which nails the president's weakness, involves golf champion Phil Mickelson and the grand slam tennis great Andre Agassi. As he tells it, Obama goes to a bank to cash a check, but without any ID on him.
The teller says he can't cash it without identification, pointing out that Mickelson proved who he was by tapping a golf ball into a cup, and Agassi did it by belting a tennis ball into a tiny target. "Is there anything you can do to prove to us who you are?" the bank clerk asked the president.
Obama replies, "I don't have a clue."
That certainly sums up Obama and his job-challenged, trouble-filled presidency: A long-suffering economy, a slew of scandal-ridden programs, agencies and departments, and a series of bungled foreign policies that have resulted in a more powerful and far more lethal terrorist threat that is now on the brink of toppling regimes in the Middle East.
In his first term, Obama was able to con a lot of people, including the gullible liberal news media who adored him. But that no longer appears to be the case as his troubles have mounted and his job approval polls have plummeted.
Gone are the worshipful stories about hope and change. Now he is being sharply criticized for his many failures, by the media and by former administration officials in tell-all books that give him failing grades as commander in chief.
The latest example came Sunday in a blistering review of his presidency in the Washington Post, one of Obama's earliest supporters and defenders. The story was no doubt read by the administration's top echelon and very likely by the president himself and his West Wing staff.
It was written by Aaron David Miller, a distinguished presidential analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. And it ran under the pull-no-punches headline "Disappointer in chief," followed by this sub-head: "Why Obama hasn't become the change we were waiting for."
"Whatever your judgement of Obama's policies, there is a vast gap between the expectations he set for himself and his supporters and the realities of his presidency. Obama reached for greatness but has disappointed many of those who voted for him once or even twice," Miller writes.
Obama ran on a promise to change the way Washington works, but by and large has been hopelessly outmatched in the rough and tumble of governing, a victim not only of his complete lack of hands-on, executive experience, but also of failed policies drawn from the New Deal that didn't work then and wouldn't work now.
"From pledging an Earth-moving transformation, Obama has been reduced to hitting singles…. After drawing early comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy all rolled into one, Obama has fallen so low that journalists wonder whether Jimmy Carter is not a more appropriate parallel," Miller says.
"Obama cannot claim the persona of Kennedy, who captured the nation's imagination; nor the mantle of Ronald Reagan, who as Obama himself has admitted, changed the trajectory of the country," he adds.
Obama came from a failed urban political environment that is addicted to higher taxes, big government and other far left, job killing policies that have ruled his presidency. He admired JFK and Reagan for their success in office but didn't understand or acknowledge the economic policies that brought this about.
He has demagogued for higher tax rates, conveniently ignoring Kennedy's across the board tax cuts that got the economy moving again and resulted in a budget surplus.
He signed a higher capital gains tax on investments that hurt the economy and undermined job creation, ignoring the GOP-passed, cap-gains tax cut Bill Clinton signed in his second term that sent the economy soaring and drove unemployment down to 4 percent.
Incredibly, Obama ignored the bi-partisan tax reforms of his own "Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" commission that he created on Feb. 18, 2010.
Democratic adviser Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the commission, proposed a sweeping agenda to cleanse the tax code of exemptions and other special interest tax loopholes.
In order to keep the reforms revenue neutral, they called for lowering the corporate tax rate and other taxes to boost economic growth and create more jobs which would bring more revenue into the Treasury and reduce the deficits.
Obama gave their idea the cold shoulder and an early burial, despite the fact that Bill Clinton recently called for immediately cutting the 35 percent federal corporate tax rate, the highest in the industrial world.
If Obama really admires Ronald Reagan for changing the political trajectory of the country, he would have done well to emulate the Great Communicator who ran on tax reform in his campaign for a second term.
Not only did Reagan carry 49 states, after his earlier tax cuts ended the recession in two years, he won bipartisan support in Congress for tax reforms that cut the top tax rate to 28 percent.
Among its Democratic supporters back then: Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey.
But Reagan did what Obama seems incapable of doing: Reaching out across the aisle, bringing his adversaries in for the sales pitch and taking his case to the people to put political pressure on Congress.
He often invited House Speaker Tip O'Neill to the Oval Office where they swapped old Irish jokes and Reagan, in the end, got what he wanted.
Obama, aloof, disengaged and utterly incapable of such hands on governing, is ideologically against the kinds of pro-growth reforms that have drawn bipartisan support in Congress before.
His failures have little or nothing to do with partisanship in a divided Congress. They are the result of his refusal to accept reforms that have not only worked in the past, but were proposed or embraced by presidents in his very own party.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/t-boone-pickens-says-obama-is-the-worst-2014-10
We asked billionaire energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens on Friday what worries him the most about America.
"Lack of leadership," he said.
"We have the worst president we ever had," Pickens said.
"I mean, he's going to be determined the worst before he ever gets out of office. He accomplished a lot in less than eight years. Nobody else has ever done that. You know, Jimmy Carter loves him because he was the worst until he showed up, Obama. The Democrats ought to scratch their head on the deal. They ought to screen their prospects or candidates better."
Pickens, 86, also ripped into Obama for his workout routine calling it "pitiful."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/t-boone-pickens-says-obama-is-the-worst-2014-10#ixzz3G2hWvH8D
-
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-is-caught-in-lie/
-
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-is-caught-in-lie/
I've been very critical of his claim that he ended the war, when all that happened was he failed to negotiate a new SOFA, and is now claiming we were forced to leave. Yes, we were forced to leave because of his leadership failure. No, he didn't "end the war" in Iraq. Amazing and disappointing amount of dishonesty from our leader.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress
NY Times ^
Posted on October 19, 2014 9:29:42 PM EDT by Perdogg
No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
-
Dang. :-[
Top Iranian Official: Obama is ‘The Weakest of U.S. Presidents’
Adviser to Iranian president mocks Obama’s ‘humiliating’ presidency (UPDATED)
BY: Adam Kredo
October 23, 2014
The Iranian president’s senior advisor has called President Barack Obama “the weakest of U.S. presidents” and described the U.S. leader’s tenure in office as “humiliating,” according to a translation of the highly candid comments provided to the Free Beacon.
The comments by Ali Younesi, senior advisor to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, come as Iran continues to buck U.S. attempts to woo it into the international coalition currently battling the Islamic State (IS, ISIL, or ISIS).
And with the deadline quickly approaching on talks between the U.S. and Iran over its contested nuclear program, Younesi’s denigrating views of Obama could be a sign that the regime in Tehran has no intent of conceding to America’s demands.
“Obama is the weakest of U.S. presidents, he had humiliating defeats in the region. Under him the Islamic awakening happened,” Younesi said in a Farsi language interview with Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.
“Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.
The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently by other world leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff, such as Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Younesi, a former minister of intelligence in the country, also had some harsh comments about U.S. conservatives and the state of Israel.
“Conservatives are war mongers, they cannot tolerate powers like Iran,” he said. “If conservatives were in power they would go to war with us because they follow Israel and they want to portray Iran as the main threat and not ISIS.”
Younesi took a more conciliatory view towards U.S. Democrats, who he praised for viewing Iran as “no threat.”
“We [the Islamic Republic] have to use this opportunity [of Democrats being in power in the U.S.], because if this opportunity is lost, in future we may not have such an opportunity again,” Younesi said.
The candid comments by Rouhani’s right-hand-man could provide a window into the regime’s mindset as nuclear talks wind to a close.
The Obama administration has maintained for months that it will not permit Congress to have final say over the deal, which many worry will permit Iran to continue enriching uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
About the potential for a nuclear deal, Youseni said, “I am not optimistic so much, but the two sides are willing to reach results,” according to an official translation posted online by Fars News.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have adopted a much more pessimistic view of Iran’s negotiating tactics, which many on the Hill maintain are meant to stall for time as Tehran completes its nuclear weapon.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), for instance, wrote a letter to the White House this week to tell Obama his desire to skirt Congress is unacceptable.
“Congress cannot and will not sit idly by if the Administration intends on taking unilateral action to provide sanctions relief to Iran for a nuclear deal we perceive to be weak and dangerous for our national security, the security of the region, and poses a threat to the U.S. and our ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel,” Ros-Lehtinen wrote.
“If the Administration opts to act in a manner that directly contradicts Congress’ intent, then Congress must take all necessary measures to either reverse the executive, unilateral action, or to strengthen and enhance current sanctions law,” she told the president.
“President Obama does believe that by rewarding Iran and permitting it to do whatever it wants in the region, the mullahs in Tehran will be convinced to compromise,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
However, “the result has been disastrous: Iran controls 3 Arab capitals (Damascus, Beirut, and Baghdad) and its allies just captured the fourth one (Sana in Yemen) and Iran’s economy has significantly improved,” Ghasseminejad explained.
“Unfortunately, it does not seem that the mullahs reached the conclusion desired by the administration,” he said. “Iranians believe this administration is weak, it has lost its economic leverage over Iran and there is no credible military option on the table. Iran has been rewarded upfront, they now ask for more while are determined to keep their nuclear program intact.”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-iranian-official-obama-is-the-weakest-of-u-s-presidents/
-
It sounds like a number of Democrats don't believe he's a good leader.
-
Disrespecting one of our closest allies? Brilliant leadership.
Leak week: Obama team shows signs of strain as anonymous officials take gripes to media
Published October 31, 2014
FoxNews.com
Trouble-making personnel inside the Obama administration have taken to the press at a steady clip in recent days to badmouth senior officials, as well as a key American ally. And as President Obama enters his seventh year in office, the whispers and potshots are running the risk of undermining the once-cohesive image of the "no drama Obama" team.
Whether it's a few leaky apples or the sign of a larger morale problem is unclear. But several stories with sharp-edged quotes attributed to unnamed administration officials have culminated in an embarrassing week for the White House -- complete with plenty of backpedaling and clarifications to assert a polished narrative that all is well.
But the tarnish may be showing.
Frustrated officials have started to air their grievances on everything from the current relationship between the U.S. and Israel to the military response in Syria.
The latest batch of stories started on Monday, when The Atlantic magazine quoted an anonymous official describing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit.” The comment follows weeks of heated exchanges between Netanyahu’s government and Washington over disputed settlement-building.
“The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” the official was quoted as saying.
The article caused a furor, as Republicans demanded accountability for the anonymous insult to America's ally. White House and State Department officials insisted the remark does not reflect the administration's views, and White House officials reportedly were calling lawmakers to hammer home that point.
Not everyone was buying the administration's contrite tone. Fox News contributor Judith Miller suggested that comment was "authorized," to "send a message to Israel."
But other comments clearly were not green-lighted by the White House. In the latest episode, ticked-off military officials told The Daily Beast they were frustrated by the tight constraints the White House is placing on them in the war against the Islamic State in Syria.
Disgruntled officers and civilian Pentagon leaders reportedly claimed that National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who is calling much of the shots on U.S. operations in Syria, is “obsessed with the tiniest of details” and referred to the process as “manic.”
The White House reportedly has instructed the military to keep the war contained within policy limits which include restrictions on which rebels can be trained to fight and what their roles will be in the field. The sources said Rice’s micro-managing of basic operational details is tying their hands and holding up progress.
Earlier, on Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also was a critic of the White House strategy in Syria. Hagel recently wrote a memo to Rice warning that the current strategy was too unfocused and didn’t clearly address U.S. intentions and how it relates to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, the Times reported.
Hagel did not back off his comments on Thursday, saying, “We owe the president and we owe the National Security Council our best thinking on this. And it has to be honest and it has to be direct.”
The perception of a harmonious Cabinet was further dented following another claim in the Times article that officials routinely joked Secretary of State John Kerry is like the astronaut Sandra Bullock plays in the movie “Gravity,” and that he’s “somersaulting through space, un-tethered from the White House.”
The article seemed to suggest that Obama’s once tight-knit circle of confidants has come apart in recent months as more and more staff members resign or retire. Personnel shakeups have led some to question the effectiveness of the president’s crisis-management teams.
The comments prompted Earnest and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to come to Kerry’s defense. Sort of.
“Those of us working every day at [the] White House aren’t distracted by sometimes colorful, sometimes problematic, and in the case of Sandra Bullock, sometimes amusing comments,” Earnest told reporters.
McDonough also defended Obama’s chief diplomat, telling Bloomberg Television “that picture of Secretary Kerry is not what I witness.” He added that Obama and Kerry meet regularly and described the relationship as “very solid.”
McDonough also refuted rumors of a rift between Kerry and Rice, insisting they have a collaborative relationship.
Whether the administration is hunting down the officials quoted remains to be seen. Earnest gave no indication there would be a vigorous hunt for the official behind the Netanyahu dig.
The shots aren't just coming from inside the administration, either. On a lighter note, another influential figure badmouthed the president this week -- Michael Jordan.
When asked about the president’s golf game during a recent interview Jordan said, “I’ve never played with Obama, but I would.” He added, “I’d take him out. He’s a hack and I’d be all day playing with him … I never said he wasn’t a great politician. I’m just saying he’s a shi--y golfer.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/tough-week-for-obama-as-frustrated-officials-air-their-grievances-to-media/
-
It's time for the president to lead. He will have to work with Congress. He has to start with repairing damaged relationships with his own party.
Dems blame losses on Obama
By Justin Sink - 11/04/14
Democrats dismayed with the loss of the Senate are pointing the finger squarely at President Obama.
In race after race across the country, vulnerable Democrats were unable to shed the shadow of a deeply unpopular White House.
Voters appeared eager to punish Obama after two years defined by crisis and mismanagement, and Republicans saw consistent success by labeling their opponents as potential rubber stamps for the president.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said the president’s energy policies “absolutely” hurt Democratic chances among voters in coal country, and that voters in his state had the “perception of the government attacking them, which basically is what's happening.”
“It doesn't make sense that we have to fight so hard against our own government and our own administration and our president to try to find a balance,” Manchin told MSNBC.
According to exit polls, two-thirds of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, and half disapprove of the president’s job performance.
As the dust settled Tuesday night, top Democratic aides and strategists vented frustration with an administration they say could have done more to help the party out.
“It was President Obama dragging candidates down across the country,” one Senate Democratic aide said. “It was a tough map to start with and his numbers were especially bad in these states, making it that much harder to overcome.”
They lamented that the president repeatedly nationalized the election, even though he knew that he was unpopular in many 2014 battleground states.
In a speech that effectively kicked off his midterm campaign, Obama said that while he was not on the ballot, his policies were.
Just a few weeks later, he told Al Sharpton that Democrats in Republican-leaning states reticent to appear with him “vote with me” and “have supported my agenda in Congress.”
Even if Obama hadn’t tied the races to himself, Democrats say the last two years allowed Republicans to turn the race into a referendum on his presidency.
“It’s an inescapable fact that this election was more about Obama and frustration with his presidency than any other factor,” said one prominent Democratic strategist. “You can blame in some cases bad strategy, bad candidacy, bad ads — but the one ring that unites them all was anger and frustration toward Obama's policies.”
While Democrats said the map was stacked against Obama, they also blamed multiple crises for hurting the Obama and Democratic brands.
Just 44 percent of voters approve of the federal government’s handling of the Ebola crisis, according to exit polls. Meanwhile, 72 percent are fearful of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
“They had a positive story they could have told on the economy,” the strategist said. “It's not perfect, but you have positive jobs growth, GDP growth, and that message was completely overwhelmed by a series of management missteps that began almost immediately after he walked in for the second term.”
Another Democrat involved in the campaigns said the president’s strategy of relying heavily on executive orders allowed Republicans to escape responsibility for dysfunction in Washington. The executive action was intended to show a White House willing to act, but also invited criticism.
“The pen-and-phone strategy was a little shortsighted and a little naive, and it took the pressure off Congress to do their job,” said one strategist.
Liberals have criticized Obama for failing to move to the left.
“President Obama needs to care more about the economic issues that everyday Americans care about than the fringe positions that House Republicans and Ted Cruz care about,” the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee argued.
Still, Democratic strategist Doug Thornell cautioned against reading too much into the Republican victory, noting that most loses were in states Mitt Romney won in 2012.
Obama has also made that point, telling a radio station on Monday that many of the states hosting 2014 contests “tend to tilt Republican.”
“It would not be wise to draw as broad a conclusion about the outcome of this election as you would from a national presidential election, simply by virtue of the map and the states where this contest is taking place,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said this week.
The White House has also argued that Obama could have done more for Democrats — except many said he should stay away.
Several robocalls the president cut for candidates didn’t go out until hours before the polls opened. And while Obama went on radio for gubernatorial candidates and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), other campaigns presumably declined similar outreach efforts.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/222956-dems-blame-losses-on-obama
-
New York (AFP) - For a second year in a row, Russian President Vladimir Putin has beaten Barack Obama to the title of world's most powerful leader as ranked by Forbes. In a year in which Russia annexed Crimea, stoked a conflict in the Ukraine and clinched a multi-billion-dollar gas pipeline deal with China that Forbes called the world's largest construction project, Putin remained on top.
It was the third time in Obama's presidency that he has lost top billing -- twice to Putin and once to Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Third prize went to Jinping, who is expected to rule for a decade in which China is set to eclipse the United States as the world's largest economy.
Pope Francis was number four and German Chancellor Angela Merkel number five.
Among 12 newcomers are Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, number 15; Alibaba founder and China's richest man Jack Ma, number 30; and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State group, number 54.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
-
Dang. :-[
Top Iranian Official: Obama is ‘The Weakest of U.S. Presidents’
I don't put a lot of stock into what iran's leaders say. They used to bash Bush too.
-
I don't put a lot of stock into what iran's leaders say. They used to bash Bush too.
Yes, your posts on the board demonstrate quite clearly that you don't take kindly to criticism of Obama.
-
Yes, your posts on the board demonstrate quite clearly that you don't take kindly to criticism of Obama.
I believe obama was born in Kenya. I believe he shoud be impeached for fast & furious.
I don't take kindly to people that believe obama is even legitimately in office.
-
I believe obama was born in Kenya. I believe he shoud be impeached for fast & furious.
I don't take kindly to people that believe obama is even legitimately in office.
And yet you kneepad for the man. Daily.
-
I believe obama was born in Kenya. I believe he shoud be impeached for fast & furious.
I don't take kindly to people that believe obama is even legitimately in office.
Fool that is your guy, you and your family voted Obama in, so stop pretending otherwise.
-
Where is option Fail today
-
Where is option Fail today
I think Option D will be popping in at some point to ask how many people have died in the U.S. from Ebola.
-
That's our president. :-\
OBAMA FLASHBACK: 'I DON'T REALLY CARE TO BE PRESIDENT WITHOUT THE SENATE'
"I don't really care to be president without the Senate," Obama reportedly conceded in June.
Political analysts, and even some Democratic insiders, have long questioned whether President Barack Obama's frequent golf outings and extended vacations are further evidence that he has checked out on the presidency and is eager to hit the exits. In the wake of last night's Republican romp, Democrats' suspicions that Obama is as ready to return to civilian life as Republicans are to send him there may only grow.
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) aggressively shielded Obama by holding up Senate bills that would have proven embarrassing defeats to a president at odds with members of his own Democratic Party.
Republicans are inclined to attribute Obama's waning desire to lead and manage America's affairs to a personality that seems at odds with the rigorous demands of executive leadership. And they point to Obama's own words.
When Barbara Walters asked him in 2011 what trait "you most deplore in yourself," Obama answered candidly. "Laziness," said Obama. "There is a deep down, underneath all the work that I do, I think there's a laziness in me. It's probably from, you know, growing up in Hawaii and it's sunny outside, and sitting on the beach."
The 2016 presidential election will take place in 734 days.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/05/FLASHBACK-Obama-I-Don-t-Really-Care-to-be-President-Without-the-Senate
-
:D
That's our president. :-\
OBAMA FLASHBACK: 'I DON'T REALLY CARE TO BE PRESIDENT WITHOUT THE SENATE'
"I don't really care to be president without the Senate," Obama reportedly conceded in June.
Political analysts, and even some Democratic insiders, have long questioned whether President Barack Obama's frequent golf outings and extended vacations are further evidence that he has checked out on the presidency and is eager to hit the exits. In the wake of last night's Republican romp, Democrats' suspicions that Obama is as ready to return to civilian life as Republicans are to send him there may only grow.
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) aggressively shielded Obama by holding up Senate bills that would have proven embarrassing defeats to a president at odds with members of his own Democratic Party.
Republicans are inclined to attribute Obama's waning desire to lead and manage America's affairs to a personality that seems at odds with the rigorous demands of executive leadership. And they point to Obama's own words.
When Barbara Walters asked him in 2011 what trait "you most deplore in yourself," Obama answered candidly. "Laziness," said Obama. "There is a deep down, underneath all the work that I do, I think there's a laziness in me. It's probably from, you know, growing up in Hawaii and it's sunny outside, and sitting on the beach."
The 2016 presidential election will take place in 734 days.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/05/FLASHBACK-Obama-I-Don-t-Really-Care-to-be-President-Without-the-Senate
-
Ouch.
Obama's reverse Midas touch: 'Everything he touched turned to crap'
BY BRIAN HUGHES | NOVEMBER 5, 2014
President Obama hardly had the golden touch in the few marquee political contests he got involved in ahead of the 2014 midterms.
Facing tough political headwinds, the president played a do-no-harm strategy, mostly sticking to events with Democratic governors in seemingly safe states.
It turns out that many of those contests weren’t so safe after all.
President Obama saw the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin and his home-state Illinois lose after personally stumping for them in the waning moments before Election Day.
Even the Democrat candidate in Massachusetts was unable to maintain the party’s control of the governor's mansion, although Obama didn’t personally intervene in the race. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, who also embraced Obama on the eve of the midterms, appeared Wednesday morning to have barely held on in the reliably liberal state.
The lone good news for Obama: Democrats held a Michigan Senate seat and won the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, the other two contests in which the president headlined events for candidates.
It’s a stunning rebuke for the White House, which is now left to confront a new reality in which Obama’s political power is at an all-time low. The question now becomes whether he adopts an even more confrontational tone with Republicans, taunting them with executive action, or moves to the middle on a variety of issues that could alienate his base.
Another “shellacking” in the midterms also confirmed Democratic fears that Obama was more effective at getting himself elected than other progressive candidates.
The president will address the loss of the Senate and his path forward in a news conference Wednesday afternoon.
And some Republicans could only crow about the White House’s misfortune.
“Couldn’t he have visited just a few more states?” quipped a senior House Republican aide. “Everything he touched turned to crap.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/everything-obama-touched-turned-to-crap/article/2555788
-
I can't say I agree with the Chinese on much of anything but they are spot on with that last statement.
Given his party's miserable set of US mid-term election results President Barack Obama will, of course, have been bracing himself for plenty of harsh criticism.
But perhaps he would be surprised to hear that China's state-run media is joining in, with a blistering broadside describing his term in office as "insipid".
Even by the standards of the Global Times, a newspaper with close ties to the Communist Party and known for its strident editorials, the language is blunt.
With Mr Obama due to arrive in Beijing for an international summit in just a few days' time, the article describes him as a man who "dares to do nothing".
US society, it says, has grown tired of his "banality" and, as a result of the mid-terms, "the lame-duck president will be further crippled".
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03096/Obama-China_3096247b.jpg)
-
So Much for the World Respecting Us; This Piece of Art in Russia Says Otherwise
November 3, 2014 By Jennifer Burke
Barack Obama and the Democrats stated over and over again that our country suffered in the area of respect around the world because of George W. Bush, who they degradingly referred to as a ‘Cowboy President’ because of his Texas accent and background. They said that the world no longer respected us, but claimed that under Obama that would change.
Obama told the country that he would raise the sea levels, get terrorists to like us by simply having a conversation with them, and all around make America be loved by the world. Forget being feared as the dominant world power, he would diminish that for he believes we have no business holding such a powerful role.
Six years into his presidency, chaos and terrorism in the world are out of control and it seems as though we have entered into another Cold War with Russia which had previously ended under Ronald Reagan when he made a bold demand regarding the Berlin Wall to Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev. His words, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” were the beginning of the end of the ‘Evil Empire.” Under Obama, the chill of the Cold War looks to be returning.
Putin’s march across the Ukraine, despite Obama’s vague and not followed through threats, was a signal a massive level of disrespect towards Obama and America by Putin and Russia. Now, an art gallery entitled, “No Filter’ depicts just how little respect Putin has for Obama to the embarrassment of America
While the gallery shows Putin as a strong leader and Obama has a weakling in many a piece of art, one piece plays into the fact that Obama operates as a petulant child who has never been told no.
In this piece, a larger than life Putin is pictured with Barack Obama, with the body of a school boy, laid across his lap getting a spanking.
(http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/targeted-sanctions-andrew-makh.jpg)
Do you think that looks like the world respects America under the Obama presidency?
The piece is called ‘Targeted Sanctions” and specifically takes a mocking swipe at American economic policy, sanctions, in response to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/03/so-much-for-the-world-respecting-us-this-piece-of-art-in-russia-says-otherwise/
-
And the sad part of is, Obama will probably be over there sometime next month playing kiss ass to the same group of people who have absolutely zero respect for him.
(http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/targeted-sanctions-andrew-makh.jpg)
-
OP-
You should have put quotes around the word Leadership in the thread title.
-
OP-
You should have put quotes around the word Leadership in the thread title.
True. :-\
-
Why is the president in China on Veterans Day dressed like this?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/10/1415628501637_Image_galleryImage_US_President_Barack_Obama.JPG)
-
Why is the president in China on Veterans Day dressed like this?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/10/1415628501637_Image_galleryImage_US_President_Barack_Obama.JPG)
Getting on the good side of our new overlords.
-
Hagel Unchained: Departing Defense Secretary Fires Parting Shots in Interview Last Week
November 24, 2014
Departing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may have sealed his exit in this interview with Charlie Rose last week. Rose conducted the interview at the Pentagon.
In the interview, Hagel made two key points that serve as accusations that President Barack Obama is mismanaging the United States military and the ISIS threat.
Rose asked Hagel to elaborate on comments that he made in a speech at the Reagan Library last weekend. In that speech, Hagel said that America’s military capability, while still the best in the world, is being threatened.
Hagel re-iterated that to Rose, but also left viewers to wonder about the direction that President Obama is taking the military.
“I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, including Pentagon leadership but leaving both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s names out of his list of officials who are worried about the U.S. military’s declining capability. Hagel said that the Congress and the American people need to know what while the U.S. military remains the strongest, best trained and most motivated in the world, its lead is being threatened because of policies being implemented now.
Hagel went on to note that a good leader prepares their institution for future success, saying that “the main responsibility of any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. If you don’t do that, you’ve failed. I don’t care how good you are, how smart you are, any part of your job. If you don’t prepare your institution, you’ve failed.”
In the past couple of years, Hagel has warned that defense budget cuts implemented under President Obama were hurting readiness and capability. The “how smart you are” line may be a veiled shot at President Obama, who basks in a media image that he is a cerebral, professorial president.
In the same interview (video on the next page), Hagel also commented on the rise of ISIS and how it must be fought. Hagel charged that Obama’s handling of the ISIS threat is now indirectly assisting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/24/hagel-unchained-departing-defense-secretary-fire-parting-shots-in-interview-last-week/
-
Good grief.
Obama: 'I Spend Most of My Time Watching ESPN in the Morning'
Friday, 12 Dec 2014
President Barack Obama has made a shocking admission — he spends most of his mornings watching sports news on ESPN.
The commander in chief told Colin Cowherd on “The Herd” radio show that he finds the focus on politics on such channels as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC a little overwhelming, The Washington Free Beacon reported.
“Listen, I spend most of my time watching ESPN in the morning,” Obama said. “I get so much politics I don’t, you know, want to be inundated with a bunch of chatter about politics during the day.”
It was not clear whether Obama was sitting in front of the TV while he was supposedly running the country or whether ESPN was on in the background while he was actually working.
Two months ago, a report by the Government Accountability Institute, an investigative research organization, said the president went to only 42.1 percent of his intelligence meetings, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB.
Obama was appearing on “The Herd” on Friday morning as well as on “American Idol” host Ryan Seacrest’s radio show to promote Obamacare, according to The Washington Examiner.
The president is hoping to encourage people to sign up with the health insurance exchanges by Dec. 15.
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/ESPN-The-Herd/2014/12/12/id/612708/#ixzz3LiArNYP5
-
Not surprising
-
Jonathan Turley: 'Obama Doesn't Have License to Go It Alone'
Thursday, 18 Dec 2014
By Greg Richter
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley is a longtime critic of what he terms executive overreach by President Barack Obama, but he told Fox News that his use now of "memoranda" pulls even further from James Madison’s idea of the separation of powers.
"We’re becoming even less formal," Turley said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity." "We’ve gone from presidential orders to memoranda, and we’re de-evolving in that sense away from what the framers wanted."
Turley said he voted for Obama and agrees with much of his agenda, but not with how he is instituting it. He has testified before Congress that the legislative branch is willingly giving up its power to the president by not challenging his overuse of executive orders on gun control, Obamacare, and now immigration.
USA Today examined Obama’s use of executive orders and executive memoranda, finding he actually has issued more memoranda than orders.
Obama has claimed he hasn’t used as many executive orders as previous presidents, which is true, but USA Today notes that the memoranda have the same force of law as do orders, making them essentially no different except in name.
When combined, Obama has issued more executive actions per year in office than any president since Jimmy Carter.
"We don’t have a license to go it alone in the United States," Turley told Fox’s Sean Hannity.
Turley warns that America is at a constitutional tipping point, facing a country where the president has far more power than the legislative or judicial branches.
"That’s what makes this so dangerous. We are dealing with what is becoming a different type of system," he said.
The framers of the Constitution believed the separation of powers would protect individual liberty, he said, and an imperial president could eventually erode personal freedoms.
He said lawsuits challenging Obama’s executive actions are one way to combat him. And Congress has power of the purse, but Obama has shown there are limits even to that, he said.
Obama ordered changes to healthcare unilaterally, and did not get appropriations to fund it, Turley noted, and, "The Libyan war was funded entirely out of discretionary funds."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/orders-obama-memoranda-constitution/2014/12/18/id/613719/#ixzz3MHCLAIFa
-
Does not surprise me.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=562891.0
Criticism mounts over thin US presence at Paris rally, Kerry schedules France visit
Published January 12, 2015
FoxNews.com
Criticism mounted Monday over President Obama's muted response to Sunday's massive rally in Paris against Islamic terror, a historic show of unity that drew more than a million people, including more than 40 world leaders -- but none higher representing the U.S. than its ambassador to France -- as the White House continued to avoid calling last week's attacks an act of Islamic terror.
Secretary of State John Kerry dismissed the criticism as "quibbling," and announced a trip to the French capital later this week.
While the administration dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder and a top homeland security official to Paris for meetings over the weekend, the only U.S. official of note to attend Sunday's rally was Ambassador Jane Hartley.
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Paris told Fox News that Holder did not attend Sunday's march because he was "not available at the time."
But on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned the logic in even sending Holder for the Paris counterterrorism meetings, suggesting the president is not confronting the matter as Islamic terrorism.
"Last time I checked we're at war. I wouldn't send my attorney general if I were president to deal with Islamic radical terrorists. We're at war here," Graham said. "[Obama] thinks it's a crime out of control."
Speaking on CBS News, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., suggested he can understand how security may have played a role in the decision for Obama not to attend but said, "I think, in hindsight, I would hope they would do it differently" next time.
Others were tough on the administration's decision.
"Not an excuse in universe can explain why US failed to send to Paris a more visible rep. than Holder," tweeted Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official who now works at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, calling Obama, Kerry and Vice President Biden "MIAs."
James Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral who previously led U.S. European Command, also said on Twitter: "I wish our US President had gone to Paris to stand with our European allies."
Amid the criticism, Kerry, who is traveling on official business in India, rearranged his schedule to make it to Paris later in the week. He announced his plans at a press conference in the Indian city of Ahmedabad, where he had made a long-scheduled appearance at an international investment conference Sunday ahead of Obama's planned visit to that country later this month.
"I would have personally very much wanted to have been [in Paris]," Kerry said, "but couldn't do so because of the commitment that I had here and it is important to keep these kinds of commitments."
When asked about criticism directed at the Obama administration for not sending a high-ranking official to take part in the march, Kerry said, "I really think that this is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador [to France Jane Hartley] was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched."
Nuland attended a march in Washington.
A senior administration official stressed that Hartley attended the Paris march, and that Obama has shown U.S. solidarity with France by placing a call to their president, stopping by the French embassy and directing U.S. officials to work on helping the French in the wake of last week's terror attack.
The official also said "it is worth noting that the security requirements for both the President and VP can be distracting from events like this -- this event is not about us."
Kerry, at the news conference, said that U.S. officials, including himself and Obama, had been "deeply engaged" with French authorities almost immediately after the first attack occurred Wednesday and had offered intelligence assistance.
More than 40 world leaders -- press reports put the number at 44 -- along with more than a million ordinary French citizens, marched arm in arm through the streets of Paris Sunday to rally for unity and freedom of expression and to honor the 17 victims killed in three separate terror attacks last week.
Among the world leaders who did march, under heavy security, were French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, tweeted, "What's missing in this picture? American leaders. Even Palestinian and Israeli leaders in front line of Paris march."
Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, in a column on FoxNews.com, said Obama has "morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world." The decision to stay in Washington, Schoen wrote, "sent a clear message to the world: Obama just doesn't care."
He also lamented that Obama "is the only Western leader who has refused to call this attack Islamic terrorism, even though President Hollande has declared that France is it at war with radical Islam."
Kerry said he is going to France to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with America's oldest ally. He said as soon as he heard about the march, he asked his team what the earliest time was that he could go.
"That is why I am going there on the way home and to make it crystal clear how passionately we feel about the events that have taken place there," he said. "I don't think the people of France have any doubt about America's understanding about what happened, about our personal sense of loss and our deep commitment to the people of France in this moment of trial."
Kerry will arrive in Paris on Thursday after stops in Sofia, Bulgaria and Geneva, Switzerland. Kerry will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit France since the terrorist attacks on a French newspaper and a kosher supermarket. Authorities say one of those involved in the attacks pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group in a video. He and two other suspected extremists were killed during police raids.
Meanwhile, the White House said Sunday it will hold an international summit next month in Washington on thwarting violent extremism.
The summit is scheduled for Feb. 18 and will focus on domestic and international efforts to "prevent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting and inspiring individuals and groups in the United States and abroad from committing acts of violence," the White House said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/12/kerry-announces-planned-paris-trip-says-criticism-for-missing-march-quibbling/
-
Funny and sad at the same time.
-
Lead on Mr. President.
Obama spent more for dinner in Hawaii than his SOTU tax credit for families
BY PAUL BEDARD | JANUARY 20, 2015
President Obama's "two-earner" tax credit isn't such a big deal. AP Photo
Such a deal.
Among the highlights of President Obama’s State of the Union address plans to pull the American family out of economic plight is a $500 tax credit for two-earner families.
Here’s how the White House presented it in a fact sheet: “Provide a new, simple tax credit to two-earner families. The president will propose a new $500 second earner credit to help cover the additional costs faced by families in which both spouses work — benefiting 24 million couples.”
The provision is included in his effort “to help middle class families get ahead.” Like who? Administration officials said families earning up to $210,000 would get a piece of the tax credit. That is four-times the earning of the “typical” middle class income of $51,939 calculated by the Obama-supporting Center for American Progress.
There is an "intensity gap" in the abortion fight, and it favors young anti-abortion advocates.
It’s to pay for the added commuter and child care costs of two-earner families, but it wouldn’t cover much.
Take child day care. The just-out Child Care Aware of America’s 2014 report said the child care price for an infant can reach $14,508 a year or $279 a week.
At that rate, the $500 credit wouldn’t cover two weeks of infant care. For a four-year-old, the costs can reach $12,280, or $236 a week, meaning the credit would just cover two weeks of fees. The report is below.
Ditto for commuter costs. Take Columbus, Ohio, as the example. The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s “Affordability Index” puts the cost of “average annual transportation” at $14,001. That’s about $538 every two weeks, or more than enough to eat the president’s tax credit.
Put another way, the credit wouldn't even cover the tab for two at Hawaii's Vintage Cave restaurant where the president and first lady dined on New Year's Day. It costs $295 per person, and doesn't even include wine.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-two-earner-tax-credit-wouldnt-cover-two-weeks-of-infant-care-or-commuter-costs/article/2558919
-
Disrespecting one of our closest allies? Brilliant leadership.
Leak week: Obama team shows signs of strain as anonymous officials take gripes to media
Published October 31, 2014
FoxNews.com
Trouble-making personnel inside the Obama administration have taken to the press at a steady clip in recent days to badmouth senior officials, as well as a key American ally. And as President Obama enters his seventh year in office, the whispers and potshots are running the risk of undermining the once-cohesive image of the "no drama Obama" team.
Whether it's a few leaky apples or the sign of a larger morale problem is unclear. But several stories with sharp-edged quotes attributed to unnamed administration officials have culminated in an embarrassing week for the White House -- complete with plenty of backpedaling and clarifications to assert a polished narrative that all is well.
But the tarnish may be showing.
Frustrated officials have started to air their grievances on everything from the current relationship between the U.S. and Israel to the military response in Syria.
The latest batch of stories started on Monday, when The Atlantic magazine quoted an anonymous official describing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit.” The comment follows weeks of heated exchanges between Netanyahu’s government and Washington over disputed settlement-building.
“The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” the official was quoted as saying.
The article caused a furor, as Republicans demanded accountability for the anonymous insult to America's ally. White House and State Department officials insisted the remark does not reflect the administration's views, and White House officials reportedly were calling lawmakers to hammer home that point.
Not everyone was buying the administration's contrite tone. Fox News contributor Judith Miller suggested that comment was "authorized," to "send a message to Israel."
But other comments clearly were not green-lighted by the White House. In the latest episode, ticked-off military officials told The Daily Beast they were frustrated by the tight constraints the White House is placing on them in the war against the Islamic State in Syria.
Disgruntled officers and civilian Pentagon leaders reportedly claimed that National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who is calling much of the shots on U.S. operations in Syria, is “obsessed with the tiniest of details” and referred to the process as “manic.”
The White House reportedly has instructed the military to keep the war contained within policy limits which include restrictions on which rebels can be trained to fight and what their roles will be in the field. The sources said Rice’s micro-managing of basic operational details is tying their hands and holding up progress.
Earlier, on Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also was a critic of the White House strategy in Syria. Hagel recently wrote a memo to Rice warning that the current strategy was too unfocused and didn’t clearly address U.S. intentions and how it relates to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, the Times reported.
Hagel did not back off his comments on Thursday, saying, “We owe the president and we owe the National Security Council our best thinking on this. And it has to be honest and it has to be direct.”
The perception of a harmonious Cabinet was further dented following another claim in the Times article that officials routinely joked Secretary of State John Kerry is like the astronaut Sandra Bullock plays in the movie “Gravity,” and that he’s “somersaulting through space, un-tethered from the White House.”
The article seemed to suggest that Obama’s once tight-knit circle of confidants has come apart in recent months as more and more staff members resign or retire. Personnel shakeups have led some to question the effectiveness of the president’s crisis-management teams.
The comments prompted Earnest and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to come to Kerry’s defense. Sort of.
“Those of us working every day at [the] White House aren’t distracted by sometimes colorful, sometimes problematic, and in the case of Sandra Bullock, sometimes amusing comments,” Earnest told reporters.
McDonough also defended Obama’s chief diplomat, telling Bloomberg Television “that picture of Secretary Kerry is not what I witness.” He added that Obama and Kerry meet regularly and described the relationship as “very solid.”
McDonough also refuted rumors of a rift between Kerry and Rice, insisting they have a collaborative relationship.
Whether the administration is hunting down the officials quoted remains to be seen. Earnest gave no indication there would be a vigorous hunt for the official behind the Netanyahu dig.
The shots aren't just coming from inside the administration, either. On a lighter note, another influential figure badmouthed the president this week -- Michael Jordan.
When asked about the president’s golf game during a recent interview Jordan said, “I’ve never played with Obama, but I would.” He added, “I’d take him out. He’s a hack and I’d be all day playing with him … I never said he wasn’t a great politician. I’m just saying he’s a shi--y golfer.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/tough-week-for-obama-as-frustrated-officials-air-their-grievances-to-media/
Not surprised.
Netanyahu to address Congress on March 3, Obama not planning to meet with him
Published January 22, 2015
FoxNews.com
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address Congress on March 3, House Speaker John Boehner announced Thursday -- though President Obama does not plan to meet with him.
The House speaker had invited Netanyahu to speak to lawmakers about the threat from Iran. The announcement caught the president off-guard, as the invitation was not cleared first with the Obama administration; such invitations typically are coordinated with the White House and State Department.
Asked Thursday about the visit, the White House said Obama would not meet with him, citing the country's upcoming elections. Spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said that in keeping with "long-standing practice and principle," the president does not meet with heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said it was inappropriate for Boehner to invite Netanyahu to address Congress in the shadow of that election and give the appearance of endorsing the prime minister. "If that's the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit two weeks before his own election, right in the midst of our negotiations, I just don't think it's appropriate and helpful," Pelosi said.
But Boehner cast the invitation as part of Congress' effort to stay tough on Iran, as the Obama administration forges a possible nuclear deal with the country. Boehner on Wednesday denied any suggestion he was "poking [the White House] in the eye," though White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted the invitation was a breach in protocol.
Boehner originally asked Netanyahu to speak in February. His office now says the prime minister will address a joint session of Congress on March 3. A source told Fox News the Israeli leader requested the date be changed so he only would have to make one trip to the U.S. before Israeli elections; he also plans to attend an AIPAC conference in Washington at the time.
Boehner had announced the invitation a day after Obama delivered his State of the Union address, in which he threatened to veto a bill -- backed by Republicans and some Democrats -- to tee up more sanctions against Iran in case negotiations fail to curtail the country's nuclear enrichment program.
Obama warned the legislation would "all but guarantee that diplomacy fails."
But Boehner told members of the GOP House Conference on Wednesday morning they would not sit on the legislation. "Let's send a clear message to the White House -- and the world -- about our commitment to Israel and our allies," he said.
Boehner signaled he wants Netanyahu to explain the stakes of the debate to Congress.
The address would mark his third appearance before a joint session of Congress and his second during Boehner's speakership. His previous addresses were in July 1996 and May 2011.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/22/netanyahu-to-address-congress-on-march-3-boehner-says/?intcmp=trending
-
Good job leader of the free world.
Netanyahu Gets a Congratulatory Call . . . From India’s PM
Posted on March 18, 2015, 11:32 am by Keith Koffler
Now this will be very interesting, to see how the White House handles Netanyahu’s win.
It’s their worst nightmare, of course. Not only did the hated Netanyahu cruise to victory, but he did it opposing President Obama’s key Middle East policies: a nuclear deal favorable to Iran and a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.
Who will call first? Obama or Netanyahu? The answer is, apparently – the prime minister of India.
From Israel’s i24 News:
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi joined the ranks of world leaders who congratulated Netanyahu on the victory, going one step further and delivering his message in Hebrew.
“מזל טוב ידידי Bibi @Netanyahu אני זוכר את פגישתנו הנעימה בניו יורק בספטמבר האחרון,” read the post on Modi’s official Twitter account; it translates as “Congratulations my dear friend Bibi, I remember our pleasant meeting in New York last September.”
Obama will probably call Netanyahu soon, because it will make him feel like he’s being big about things. And then he will freeze Netanyahu out as much as possible. Because if Obama thinks he can do U.S. affairs without Congress, certainly he thinks he can do the Middle East without Israel.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/18/netanyahu-congratulatory-call-indias-pm/
-
(http://obamalies.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obama_lies.jpg)
-
(http://obamalies.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obama_lies.jpg)
That's been my catch phrase around here for years now..."if Barack Obama opens his mouth he's lying"
-
His laziness goes way back. A pattern of skipping meetings and not working hard. :-\
Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “The professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified & never attended any of the faculty meetings”
Joshua Riddle
September 17, 2013
Yeah, this sounds like pretty typical Obama if you ask me…
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
Doug Ross reported this and more:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
http://www.youngcons.com/chicago-law-prof-on-obama-the-professors-hated-him-because-he-was-lazy-unqualified-never-attended-any-of-the-faculty-meetings/
-
Reporter Asks Obama An Unexpected Question And He Does NOT React Well
Michael Cantrell
March 20, 2015
If you’re ever given an opportunity to ask President Obama a question, it better be about the topic he’s already speaking on, or else he might get his boxers in a bunch and get a little snarky.
Associated Press reporter Mark Smith asked the president a question about negotiations with Iran while Obama was speaking about his new executive order to save the planet–feel free to roll your eyes–which apparently didn’t sit well with the Commander-In-Chief and resulted in the two getting into a tiff.
From TheBlaze:
After Obama finished speaking at the Department of Energy, a reporter asked the president if there had been any “progress” on the “Iran talks.”
Obama quickly undercut the question, proclaiming, “I’m sorry, we’re talking about energy. It’s a great story. So, hopefully you’ll focus on it.”
“We gotta try, sir,” Smith then replied.
“This is a really important story,” Obama shot back.
“And there are often more than one at a time, sir,” the reporter rebutted.
“Yeah, but this one really matters,” Obama added.
Is it just me or is hearing this man speak a lot like someone running their nails down a chalkboard?
How many more days do we have to put up with this guy’s arrogance and pomp?
Whenever the president is challenged on something he immediately reverts back to his toddler days, being whiny, aggressive, and just plain childish.
There are ways he could’ve handled the situation better that wouldn’t have made him look like a self-serving politician– that’s what he is, so I guess he’s just being true to himself–but that’s not the road he took.
Let’s hope the next occupant of the Oval Office actually acts like an adult instead of a whiny 3-year-old stuck in the body of a 53-year-old man.
http://www.youngcons.com/reporter-asks-obama-an-unexpected-question-and-he-does-not-react-well/
-
Brilliant.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/880/558/bergdahl%20parents%20obama%20reuters.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
President Obama stands with Bob Bergdahl (R) and Jami Bergdahl (L) as he delivers a statement about the release of their son, prisoner of war U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington May 31, 2014. (Reuters)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/
-
He has taken a number of vacations, including pretty much every holiday, and has not spent one of them with the troops. I think he can show a great deal of leadership by spending Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. down range. Instead, he does things like spend Christmas on the one of nicest beaches on earth, takes a small break to go meet with Marines on one of the nicest military installations in the country (location wise). I am not impressed.
Obama, military mingle
The president visits service members and their families at the Kaneohe Marine base
By Craig Gima
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 26, 2010
President Barack Obama took time out of a quiet Christmas with family, friends and basketball to greet servicemen and women during their Christmas dinner on the Marine Corps Base Hawaii yesterday afternoon.
The president and first lady Michelle Obama posed for pictures, shook hands, hugged children and picked up babies. The president even joked about his busted lip.
"I don't think he left before he got a chance to shake hands with everyone who was there," said Maj. Alan Crouch, the public affairs officer for the base. "He seemed appreciative of the service members and family members. It seemed like he got a lot out of it, as well."
The unannounced visit to Anderson Hall happened at about 3:30 p.m. but may not have been much of a surprise. Obama visited with service members at the same dining hall at the same base at about the same times during his last two vacations in Hawaii.
About 200 service members and their families got to meet the president and first lady.
Marines from Kaneohe were part of the surge in Afghanistan ordered by Obama last year. About 1,400 Marines—the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment and a helicopter squadron—deployed to Helmand province in 2009. Some of the Marines went directly from Iraq to Afghanistan to be part of the surge.
Marines and sailors from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Regiment just returned from Afghanistan earlier this month.
The 3rd Battalion, which left Hawaii in May, lost at least three Marines during the seven-month deployment in the Nawa district.
The base's three infantry battalions rotate to southern Afghanistan. The 2nd Battalion is back in Helmand.
The president and his wife spent more than an hour shaking hands and hugging service members who had arrived for a Christmas dinner of prime rib, turkey, ham, stuffing, potatoes, vegetables, salad, pie, pastries and soft-serve ice cream.
"Hey, guys, merry Christmas. How are you?" the president asked Lisa Lao, 21, and Maha Lao, 23, sitting at a booth with their two children.
Obama picked up 3-month-old Jensen Lao and bounced him a couple of times.
"Merry Christmas, Mr. President," one little boy called out.
"Did you get everything you wanted?" Obama asked a little girl. She showed him a new bracelet and the president pointed to Michelle Obama, who also had a new bracelet, and the first lady and the little girl compared bracelets.
With U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and other outposts around the world, the Obamas also used the president's weekly radio and Internet address to encourage Americans to find ways to support service members during the holiday season.
"Let's all remind them this holiday season that we're thinking of them, and that America will forever be here for them, just as they've been there for us," the president said.
Mrs. Obama, who has made working with military families one of her priorities as first lady, said Americans don't need to be experts in military life to give back to those who serve their country. She urged the public to reach out through their schools and churches, or volunteer with organizations that support military families.
"Anybody can send a care package or prepaid calling card to the front lines, or give what's sometimes the most important gift of all: simply saying thank you," Mrs. Obama said.
As the president moved down a dining table, he encountered a large man, taller than the president, wearing a Dallas Cowboys T-shirt.
"We've got to get you on the court," Obama quipped. "I will not get an elbow in the lip if we play with this guy."
Alan Rogers, a chaplain at the base; his wife, Lisa; daughters Sarah and Laurin; and sons John and Jackson spent several minutes talking with the president and first lady about sports, school and another son—Lance Cpl. Jacob Rogers, now serving in Afghanistan.
"It was very affirming," said Sarah Rogers. "The first family recognizes all the sacrafices we make as a military family. They took the time to talk to us about our lives and our brother in Afghanistan."
The public appearance contrasts with the rest of the president's Christmas Day, spent at a luxurious oceanfront home in Kailua with his wife and daughters, Malia and Sasha. The first family celebrated Christmas with a small circle of friends and family, including some of Obama's childhood friends and the president's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who lives here on Oahu, the island where Obama was born and spent much of his childhood.
The Obamas dined on steak, roasted potatoes, green beans and pie, and the sports-obsessed president got a chance to relax and watch some basketball.
The president's Christmas has been far quieter than last year's holiday, when a 23-year-old Nigerian man allegedly attempted to blow up a plane bound for Detroit. The incident raised questions about the nation's terror readiness and consumed the rest of Obama's vacation.
Thus far, Obama's excursions in Hawaii have been mostly to the gym and golf course, although he skipped the gym yesterday morning. On Christmas Eve, he went to the beach with his daughters.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101226_Obama_military_mingle.html
I guess black guys are not supposed to take vacations
-
Brilliant.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/880/558/bergdahl%20parents%20obama%20reuters.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
President Obama stands with Bob Bergdahl (R) and Jami Bergdahl (L) as he delivers a statement about the release of their son, prisoner of war U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington May 31, 2014. (Reuters)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/
Disgraceful.
-
I guess black guys are not supposed to take vacations
::)
-
Disgraceful.
Yep.
-
::)
it been proven that Obama has taken way less vacation than other presdients before him...yet again he is being held to a different standard than your average white president
-
I guess black guys are not supposed to take vacations
They dont need vacations they never work anyway :P
-
They dont need vacations they never work anyway :P
unfortunately according to some...........yes
-
unfortunately according to some...........yes
Some= Beach Bum and James?
-
Some= Beach Bum and James?
of course...along with SC, Coach, Tomy.....
-
of course...along with SC, Coach, Tomy.....
Ahh the KKK crowd..
-
it been proven that Obama has taken way less vacation than other presdients before him...yet again he is being held to a different standard than your average white president
Who cares what other presidents did? This president was supposed to be different.
-
Who cares what other presidents did? This president was supposed to be different.
Every time its been proven that other presidents have an unfavorable record in certain things in comparison to Obama you and the other idiots respond with who cares what the other presidents did, or why are you bringing up other presidents....the comparison is made to expose hypocrisy which you seem to be very good at...you used to be a pretty fair poster but like I said recently you are basically heading toward SC and coach territory....
I am getting really tired of destroying you in term of Obama arguments
-
Every time its been proven that other presidents have an unfavorable record in certain things in comparison to Obama you and the other idiots respond with who cares what the other presidents did, or why are you bringing up other presidents....the comparison is made to expose hypocrisy which you seem to be very good at...you used to be a pretty fair poster but like I said recently you are basically heading toward SC and coach territory....
I am getting really tired of destroying you in term of Obama arguments
You and other liberal lackeys like you bring up Bush et al. to make a moral equivalency argument. You cannot justify current bad acts by pointing to the bad acts of others. It doesn't make any Obama's conduct any better. It actually makes him look much worse, because he campaigned on being different. He's not.
I post exactly the same way I always have.
You never destroy anyone, but you like to tell yourself that. lol
-
Not a liberal lackey at all...I was a big time Bush supporter and I never understood the hatred of the left to Bush...He was a very fair-minded president....I simply compare two situations.....and then I ask why are you getting on this guy and no one got on the other guy????????
-
Not a liberal lackey at all...I was a big time Bush supporter and I never understood the hatred of the left to Bush...He was a very fair-minded president....I simply compare two situations.....and then I ask why are you getting on this guy and no one got on the other guy????????
What difference does it make? Let's assume that people are being inconsistent with their criticism. Does that somehow transform Obama's poor decision making and poor leadership?
-
What difference does it make? Let's assume that people are being inconsistent with their racism. Does that somehow transform Obama's poor decision making and poor leadership?
FIXED FOR TRUTH......
-
FIXED FOR TRUTH......
::) Playing the race card and using moral equivalency are copouts; ways to avoid dealing with the facts. Very predictable.
-
::) Playing the race card and using moral equivalency are copouts; ways to avoid dealing with the facts. Very predictable.
`
Yes I agree...very predictable so as to deal with very predictable racism and hypocrisy
-
`
Yes I agree...very predictable so as to deal with very predictable racism and hypocrisy
While avoiding the facts.
-
While avoiding the facts.
I always put the facts out there...you and the other conservative idiots either twist it or refuse to accept it
-
I always put the facts out there...you and the other conservative idiots either twist it or refuse to accept it
Sure you do. ::)
-
Good commentary. Incredibly poor leadership.
-
Looks like the president added a little crack to his cigarettes.
Obama: My Administration Has Restored US to World Dominance
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a599174a-6669-48a9-bd2e-479ca89a6c79&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Obama: My Administration Has Restored US to World Dominance (Vano Shlamov/AFP/Getty Images)
Tuesday, 02 Jun 2015
By Melissa Clyne
During a speech Monday to the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Fellows at the White House, President Barack Obama proclaimed America "the most respected country on earth" and credited his administration with restoring the U.S. to world dominance, according to the Daily Caller.
"People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia, and today once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work we did to re-engage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners with mutual interests and mutual respect," said Obama.
"It was on that basis we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism and to try to work with our partners on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba. The nuclear deal that we are trying to negotiate with Iran."
Just days ago, Salon.com published a piece originally posted on Tomdispatch.com that reached a far different conclusion than the president’s about America’s global standing.
"Take a look around the world and it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline," the article states. "Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington’s dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?"
During South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s announcement Monday that he’s running for president, the Palmetto State’s senior senator declared that Obama "has made us less safe," according to Yahoo News.
"Simply put, radical Islam is running wild. They have more safe havens, more money, more capability and more weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Barack-Obama-administration-world-dominance/2015/06/02/id/648194/#ixzz3bvxDzQFe
-
Krauthammer: Obama Commenting on Undecided ACA Case Is Indecent
By Greg Richter | Monday, 08 Jun 2015
President Barack Obama committed "constitutional indecency" when he criticized the Supreme Court for taking up a case challenging Obamacare subsidies, said conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer.
"This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't have even been taken up," Obama told reporters at the G7 Summit in Germany on Monday. "It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words and a couple-thousand-page piece of legislation."
Obama further said he is optimistic the Supreme Court will "play it straight when it comes to interpretation."
A court ruling is expected this month, and if it goes against the president's wishes of subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges, it would strike a blow to the law.
Krauthammer, appearing as a panelist Monday on Fox News Channel's "Special Report," said Obama "stepped over the bounds" when he criticized the Citizens United ruling he didn't like, but at least in that case he waited until after the ruling was announced to condemn it.
"But here, for the president to speak out and … impugn the motives of any justice who rules against him by saying in advance it will be a twisted interpretation … it's a pattern in which he steps over the boundaries of what the executive ought to do."
Obama's comments are not illegal, but show no respect for the Constitution, Krauthammer said.
"He did not swear an oath to provide subsidies for healthcare. He swore an oath to defend, essentially to respect the Constitution," he said.
Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling said it was "mind-boggling to me he used to teach law."
Obama appears to want a "unilateral Obamacare do-over," Hensarling said Monday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."
The statute is clear that one must be part of a state exchange to receive a subsidy, he said, "and now the president saying well, we really didn't mean that, and so this is what we really meant. Well, unfortunately the English language gets in the way, and, again, this is the president eroding the rule of law. If I was on the Supreme Court I would be offended."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-supreme-court-indecent/2015/06/08/id/649436/#ixzz3cgi48BWE
-
Krauthammer: Obama Commenting on Undecided ACA Case Is Indecent
By Greg Richter | Monday, 08 Jun 2015
President Barack Obama committed "constitutional indecency" when he criticized the Supreme Court for taking up a case challenging Obamacare subsidies, said conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer.
"This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't have even been taken up," Obama told reporters at the G7 Summit in Germany on Monday. "It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words and a couple-thousand-page piece of legislation."
Obama further said he is optimistic the Supreme Court will "play it straight when it comes to interpretation."
A court ruling is expected this month, and if it goes against the president's wishes of subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges, it would strike a blow to the law.
Krauthammer, appearing as a panelist Monday on Fox News Channel's "Special Report," said Obama "stepped over the bounds" when he criticized the Citizens United ruling he didn't like, but at least in that case he waited until after the ruling was announced to condemn it.
"But here, for the president to speak out and … impugn the motives of any justice who rules against him by saying in advance it will be a twisted interpretation … it's a pattern in which he steps over the boundaries of what the executive ought to do."
Obama's comments are not illegal, but show no respect for the Constitution, Krauthammer said.
"He did not swear an oath to provide subsidies for healthcare. He swore an oath to defend, essentially to respect the Constitution," he said.
Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling said it was "mind-boggling to me he used to teach law."
Obama appears to want a "unilateral Obamacare do-over," Hensarling said Monday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."
The statute is clear that one must be part of a state exchange to receive a subsidy, he said, "and now the president saying well, we really didn't mean that, and so this is what we really meant. Well, unfortunately the English language gets in the way, and, again, this is the president eroding the rule of law. If I was on the Supreme Court I would be offended."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-supreme-court-indecent/2015/06/08/id/649436/#ixzz3cgi48BWE
oh brother ::)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmpNFl0CAAA4UHH.jpg:large)
-
His leadership didn't do so hot in Kenya.
Kenya’s President Did NOT Like What Obama Said To His Country And He Let The Whole World Know It
Kenyatta’s opposition to Obama reflects Kenyan society.
Jack Davis
July 27, 2015
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has made it clear that President Obama was speaking to the wrong congregation when he urged Kenyans to embrace gay rights.
During a Saturday news conference in Nairobi, Kenya, at the start of his trip to Africa, Obama equated the denial of gay rights with racism. “As an African-American, I am painfully aware of what happens when people are treated differently under the law,” Obama said.
Kenyatta replied that although there are many areas of agreement between Kenya and the United States, Obama found an area where the two nations disagree.
“There are some things that we must admit we don’t share, our culture, our societies don’t accept,” Kenyatta said. “For Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue. We want to focus on other issues that really are day-to-day issues for our people.”
Obama’s call for gay rights came despite pre-visit requests from Kenyan politicians and religious leaders to leave the issue alone.
“We do not want him to come and talk on homosexuality in Kenya or push us to accepting that which is against our faith and culture,” said Mark Kariuki, the key architect of the letter. Kariuki leads an alliance representing 38,000 churches and 10 million Kenyan Christians.
“The family is the strength of a nation. If the family is destroyed, then the nation is destroyed,” Kariuki said. “So we don’t want to open doors for our nation to be destroyed!”
Kenyatta’s opposition to Obama reflects Kenyan society. A 2007 Pew Global study found that 96% of Kenyans surveyed believe that homosexuality should be rejected. Forty-one percent of American respondents felt that way at the time of the poll.
Kenyan law makes sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender illegal and punishable by a maximum jail sentence of 14 years in most cases.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/kenyas-president-did-not-like-what-obama-said-to-his-country-and-he-let-the-whole-world-know-it/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2015-07-27
-
Looks like the president added a little crack to his cigarettes.
Obama: My Administration Has Restored US to World Dominance
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a599174a-6669-48a9-bd2e-479ca89a6c79&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Obama: My Administration Has Restored US to World Dominance (Vano Shlamov/AFP/Getty Images)
Tuesday, 02 Jun 2015
By Melissa Clyne
During a speech Monday to the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative Fellows at the White House, President Barack Obama proclaimed America "the most respected country on earth" and credited his administration with restoring the U.S. to world dominance, according to the Daily Caller.
"People don’t remember, but when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia, and today once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work we did to re-engage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners with mutual interests and mutual respect," said Obama.
"It was on that basis we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism and to try to work with our partners on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba. The nuclear deal that we are trying to negotiate with Iran."
Just days ago, Salon.com published a piece originally posted on Tomdispatch.com that reached a far different conclusion than the president’s about America’s global standing.
"Take a look around the world and it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline," the article states. "Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington’s dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?"
During South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s announcement Monday that he’s running for president, the Palmetto State’s senior senator declared that Obama "has made us less safe," according to Yahoo News.
"Simply put, radical Islam is running wild. They have more safe havens, more money, more capability and more weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11."
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Barack-Obama-administration-world-dominance/2015/06/02/id/648194/#ixzz3bvxDzQFe
The world is a more complex and difficult place..the U.S cannot dictate to the world anymore but the world still can't do without the U.S.....most countries in th world are on the decline (especially western Europe)....Russia and England are both declining powers and China can't beat the U.s military yet
-
His leadership didn't do so hot in Kenya.
Kenya’s President Did NOT Like What Obama Said To His Country And He Let The Whole World Know It
obama shit all over their abuse of women. So yes, the kenyan leadership is going to be upset with it.
Personally, I side with pro-women statements from an american, not anti-women sentiment from foreigners. but you're free to feel any way you wish.
-
The world is a more complex and difficult place..the U.S cannot dictate to the world anymore but the world still can't do without the U.S.....most countries in th world are on the decline (especially western Europe)....Russia and England are both declining powers and China can't beat the U.s military yet
He sounds like a little kid sometimes. What's just as bad is a lot of people just accept some of the really asinine stuff he says.
-
Hypocrisy.
Obama? Rule of Law?
Posted on September 4, 2015
by Keith Koffler
The Obama White House could have stayed out of a local matter, as it often does.
Or it could have just said it believed that local officials were enforcing the law and supported that.
But no. Instead, it offered up a treacly blob of sanctimony to express its commitment to “the rule of law” in supporting the jailing of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
No matter that flouting the rule of law has been a hallmark of the Obama administration lo these many years.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the president’s thoughts on the Davis matter.
Earnest
“I’m obviously limited in what I can say given the ongoing court activity,” Earnest said, which would be news to anyone who followed President Obama’s opining on the Trayvon Martin matter as the investigation was just getting underway.
“I will just say on principle that the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law,” Earnest deadpanned.
“And there is no public official that is above the rule of law. Certainly not the president of the United States. But neither is the Rowan county clerk,” Earnest continued, implying guilt on the part of Davis and obviously feeling suddenly less limited in what he could say.
“That’s a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution and in our democracy. And it’s one that obviously the courts are seeking to uphold.”
In case you are getting teary-eyed with patriotic sentimentality at this point, remember that this White House has issued not a peep of concern about that its former secretary of state may have broken federal records keeping and national security laws.
And what’s more . . .
that it made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not in recess;
that it effectively put an end to the Defense of Marriage Act by simply deciding it wasn’t going to enforce it;
and that it tried to enact a wholesale change in immigration laws by refusing to enforce those, too. The matter is now before the courts, which at least temporarily put a stop to it.
The success of our democracy certainly does depend on the rule of law.
Which is why many believe democracy has been imperiled by the Obama administration.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/09/04/obama-rule-law/
-
Hypocrisy.
Obama? Rule of Law?
Posted on September 4, 2015
by Keith Koffler
The Obama White House could have stayed out of a local matter, as it often does.
Or it could have just said it believed that local officials were enforcing the law and supported that.
But no. Instead, it offered up a treacly blob of sanctimony to express its commitment to “the rule of law” in supporting the jailing of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
No matter that flouting the rule of law has been a hallmark of the Obama administration lo these many years.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the president’s thoughts on the Davis matter.
Earnest
“I’m obviously limited in what I can say given the ongoing court activity,” Earnest said, which would be news to anyone who followed President Obama’s opining on the Trayvon Martin matter as the investigation was just getting underway.
“I will just say on principle that the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law,” Earnest deadpanned.
“And there is no public official that is above the rule of law. Certainly not the president of the United States. But neither is the Rowan county clerk,” Earnest continued, implying guilt on the part of Davis and obviously feeling suddenly less limited in what he could say.
“That’s a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution and in our democracy. And it’s one that obviously the courts are seeking to uphold.”
In case you are getting teary-eyed with patriotic sentimentality at this point, remember that this White House has issued not a peep of concern about that its former secretary of state may have broken federal records keeping and national security laws.
And what’s more . . .
that it made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not in recess;
that it effectively put an end to the Defense of Marriage Act by simply deciding it wasn’t going to enforce it;
and that it tried to enact a wholesale change in immigration laws by refusing to enforce those, too. The matter is now before the courts, which at least temporarily put a stop to it.
The success of our democracy certainly does depend on the rule of law.
Which is why many believe democracy has been imperiled by the Obama administration.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/09/04/obama-rule-law/
whats your position on the Kim Davis affair?
-
whats your position on the Kim Davis affair?
Dude. There is a 17 page (and counting) thread on that subject.
But in a nutshell, I think she is ready for sainthood. :)
-
Dude. There is a 17 page (and counting) thread on that subject.
But in a nutshell, I think she is ready for sainthood. :)
so you advocate breaking the law and not performing your duties as prescribed by government law?
-
so you advocate breaking the law and not performing your duties as prescribed by government law?
No. I was joking. I have no problem with her asking for her religious beliefs to be accommodated. I think that was offered to her. She should have accepted. She's obviously violating a court order. She should have been held in contempt. She should NOT have been locked up and definitely shouldn't be held indefinitely. She should be fined and banned from the workplace until she complies with the court order or until the next election, whichever comes first.
Not sure what this has to do with Obama's leadership?
-
No. I was joking. I have no problem with her asking for her religious beliefs to be accommodated. I think that was offered to her. She should have accepted. She's obviously violating a court order. She should have been held in contempt. She should NOT have been locked up and definitely shouldn't be held indefinitely. She should be fined and banned from the workplace until she complies with the court order or until the next election, whichever comes first.
Not sure what this has to do with Obama's leadership?
you must have hit your head recently ;)....you are actually reasonable concerning this matter....I agree with your analysis
-
you must have hit your head recently ;)....you are actually reasonable concerning this matter....I agree with your analysis
Must be the heat and humidity. Stupid hurricane after hurricane passing close enough to block the trade winds.
And you agree with me? :o
-
Buyer's remorse.
Nobel Official: Obama Peace Prize Didn't Have Desired Effect
Wednesday, 16 Sep 2015
In a break with Nobel tradition, the former secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee says the 2009 award to President Barack Obama failed to live up to the panel's expectations.
Geir Lundestad writes in a book to be released on Thursday that the committee had expected the prize to deliver a boost to Obama. Instead the award was met with fierce criticism in the U.S., where many argued Obama had not been president long enough to have an impact worthy of the Nobel.
"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," Lundestad wrote in excerpts of the book read by The Associated Press. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for."
Lundestad, who stepped down last year after 25 years as the non-voting secretary of the secretive committee, noted that Obama was startled by the award and that his staff even investigated whether other winners had skipped the prize ceremony in Oslo.
That has happened only on rare occasions, such as when dissidents were held back by their governments.
"In the White House they quickly realized that they needed to travel to Oslo," Lundestad wrote.
Speaking to AP on Wednesday, Lundestad said he didn't disagree with the decision to award the president but the committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."
It is rare for Nobel officials to discuss the proceedings of the secretive committee or publicly criticize each other. But in the book Lundestad also fired a parting shot at Thorbjorn Jagland who was the committee chairman for six years and is now a regular member.
Special: Two Steps to Tightening Skin and Removing Eye Bags Overnight
Lundestad said that as a former Norwegian prime minister and sitting head of the Council of Europe human rights organization, Jagland should never have been appointed to the committee, which frequently emphasizes its independence.
Jagland declined to comment, said Daniel Holtgen, his spokesman at the Council of Europe.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/nobel-prize-obama-no/2015/09/16/id/691902/#ixzz3m0txazK5
-
didn't they give arafat a peace prize? lol
-
Is this good leadership?
Vatican at Odds With White House Over Guests for Papal Visit
By Loren Gutentag
Friday, 18 Sep 2015
As Pope Francis' first visit to the United States quickly approaches, a guest list for his welcome ceremony was revealed by the Obama administration and included guests that not only offend the Vatican, but also will test the Pope's tolerance, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The Obama administration has decided to invite transgender activists Mateo Williamson and Vivian Taylor, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, Bishop Gene Robinson and Sister Simone Campbell, an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.
Despite the Pope declaring that he doesn't believe in judging people and is ready to welcome anyone in Christ's name, he has also said that Catholics do not accept the modern mentality of transgenderism and that gay marriage is the devil's "attempt to destroy God's plan," Breitbart reports.
"This is the group Obama has personally invited to the White House to meet the Pope?" said Rush Limbaugh on "The Rush Limbaugh Show."
"Some people are saying that this is perfectly Obama. He's got the Pope coming, and he wants to insult the Pope, put pressure on the Pope, and challenge the Pope," Limbaugh added.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that he was unaware of the guest list and also reminded reporters that "there will be 15,000 other people there too."
The Wall Street Journal reports that the welcoming ceremony for the Pope will be held on the White House's South Lawn on Wednesday. According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See has noted its concerns that any photos of the Pope with these controversial guests could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/pope-francis-white-house-visit/2015/09/18/id/692202/#ixzz3m8e696oY
-
Is this good leadership?
Vatican at Odds With White House Over Guests for Papal Visit
By Loren Gutentag
Friday, 18 Sep 2015
As Pope Francis' first visit to the United States quickly approaches, a guest list for his welcome ceremony was revealed by the Obama administration and included guests that not only offend the Vatican, but also will test the Pope's tolerance, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The Obama administration has decided to invite transgender activists Mateo Williamson and Vivian Taylor, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, Bishop Gene Robinson and Sister Simone Campbell, an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.
Despite the Pope declaring that he doesn't believe in judging people and is ready to welcome anyone in Christ's name, he has also said that Catholics do not accept the modern mentality of transgenderism and that gay marriage is the devil's "attempt to destroy God's plan," Breitbart reports.
"This is the group Obama has personally invited to the White House to meet the Pope?" said Rush Limbaugh on "The Rush Limbaugh Show."
"Some people are saying that this is perfectly Obama. He's got the Pope coming, and he wants to insult the Pope, put pressure on the Pope, and challenge the Pope," Limbaugh added.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that he was unaware of the guest list and also reminded reporters that "there will be 15,000 other people there too."
The Wall Street Journal reports that the welcoming ceremony for the Pope will be held on the White House's South Lawn on Wednesday. According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See has noted its concerns that any photos of the Pope with these controversial guests could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/pope-francis-white-house-visit/2015/09/18/id/692202/#ixzz3m8e696oY
The same guy who ordered the White House to be covered in a "rainbow", you mean? Sounds like something he'd do.
-
There are ways to be respectful to all concerned, without unnecessarily pissing-off people. If he was worth his weight in potatoes (as a politician, for sure), he'd do that.
He knows what he's doing, and he loves to cause trouble.
-
ALL SOUR GRAPES..hes leaving soon
-
There are ways to be respectful to all concerned, without unnecessarily pissing-off people. If he was worth his weight in potatoes (as a politician, for sure), he'd do that.
He knows what he's doing, and he loves to cause trouble.
Exactly.
-
ALL SOUR GRAPES..hes leaving soon
I'll believe it when I see it.
He would make himself king of the world if he could get away with it, and there are people that would love to see that through.
-
Exactly.
I really LOL'd at this:
Looks like the president added a little crack to his cigarettes
-
I'll believe it when I see it.
He would make himself king of the world if he could get away with it, and there are people that would love to see that through.
he already is ;)
-
he already is ;)
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
The president of the United States is always basically the king of the world..every decision he makes affects people all over the world....
-
The president of the United States is always basically the king of the world..every decision he makes affects people all over the world....
Will you be sad to see Obama go, Andre?
-
His leadership didn't do so hot in Kenya.
Kenya’s President Did NOT Like What Obama Said To His Country And He Let The Whole World Know It
Kenyatta’s opposition to Obama reflects Kenyan society.
Jack Davis
July 27, 2015
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has made it clear that President Obama was speaking to the wrong congregation when he urged Kenyans to embrace gay rights.
During a Saturday news conference in Nairobi, Kenya, at the start of his trip to Africa, Obama equated the denial of gay rights with racism. “As an African-American, I am painfully aware of what happens when people are treated differently under the law,” Obama said.
Kenyatta replied that although there are many areas of agreement between Kenya and the United States, Obama found an area where the two nations disagree.
“There are some things that we must admit we don’t share, our culture, our societies don’t accept,” Kenyatta said. “For Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue. We want to focus on other issues that really are day-to-day issues for our people.”
Obama’s call for gay rights came despite pre-visit requests from Kenyan politicians and religious leaders to leave the issue alone.
“We do not want him to come and talk on homosexuality in Kenya or push us to accepting that which is against our faith and culture,” said Mark Kariuki, the key architect of the letter. Kariuki leads an alliance representing 38,000 churches and 10 million Kenyan Christians.
“The family is the strength of a nation. If the family is destroyed, then the nation is destroyed,” Kariuki said. “So we don’t want to open doors for our nation to be destroyed!”
Kenyatta’s opposition to Obama reflects Kenyan society. A 2007 Pew Global study found that 96% of Kenyans surveyed believe that homosexuality should be rejected. Forty-one percent of American respondents felt that way at the time of the poll.
Kenyan law makes sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender illegal and punishable by a maximum jail sentence of 14 years in most cases.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/kenyas-president-did-not-like-what-obama-said-to-his-country-and-he-let-the-whole-world-know-it/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2015-07-27
Finally someone reasonable speaks out!!!
How fucking crazy is it that a government thinks they have any say with regards to sexual practices etc.
-
Will you be sad to see Obama go, Andre?
Actually no.....I honestly have never seen so much unwarranted hate for a president in my life.....I will be glad to see him go .....its really painful that we in the United States denigrate our president to such an extent and wee are so immature that we blame him for everything that goes wrong in our lives.....Obama has a fantastic record if people will get past the fact that he's BL:ACK and treat him fairly and objectively...however I realize just as other blacks do that the color of one's skin always diminishes his accomplishments if one is black.....although no one will ever admit to this of course.....
Look at the guy who asked Trump that stupid question the other day about Obama...stating that he is colored and a muslim......43% of Republicans STILL believe that Obama is a Muslim....WOW.....this is the type of ignorant thinking we have in this country among certain segments of the population....if you RATIONALLY look at the statistics you will see that Obama is actually one of the best presidents we've ever had....whether you disagree with his politics or not..just look at what the country looks like now....
Osama Bin Laden.....caught and killed
brought our troops home.....no major wars taking place for the first time in how long???
deficit falling dramatically...yes its still high but its been high since Ronald Reagan was in office and will continue to climb after Obama leaves..but deficit has fallen dramatically for SIX YEARS STRAIGHT AND WILL AGAIN NEXT YEAR..what other president can claim that?????
compare Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy and Bush's to Hurricane Katrina..EVEN CHRIS CHRISTIE WAS HUGGING HIM..LOLOL
Many al Qaeda leaders KILLED BY DRONES
Corporate profits and Wall st income HIGHER THAN ITS EVER BEEN
Economy adding over 200,000 jobs PER MONTH...UE rate at 5.7%....lowest its been since Clinton
corrected a failed policy by normalizing relations with Cuba...Our businesses are salivating at the money they are going to make over there
United States GDP growing at a higher rate than the rest of the world except China, and china's numbers are suspect
Saved the auto industry from collapse
saved the banking industry due to the last financial crisis caused by Republicans who previously DEREGULATED banking
passed Obamacare which has insured something on the order of 14-20 million more Americans..Eliminated the pre-existing condition clause
Gave amnesty to those illegals who have been here and who have stayed out of trouble thus saving us billions in unnecessary deportations
restored some respect to America compared to the Bush years when the world absolutely hated us
Oil prices the lowest they have been in decades...gas actually under $2.00 in some places..U.S. now the biggest oil producer in the world...(when prices were skyhigh people were saying "thanks Obama")
also Obama has managed to push his agenda steadily forward despite being faced with near unanimous opposition from republicans who have refused to work with Obama on ANYTHING even when it was in their best interests
Retaliated against North Korea for their Sony hack
ALSO....got a nuclear treaty done with Iran thus again avoided another costly and unnecessary war..we forget that BUSH actually started the negotiations on this and no other prez could get anything done with Iran..remember the failed Iran/contra scandal by Reagan??????
look at this letter from a Canadian about Obama
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/
So YES I wlil be very glad actually when Obama leaves office....people will no longer have the black father to blame for everything anymore.....we deserve whatever we get after him
-
Actually no.....I honestly have never seen so much unwarranted hate for a president in my life.....I will be glad to see him go .....its really painful that we in the United States denigrate our president to such an extent and wee are so immature that we blame him for everything that goes wrong in our lives.....Obama has a fantastic record if people will get past the fact that he's BL:ACK and treat him fairly and objectively...however I realize just as other blacks do that the color of one's skin always diminishes his accomplishments if one is black.....although no one will ever admit to this of course.....
Are you saying you feel this way because people will become more harmonious when he's gone? Or does your last sentence in the post (we deserve whatever we get) mean you want people to "learn their lesson" that Obama wasn't too bad compared to the new administration?
Look at the guy who asked Trump that stupid question the other day about Obama...stating that he is colored and a muslim......43% of Republicans STILL believe that Obama is a Muslim....WOW.....this is the type of ignorant thinking we have in this country among certain segments of the population....
That was a plant if I've ever seen one.
if you RATIONALLY look at the statistics you will see that Obama is actually one of the best presidents we've ever had....whether you disagree with his politics or not..just look at what the country looks like now....
Osama Bin Laden.....caught and killed
brought our troops home.....no major wars taking place for the first time in how long???
deficit falling dramatically...yes its still high but its been high since Ronald Reagan was in office and will continue to climb after Obama leaves..but deficit has fallen dramatically for SIX YEARS STRAIGHT AND WILL AGAIN NEXT YEAR..what other president can claim that?????
compare Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy and Bush's to Hurricane Katrina..EVEN CHRIS CHRISTIE WAS HUGGING HIM..LOLOL
Many al Qaeda leaders KILLED BY DRONES
Other than the American kid, we don't exactly know who he's been killing (or why). You may trust his gang to be the "good guys", but I sure don't. Not for a second. Show us WTF you are doing, "leaders", or explain to us why you cannot. Fact is, no one will explain that. Why not? I can't wait for anyone's answer. (They claim to be doing these things on your behalf, you know. That's why you should give a damn.)
Corporate profits and Wall st income HIGHER THAN ITS EVER BEEN
Economy adding over 200,000 jobs PER MONTH...UE rate at 5.7%....lowest its been since Clinton
corrected a failed policy by normalizing relations with Cuba...Our businesses are salivating at the money they are going to make over there
United States GDP growing at a higher rate than the rest of the world except China, and china's numbers are suspect
Saved the auto industry from collapse
saved the banking industry due to the last financial crisis caused by Republicans who previously DEREGULATED banking
passed Obamacare which has insured something on the order of 14-20 million more Americans..Eliminated the pre-existing condition clause
Gave amnesty to those illegals who have been here and who have stayed out of trouble thus saving us billions in unnecessary deportations
No need to spend a penny on deportations. Only reason people come to illegally work in America is because no one has the fear of profiting from that. The way we're doing it, now, is leading to our destruction.
If you honestly care about the future of African-Americans, it should be your top issue.
restored some respect to America compared to the Bush years when the world absolutely hated us
Oil prices the lowest they have been in decades...gas actually under $2.00 in some places..U.S. now the biggest oil producer in the world...(when prices were skyhigh people were saying "thanks Obama")
also Obama has managed to push his agenda steadily forward despite being faced with near unanimous opposition from republicans who have refused to work with Obama on ANYTHING even when it was in their best interests. Retaliated against North Korea for their Sony hack
North Korea did that?
ALSO....got a nuclear treaty done with Iran thus again avoided another costly and unnecessary war..we forget that BUSH actually started the negotiations on this and no other prez could get anything done with Iran..remember the failed Iran/contra scandal by Reagan??????
look at this letter from a Canadian about Obama
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/11/07/obama-election-republicans-gop-democrats-senate/18606217/
So YES I wlil be very glad actually when Obama leaves office....people will no longer have the black father to blame for everything anymore.....we deserve whatever we get after him
-
Unable to work with Congress? Just bypass them and ignore that whole separation of powers thing.
White House hints at executive action to close Gitmo prison despite Hill resistance
Published November 11, 2015
FoxNews.com
Suspicions are mounting on Capitol Hill that President Obama could try to use executive action to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, even after Congress this week approved legislation that would keep the facility open.
The defense policy bill approved Tuesday would bar the transfer of Guantanamo inmates to the United States. Obama, despite opposing that provision, plans to sign the bill.
But the White House may have a back-up plan. Press Secretary Josh Earnest has indicated twice in recent days that Obama could use executive action to get around Congress.
“I'm going to protect the ability of the president to use his authority [to] move the country in the direction that he believes it should be headed, and particularly when it comes to an issue like … closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay,” Earnest said after the Senate vote, declining to rule out the use of executive action.
Obama still is trying to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to close the facility, with just 13 months remaining in his presidency.
To date, his efforts repeatedly have been thwarted by Congress, particularly by Republicans who argue that bringing known terrorists onto U.S. soil for trials and prison terms is too much of a national security risk.
The facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was opened in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an expedient move to get terrorists off the battlefield. But the president argues that keeping the 112 detainees remaining in the facility -- including some who have never had a trial -- is unjust and expensive.
Congress and the administration continue to move in opposing directions on the issue. The $607 billion defense policy bill that banned moving detainees to the United States was approved days after the administration acknowledged the Pentagon is set to release a report on the pros and cons for three potential U.S. detainee-transfer facilities.
While leaving the door open for executive action, the president showed little interest in trying to veto the defense bill, considering the 91-3 Senate vote and 370-58 House vote last week -- numbers that indicate Congress has enough votes for a veto override.
In recent years, including fiscal 2014, Obama signed the bill with a statement objecting to similar Guantanamo restraints.
Even Texas GOP Rep. Mike McCaul acknowledged -- after Earnest first mentioned executive action -- that Congress may have little redress on executive action and called on Americans to mobilize.
“It's hard to stop this kind of action,” McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told “Fox News Sunday.” “I would hope the American people would rise up in numbers so strongly … that [Obama] will decide to back down.”
He expressed particular concern about bringing the “worst of the worst” detainees into the country.
“You're going to see a heightened terror-alert threat in the United States,” McCaul said. “It would be highly reckless and irresponsible.”
Even if Congress may be unable to act, a bid to use executive authority is likely to bring accusations of government overreach and lawsuits from other quarters, as with Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration.
The actions -- to provide work visas and delay deportation for millions of illegal immigrants -- were again blocked as a result of a federal appeals court decision this week. And the case could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Whether states that receive detainees or others would have legal standing to challenge executive action on Guantanamo is unclear because there is no legal precedent.
However, Charles “Cully” Stimson, a Heritage Foundation legal scholar, pointed out Wednesday that plaintiffs must show “injury” or harm for a court to say they have legal standing to proceed with a case and that a taxpayer suit or one by a local sheriff on Guantanamo is unlikely.
“All of those people are unlikely to have standing,” he said.
Stimson thinks that Congress has perhaps the best chance to achieve standing, consider the suit filed last year by House Republicans arguing Obama acted illegally in implementing his Affordable Care Act.
The suit was authorized after the House passed a resolution and filed it in a U.S. District Court, a move Stimson thinks Congress could follow if Obama indeed uses executive action on Guantanamo.
However, Republican lawmakers in South Carolina, one of the three states in the pending Pentagon report, appear willing to mount a legal challenge.
“We are absolutely drawing a line that we are not going to allow any terrorists to come into South Carolina,” Gov. Nikki Haley said in a news conference this summer. “We’re not going to allow that kind of threat.”
Haley is joined Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mark Sanford in opposition to detainees coming to a naval brig near Charleston.
The other two states in the Pentagon report are Colorado and Kansas.
GOP Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts touts having since 2009 kept detainees out of the corrections facility in Leavenworth by holding up Senate confirmation on Obama nominees.
On Tuesday, Roberts launched an online petition for Americans to express their opposition to Obama using executive action.
“Relocating terrorists to the mainland will paint a target on the American communities forced to house these detainees,” Roberts said. “The president has proven he will act in the absence of congressional action to fulfill his campaign promises.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/11/white-house-hints-at-executive-action-to-close-gitmo-as-congress-state-oppose/?intcmp=hpbt3
-
Unable to work with Congress? Just bypass them and ignore that whole separation of powers thing.
White House hints at executive action to close Gitmo prison despite Hill resistance
Published November 11, 2015
FoxNews.com
Suspicions are mounting on Capitol Hill that President Obama could try to use executive action to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, even after Congress this week approved legislation that would keep the facility open.
The defense policy bill approved Tuesday would bar the transfer of Guantanamo inmates to the United States. Obama, despite opposing that provision, plans to sign the bill.
But the White House may have a back-up plan. Press Secretary Josh Earnest has indicated twice in recent days that Obama could use executive action to get around Congress.
“I'm going to protect the ability of the president to use his authority [to] move the country in the direction that he believes it should be headed, and particularly when it comes to an issue like … closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay,” Earnest said after the Senate vote, declining to rule out the use of executive action.
Obama still is trying to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to close the facility, with just 13 months remaining in his presidency.
To date, his efforts repeatedly have been thwarted by Congress, particularly by Republicans who argue that bringing known terrorists onto U.S. soil for trials and prison terms is too much of a national security risk.
The facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was opened in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an expedient move to get terrorists off the battlefield. But the president argues that keeping the 112 detainees remaining in the facility -- including some who have never had a trial -- is unjust and expensive.
Congress and the administration continue to move in opposing directions on the issue. The $607 billion defense policy bill that banned moving detainees to the United States was approved days after the administration acknowledged the Pentagon is set to release a report on the pros and cons for three potential U.S. detainee-transfer facilities.
While leaving the door open for executive action, the president showed little interest in trying to veto the defense bill, considering the 91-3 Senate vote and 370-58 House vote last week -- numbers that indicate Congress has enough votes for a veto override.
In recent years, including fiscal 2014, Obama signed the bill with a statement objecting to similar Guantanamo restraints.
Even Texas GOP Rep. Mike McCaul acknowledged -- after Earnest first mentioned executive action -- that Congress may have little redress on executive action and called on Americans to mobilize.
“It's hard to stop this kind of action,” McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told “Fox News Sunday.” “I would hope the American people would rise up in numbers so strongly … that [Obama] will decide to back down.”
He expressed particular concern about bringing the “worst of the worst” detainees into the country.
“You're going to see a heightened terror-alert threat in the United States,” McCaul said. “It would be highly reckless and irresponsible.”
Even if Congress may be unable to act, a bid to use executive authority is likely to bring accusations of government overreach and lawsuits from other quarters, as with Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration.
The actions -- to provide work visas and delay deportation for millions of illegal immigrants -- were again blocked as a result of a federal appeals court decision this week. And the case could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Whether states that receive detainees or others would have legal standing to challenge executive action on Guantanamo is unclear because there is no legal precedent.
However, Charles “Cully” Stimson, a Heritage Foundation legal scholar, pointed out Wednesday that plaintiffs must show “injury” or harm for a court to say they have legal standing to proceed with a case and that a taxpayer suit or one by a local sheriff on Guantanamo is unlikely.
“All of those people are unlikely to have standing,” he said.
Stimson thinks that Congress has perhaps the best chance to achieve standing, consider the suit filed last year by House Republicans arguing Obama acted illegally in implementing his Affordable Care Act.
The suit was authorized after the House passed a resolution and filed it in a U.S. District Court, a move Stimson thinks Congress could follow if Obama indeed uses executive action on Guantanamo.
However, Republican lawmakers in South Carolina, one of the three states in the pending Pentagon report, appear willing to mount a legal challenge.
“We are absolutely drawing a line that we are not going to allow any terrorists to come into South Carolina,” Gov. Nikki Haley said in a news conference this summer. “We’re not going to allow that kind of threat.”
Haley is joined Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mark Sanford in opposition to detainees coming to a naval brig near Charleston.
The other two states in the Pentagon report are Colorado and Kansas.
GOP Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts touts having since 2009 kept detainees out of the corrections facility in Leavenworth by holding up Senate confirmation on Obama nominees.
On Tuesday, Roberts launched an online petition for Americans to express their opposition to Obama using executive action.
“Relocating terrorists to the mainland will paint a target on the American communities forced to house these detainees,” Roberts said. “The president has proven he will act in the absence of congressional action to fulfill his campaign promises.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/11/white-house-hints-at-executive-action-to-close-gitmo-as-congress-state-oppose/?intcmp=hpbt3
you're getting more and more idiotic.....and now you're bending the truth
-
you're getting more and more idiotic.....and now you're bending the truth
isn't it funny that dos equis is a mod here - and he acts like this? Calling names all the time too.
Of course, imagine having to DEFEND the lies and outright idiocy that Carson speaks all the time. "we need to make isis look like losers, then people won't like that". WTF.
-
isn't it funny that dos equis is a mod here - and he acts like this? Calling names all the time too.
Of course, imagine having to DEFEND the lies and outright idiocy that Carson speaks all the time. "we need to make isis look like losers, then people won't like that". WTF.
;D
-
you're getting more and more idiotic.....and now you're bending the truth
Says the Obamabot. Did he give you your orders for the day? :)
-
Says the Obamabot. Did he give you your orders for the day? :)
At least my orders come from someone who is ...you know...COMPETENT........ I'd hate to see the orders you receive everyday from Trump, Carson, Huckabee, etc.....
-
Says the Obamabot. Did he give you your orders for the day? :)
why the personal attack? You don't have any argument, so you just insult him? That's the kind of move I've only seen from people that engage in carnal acts with sheep, and I know you hate wool.
-
why the personal attack? You don't have any argument, so you just insult him? That's the kind of move I've only seen from people that engage in carnal acts with sheep, and I know you hate wool.
Quit crying. Didn't I just tell you to put on your big boy pants?
-
At least my orders come from someone who is ...you know...COMPETENT........ I'd hate to see the orders you receive everyday from Trump, Carson, Huckabee, etc.....
You think Obama is competent? :-[
-
You think Obama is competent? :-[
Is Trump and Carson?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
Is Trump and Carson?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do you really think Obama is competent?
-
Why is it that the French are now hitting training camps? Why haven't we been doing that?
Why wasn't Obama leading a stronger push to do something about ISIS?
Its failed F.P. leadership on Obama's part.
-
Why is it that the French are now hitting training camps? Why haven't we been doing that?
Why wasn't Obama leading a stronger push to do something about ISIS?
Its failed F.P. leadership on Obama's part.
obama listened to trump and let Russia handle it. Thanks, The Donald.
-
Why is it that the French are now hitting training camps? Why haven't we been doing that?
Why wasn't Obama leading a stronger push to do something about ISIS?
Its failed F.P. leadership on Obama's part.
Nope...its failed leadership on the WORLD'S part....everyone waiting for the US to do everything.....The American people have asserted again and again that they do not want to go to war in the middle east AGAIN......there's nothing in it for us...look how ungrateful the Iraqis are.....we would have to occupy Syria and try to rebuild the nation.....we tried that with Iraq and look where we are today...plus Russia won't let is do that because they WANT Assad in power
-
Nope...its failed leadership on the WORLD'S part....everyone waiting for the US to do everything.....The American people have asserted again and again that they do not want to go to war in the middle east AGAIN......there's nothing in it for us...look how ungrateful the Iraqis are.....we would have to occupy Syria and try to rebuild the nation.....we tried that with Iraq and look where we are today...plus Russia won't let is do that because they WANT Assad in power
Not at all. Obama is either a world leader or he's not.
-
Not at all. Obama is either a world leader or he's not.
Obama is a world leader but he's not God.....and again the U.S. should not be the army for the world.....why are guys so focused on what Obama is doing???....what is China doing?...are they criticized?...what are the European Un ion countries doing???...are they criticized???....what are the Middle East powers doing???....why no criticism of them>????.....this is in their back yard....Egypt and Saudi Arabia have huge well equipped armies.......so does China......yet it seems that we are always trying to get American troops involved....
-
:-\
Sharyl Attkisson: Obama Will Not Read Intelligence on U.S.-Recognized Terrorist Groups
By Tom Blumer | November 19, 2015
Several times in the past, we've heard President Barack Obama, and occasionally his press secretary, tell America that the nation's commander-in-chief learned about certain events the same way many of the rest of us did: by seeing them on TV or reading newspaper accounts. A Republican or conservative president hauling out this excuse even once would face endless outrage and ridicule, respectively, from the news and entertainment divisions of the establishment press's networks.
Former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who is now an independent investiagative journalist, has revealed one reason why Obama's level of claimed ignorance has been so high. It's because he won't look at information he doesn't like, or which doesn't conform to his preconceived notions — even in very serious matters relating to national security. It seems highly unlikely that Attkisson is the only reporter in the nation who has learned this.
Attkisson, on Newsmax TV's Steve Malzberg Show (HT Breitbart), reported that she has been told that Obama refuses to read information about recognized terorrist groups he apparently believes they shouldn't be seen as such:
Transcript, beginning at the 0:26 mark (bolds are mine):
SHARYL ATTKISSON: ... I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind, uh — I would say closed his mind, they say — to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists.
He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school. He does not necessarily — you may think this is a good trait you may think this is a bad trait — he does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. That would be, I would suppose he would say because he thinks he’s right. He is facing formidable opposition on this particular point.
STEVE MALZBERG: So when he stands there and says, as he always does — no matter what the issue, you may notice this, I'm sure as a, as a reporter you may notice this, like I do — no matter what the issue, no matter what the topic, no matter what the press conference, if it's a controversial thing where he's getting pushback on this from anywhere, he'll say, "I'm not the only one who believes this. Everybody believes this." That's a weakness, I think.
But you're telling me that you've talked to people in his inner circle, or in the administration, that are telling you that even though there are groups that might be on our terror list, that are classified as terrorist groups, Obama, in his mind, doesn't consider them to be terrorists. Because what, because they have a gripe?
ATTIKSSON: I don’t know the reason for it. I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him, or have been in the circle that has attempted to present him, with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t want it. He said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it, in some instances.
It's one thing to listen to your advisers and overrule them. It's quite another to refuse to listen to them or read their work product because you know that they disagree with you or are presenting information you'd rather not know.
Attkisson is being charitable to a fault to entertain the possiblity that Obama's posture might conceivably be "a good trait." The only reason that could possibly be the case is that you've deliberately surrounded yourself with people you either don't trust or who are complete ignoramuses — and such a situation would also damningly reflect on the guy in charge, because, after all, he's the one who chose an inner circle of lackeys.
It's not unreasonable to believe that there are plenty of reporters on the intelligence beat who know that what Attkisson is saying is true — and won't dare corroborate it because it might jeopardize their precious "access."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/11/19/sharyl-attkisson-obama-will-not-read-intelligence-us-recognized#sthash.j3Wk5zml.dpuf
-
Not an effective way to build consensus with legislators.
Obama: Republicans Helping ISIS
Posted on November 23, 2015
by Keith Koffler
President Obama launched an attack on Republicans from foreign soil Sunday, saying during a stop in Malaysia that they were helping the enemy, ISIS.
“Prejudice and discrimination helps ISIL and undermines our national security,” Obama said during a press conference in Malaysia.
So while overseas, speaking to a foreign audience, Obama accuses fellow Americans of being racist and aiding the enemy. All because they want to protect the nation by stopping Syrian refugees – and the potential terrorists among them – from entering the United States, with the possible exception of Christians who are targeted for death and cannot easily be relocated in the region instead of here.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/11/23/obama-republicans-helping-isis/
-
Not an effective way to build consensus with legislators.
Obama: Republicans Helping ISIS
Posted on November 23, 2015
by Keith Koffler
President Obama launched an attack on Republicans from foreign soil Sunday, saying during a stop in Malaysia that they were helping the enemy, ISIS.
“Prejudice and discrimination helps ISIL and undermines our national security,” Obama said during a press conference in Malaysia.
So while overseas, speaking to a foreign audience, Obama accuses fellow Americans of being racist and aiding the enemy. All because they want to protect the nation by stopping Syrian refugees – and the potential terrorists among them – from entering the United States, with the possible exception of Christians who are targeted for death and cannot easily be relocated in the region instead of here.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/11/23/obama-republicans-helping-isis/
your statement about building consensus is laughable...the Republicans do not want "consensus" with Obama...they want him to fail..plain and simple....Obama realized that halfway through his first term......thats why he does things his way.....thats what you do when people refuse to work with you and are butthurt that you got elected in teh first place and then re-elected
-
your statement about building consensus is laughable...the Republicans do not want "consensus" with Obama...they want him to fail..plain and simple....Obama realized that halfway through his first term......thats why he does things his way.....thats what you do when people refuse to work with you and are butthurt that you got elected in teh first place and then re-elected
False. He never tried to do anything to build consensus. He failed to meet with Republicans on a regular basis to find common ground. His approach has always been "my way or the highway." Face it: your Messiah is a terrible leader.
-
False. He never tried to do anything to build consensus. He failed to meet with Republicans on a regular basis to find common ground. His approach has always been "my way or the highway." Face it: your Messiah is a terrible leader.
I guess Mitch McConnell saying "my goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president" was him trying to build "consensus"....also with Obama there is:
5% unemployment
strongest financial markets EVER
Deficit reduced substantially SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW
Economy growing at much larger rate than the rest of the world except China
No major scandals in his inner circle
if that's being a bad leader then "thank you very much bad leader" 8)
-
I guess Mitch McConnell saying "my goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president" was him trying to build "consensus"....also with Obama there is:
5% unemployment
strongest financial markets EVER
Deficit reduced substantially SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW
Economy growing at much larger rate than the rest of the world except China
No major scandals in his inner circle
if that's being a bad leader then "thank you very much bad leader" 8)
Not working with republicans has been a huge success for America.
Lets hope this trend continues.
-
I guess Mitch McConnell saying "my goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president" was him trying to build "consensus"....also with Obama there is:
5% unemployment
strongest financial markets EVER
Deficit reduced substantially SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW
Economy growing at much larger rate than the rest of the world except China
No major scandals in his inner circle
if that's being a bad leader then "thank you very much bad leader" 8)
How many people out of the work force and underemployed?
Yeah wall street is doing great...
We're how much in debt again because of Barry.....what 13 trillion...yup doing great
Inner circle meaning him and chewy...sure I guess
The middle east and north Africa are on fire....Turkey is now shooting down Russian jets .....that are there because Obama capitulated in Iraq...please guy stop already
-
Not working with republicans has been a huge success for America.
Lets hope this trend continues.
Awesome point....good job
-
How many people out of the work force and underemployed?
Yeah wall street is doing great...
We're how much in debt again because of Barry.....what 13 trillion...yup doing great
Inner circle meaning him and chewy...sure I guess
The middle east and north Africa are on fire....Turkey is now shooting down Russian jets .....that are there because Obama capitulated in Iraq...please guy stop already
so what???????....the world has ALWAYS been on fire......since the days of the British empire and the Roman empire....and do you remember WW I and WWII???...I guess those wars were the fault of Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt, right????....so that's Obama's fault????????.....people have ALWAYS been underemployed and out of the work force.......Debt has grown under all presidents in the modern age...and will keep growing after Obama leaves office.....it grew large under Repub presidents as well....
DESTROYED
-
How many people out of the work force and underemployed?
Yeah wall street is doing great...
We're how much in debt again because of Barry.....what 13 trillion...yup doing great
Inner circle meaning him and chewy...sure I guess
The middle east and north Africa are on fire....Turkey is now shooting down Russian jets .....that are there because Obama capitulated in Iraq...please guy stop already
Stop whining fag.
-
Mentioning Planned Parenthood in the same breath as the Paris terrorist attacks. More lousy leadership.
Obama, While Speaking in Paris, on Planned Parenthood Shooting: ‘This Just Doesn’t Happen in Other Countries’
BY: David Rutz
December 1, 2015
President Obama, while speaking Tuesday in a city struck by a massive terrorist attack less than three weeks ago, said of the Planned Parenthood shooting last week in Colorado that “this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”
“With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously my heart goes out to those impacted,” Obama said during a press conference in Paris. “I mean, Nancy, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries. We are rightly determined to prevent terrorist attacks wherever they occur, whether in the United States or with friends and allies like France, and we devote enormous resources, and properly so, to rooting out networks and debilitating organizations like ISIL.”
Paris was struck by Islamic State militants on Nov. 13, when a series of coordinated attacks by the fanatical terrorists killed 130 people in the French capital.
In the United States, Obama said, the country had power to prevent the “regular process” of gun homicides, and that local governments and states would have to take more action to keep guns out of dangerous people’s hands. He then went on to defend Planned Parenthood as often being the “only organization” to provide health care for impoverished women.
“And with respect to Planned Parenthood, I think it’s clear, I’ve said it before, they provide health services to women all across the country,” Obama said. “Have for generations. In many cases, it’s the only organization that provides health services to impoverished women. I think it’s fair to have a legitimate, honest debate about abortion. I don’t think that’s something that is beyond the pale of our political discussion. I think it’s a serious, legitimate issue. How we talk about it, making sure we’re talking about it factually, accurately and not demonizing organizations like Planned Parenthood, I think is important.”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-while-speaking-in-paris-on-planned-parenthood-shooting-this-just-doesnt-happen-in-other-countries/
-
Stop whining fag.
Canada speaks...and nobody cares....go hug a moose.
-
Mentioning Planned Parenthood in the same breath as the Paris terrorist attacks.
Are both terrorist acts?
we both commintted by zealots willing to use violence to make their beliefs heard?
Repubs were jumping all over each other to condemn the religion of someone killing frenchmen... but kill american docs and civilians, on american soil... and they're much slower to respond, and not a peep about religion.
both were terrorist attacks due to zealots.
-
Are both terrorist acts?
we both commintted by zealots willing to use violence to make their beliefs heard?
Repubs were jumping all over each other to condemn the religion of someone killing frenchmen... but kill american docs and civilians, on american soil... and they're much slower to respond, and not a peep about religion.
both were terrorist attacks due to zealots.
I have read nothing other than speculation as to what the PP shooters motive was. Either way he is an oxygen thief and should be perished ASAP
-
I have read nothing other than speculation as to what the PP shooters motive was. Either way he is an oxygen thief and should be perished ASAP
yeah, i'm all for wasting the fcker. But IMO, if he is yelling about baby parts while shooting, then we know his attacks were based on an anti-abortion beliefs.
he's using murder/violence to advance his political agenda... that's terrorism.
Small-minded people can try to say Paris was religious-based and this was not... let them. Either way, it IS politically based.
-
I have read nothing other than speculation as to what the PP shooters motive was. Either way he is an oxygen thief and should be perished ASAP
Oxygen thief....nice term ;)
-
yeah, i'm all for wasting the fcker. But IMO, if he is yelling about baby parts while shooting, then we know his attacks were based on an anti-abortion beliefs.
he's using murder/violence to advance his political agenda... that's terrorism.
Small-minded people can try to say Paris was religious-based and this was not... let them. Either way, it IS politically based.
Maybe he had anti-abortion beliefs or he is just crazier than a shit house rat, the point being the political spin is out of control. Speculation being passed off as fact. The POTUS has already started in on the gun control argument, sorry but the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, and we simply have to accept the risk by expecting to live in an open free society.
-
Maybe he had anti-abortion beliefs or he is just crazier than a shit house rat, the point being the political spin is out of control. Speculation being passed off as fact. The POTUS has already started in on the gun control argument, sorry but the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, and we simply have to accept the risk by expecting to live in an open free society.
That's one of the primary problems with him: speaking and drawing conclusions before the facts are in. Reckless thing to do when you have the bully pulpit.
-
the same repubs that demanded muslim databases (because 15 out of 1 billion of them did an attack on paris) have been silent on christian databases, because one of one billion shot up an abortion clinic.
the same repubs that said we should only allow christian refugess haven't said we should only allow this or that.
look, i'm all for attacking the fck out of groups for the shit they do... just be consistent. Yes, maybe there SHOULD be a database for religious extremists that threaten abortion clinics?
-
the same repubs that demanded muslim databases (because 15 out of 1 billion of them did an attack on paris) have been silent on christian databases, because one of one billion shot up an abortion clinic.
the same repubs that said we should only allow christian refugess haven't said we should only allow this or that.
look, i'm all for attacking the fck out of groups for the shit they do... just be consistent. Yes, maybe there SHOULD be a database for religious extremists that threaten abortion clinics?
Aside from Mohammed being the prophet, next lynch pin to core of Islam is the expansion if Islam. That expansion is to be done by conversion first, subjugation second, and death of those that refuse either. Last time I read the bible I can't remember Christians being commanded to kill people who won't convert.
Islam has been spread by the sword since its inception, I see no reason to invite this nonsense into the US.
And .gov can take their databases and shove up their collective ass.
-
Last time I read the bible I can't remember Christians being commanded to kill people who won't convert.
some folks believe it is their duty to kill those who won't stop aborting.
One could argue if the docs would convert, they'd stop aborting.
Either way, it's a-holes murdering people following the law, because they don't obey the same belief system as them. When I hear repubs *outraged* that the shooter is being labeled anti-abortion, I'm annoyed. They were happy to put 1 billion people in a database last week. This week it's wrong to say what religion this man in? Just be consistent. Shit on them all, or don't.
-
some folks believe it is their duty to kill those who won't stop aborting.
One could argue if the docs would convert, they'd stop aborting.
Either way, it's a-holes murdering people following the law, because they don't obey the same belief system as them. When I hear repubs *outraged* that the shooter is being labeled anti-abortion, I'm annoyed. They were happy to put 1 billion people in a database last week. This week it's wrong to say what religion this man in? Just be consistent. Shit on them all, or don't.
Well some folks should re-read the bible. The difference is what I stated above, on top of it the refugees are not American citizens, so fuck them as well.
-
:-[
NYT Flushes Obama’s Damning ‘Cable TV’ Admission From Defensive San Bernardino Story
By Clay Waters
December 18, 2015
President Obama spoke off the record to news columnists, in a defensive response to Republican criticism that he has seemed passive and uninterested in the face of Islamic terrorist attacks and threats against the United States. In a news story about the meeting New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, who weren’t present, revealed this damning admission from the president:
In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.
But that sentence was deleted from the updated version that appeared in Friday’s print edition. Mediaite’s Alex Griswold took us through the affair:
The President of the United States failed to understand that Americans were anxious after two major terrorist attacks in Western cities because he doesn’t watch TV? It’s an admission that opponents are sure to use to make the president seem out-of-touch at best, and unconcerned about a serious threat at worst.
Many politicos and journalists immediately saw the newsworthiness of the statement, especially after CNN’s Brian Stelter drew attention to it.
But just as the quote was beginning to make the rounds, it disappeared entirely from the the Times piece, without a correction or any indication that the piece had been updated.
. . .
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2015/12/18/nyt-flushes-obamas-damning-cable-television-admission-defensive-san#sthash.XJdho0PG.dpuf
-
:-[
NYT Flushes Obama’s Damning ‘Cable TV’ Admission From Defensive San Bernardino Story
By Clay Waters
December 18, 2015
President Obama spoke off the record to news columnists, in a defensive response to Republican criticism that he has seemed passive and uninterested in the face of Islamic terrorist attacks and threats against the United States. In a news story about the meeting New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, who weren’t present, revealed this damning admission from the president:
In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.
But that sentence was deleted from the updated version that appeared in Friday’s print edition. Mediaite’s Alex Griswold took us through the affair:
The President of the United States failed to understand that Americans were anxious after two major terrorist attacks in Western cities because he doesn’t watch TV? It’s an admission that opponents are sure to use to make the president seem out-of-touch at best, and unconcerned about a serious threat at worst.
Many politicos and journalists immediately saw the newsworthiness of the statement, especially after CNN’s Brian Stelter drew attention to it.
But just as the quote was beginning to make the rounds, it disappeared entirely from the the Times piece, without a correction or any indication that the piece had been updated.
. . .
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2015/12/18/nyt-flushes-obamas-damning-cable-television-admission-defensive-san#sthash.XJdho0PG.dpuf
You're finally using credible sources...good job ;)
-
You're finally using credible sources...good job ;)
Why are you being dishonest?
-
In other words, you are too stupid to understand that ISIS isn't really that big of a threat. A familiar refrain.
Obama cites weak messaging, media saturation for Americans' ISIS fears
By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Mon December 21, 2015 | Video Source: CNN
Honolulu (CNN) President Barack Obama acknowledged in an interview released Monday that his administration may have fumbled its anti-ISIS communications strategy, but he insisted the plan itself was working and suggested saturated media coverage of the group could be fueling terror fears in the United States.
In the past few weeks, the White House has sought to step up its messaging efforts on counterterrorism, scheduling a prime-time television address and visits to the Pentagon and National Counterterrorism Center in an attempt to better explain progress made against the Islamic State group.
But Obama conceded those efforts, prompted by an ISIS-inspired attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, came after inadequate efforts to relay the work of a U.S.-led coalition in combating ISIS.
"We haven't on a regular basis, I think, described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL," Obama told NPR in an interview taped before he departed for his holiday vacation in Hawaii. He called the communications blunder a "legitimate criticism of what I've been doing and our administration has been doing."
But he also pinned Americans' renewed unease about terror attacks on U.S. soil to blanket media coverage of ISIS attacks. The November ISIS terrorist massacre in Paris, which left 130 people dead, led to "a saturation of news about the horrible attack there," Obama said in the interview.
"If you've been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you," he said in the NPR interview. "So I understand why people are concerned about it."
"Look, the media is pursuing ratings," he added later. "This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it's up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things."
Obama has come under fire from Republicans for his ISIS strategy, which they have labeled weak and ineffective. But even some Democrats, namely those lawmakers up for re-election next year, have privately worried that Obama has appeared flat-footed in responding to the terror rampages in France and California.
A public relations push to better explain his plan, which began with a rare Oval Office address at the beginning of December, came as Americans increasingly said in polls they doubted his ability to protect them from terrorist attacks.
But he's resisted calls to fundamentally alter his strategy against ISIS, which has relied on airstrikes and small numbers of special operations forces to take out key ISIS leaders. He's castigated GOP opponents of his plan for not laying out specifics of their own proposals and deemed what they have offered as untenable.
"If the suggestion is that we kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians and Iraqis, that is not who we are and that would be a strategy that would have enormous backlash against the United States. It would be terrible for our national security," he said in the interview.
He offered slight praise for one GOP candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for offering up specifics of a plan, which would include sending at least 10,000 U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS.
"Lindsey Graham one of the few who has been at least honest about suggesting: here is something I would do that the President is not doing. He doesn't just talk about being louder or sounding tougher in the process," he said.
Pushing back on Republicans
In speaking about ISIS, Obama has sought to push back against Republican plans to curb refugee entry into the United States and, in the case of Republican front-runner Donald Trump, ban all Muslims from coming into the country.
Those plans, Obama has claimed, only fuel jihadist recruiting propaganda and diminish the character of the United States. In the interview Monday, he said that candidates such as Trump were taking advantage of an angry segment of the populace for political gain.
"Blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck," he said. "There is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear. Some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign."
Obama said some opposition to his agenda could be fueled by ingrained resistance to an African-American commander in chief, citing "specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I'm different, I'm Muslim, I'm disloyal to the country."
"In some ways, I may represent change that worries them," he said.
"I think if you are talking about the specific virulence of some of the opposition directed towards me, then, you know, that may be explained by the particulars of who I am," he added later.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/barack-obama-isis-interview/index.html
-
Why are you being dishonest?
I don't think its dishonest to call someone out when their only sources come from the propaganda network......why the sensitivity all of a sudden.....???????...I know all my destructions of you have been brutal, but I still like you...,no hard feelings.... :D
-
In other words, you are too stupid to understand that ISIS isn't really that big of a threat. A familiar refrain.
Obama cites weak messaging, media saturation for Americans' ISIS fears
By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Mon December 21, 2015 | Video Source: CNN
Honolulu (CNN) President Barack Obama acknowledged in an interview released Monday that his administration may have fumbled its anti-ISIS communications strategy, but he insisted the plan itself was working and suggested saturated media coverage of the group could be fueling terror fears in the United States.
In the past few weeks, the White House has sought to step up its messaging efforts on counterterrorism, scheduling a prime-time television address and visits to the Pentagon and National Counterterrorism Center in an attempt to better explain progress made against the Islamic State group.
But Obama conceded those efforts, prompted by an ISIS-inspired attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, came after inadequate efforts to relay the work of a U.S.-led coalition in combating ISIS.
"We haven't on a regular basis, I think, described all the work that we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL," Obama told NPR in an interview taped before he departed for his holiday vacation in Hawaii. He called the communications blunder a "legitimate criticism of what I've been doing and our administration has been doing."
But he also pinned Americans' renewed unease about terror attacks on U.S. soil to blanket media coverage of ISIS attacks. The November ISIS terrorist massacre in Paris, which left 130 people dead, led to "a saturation of news about the horrible attack there," Obama said in the interview.
"If you've been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you," he said in the NPR interview. "So I understand why people are concerned about it."
"Look, the media is pursuing ratings," he added later. "This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it's up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things."
Obama has come under fire from Republicans for his ISIS strategy, which they have labeled weak and ineffective. But even some Democrats, namely those lawmakers up for re-election next year, have privately worried that Obama has appeared flat-footed in responding to the terror rampages in France and California.
A public relations push to better explain his plan, which began with a rare Oval Office address at the beginning of December, came as Americans increasingly said in polls they doubted his ability to protect them from terrorist attacks.
But he's resisted calls to fundamentally alter his strategy against ISIS, which has relied on airstrikes and small numbers of special operations forces to take out key ISIS leaders. He's castigated GOP opponents of his plan for not laying out specifics of their own proposals and deemed what they have offered as untenable.
"If the suggestion is that we kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians and Iraqis, that is not who we are and that would be a strategy that would have enormous backlash against the United States. It would be terrible for our national security," he said in the interview.
He offered slight praise for one GOP candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for offering up specifics of a plan, which would include sending at least 10,000 U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS.
"Lindsey Graham one of the few who has been at least honest about suggesting: here is something I would do that the President is not doing. He doesn't just talk about being louder or sounding tougher in the process," he said.
Pushing back on Republicans
In speaking about ISIS, Obama has sought to push back against Republican plans to curb refugee entry into the United States and, in the case of Republican front-runner Donald Trump, ban all Muslims from coming into the country.
Those plans, Obama has claimed, only fuel jihadist recruiting propaganda and diminish the character of the United States. In the interview Monday, he said that candidates such as Trump were taking advantage of an angry segment of the populace for political gain.
"Blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck," he said. "There is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear. Some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign."
Obama said some opposition to his agenda could be fueled by ingrained resistance to an African-American commander in chief, citing "specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I'm different, I'm Muslim, I'm disloyal to the country."
"In some ways, I may represent change that worries them," he said.
"I think if you are talking about the specific virulence of some of the opposition directed towards me, then, you know, that may be explained by the particulars of who I am," he added later.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/barack-obama-isis-interview/index.html
and just for the record, ISIS is not YET a threat to our homeland...they are more of a threat to the Russians, Europeans, and the middle east....granted, Obama did downplay the threat...that was a mistake on his part....his JV comment definitely came back to haunt him......but he and the US is doing more than any other country to stop ISIS...he has killed many of their leaders and ISIS is no longer seizing territory......the fact that they are in Iraq is due to the cowardice of the Iraqi army and they are in Syria because Assad would not step down when his people asked him to....its not Obama's fault or George Bush's fault either
-
I don't think its dishonest to call someone out when their only sources come from the propaganda network......why the sensitivity all of a sudden.....???????...I know all my destructions of you have been brutal, but I still like you...,no hard feelings.... :D
This is so blatantly dishonest I don't even need to comment. Other than what I just said. :)
-
and just for the record, ISIS is not YET a threat to our homeland...they are more of a threat to the Russians, Europeans, and the middle east....granted, Obama did downplay the threat...that was a mistake on his part....his JV comment definitely came back to haunt him......but he and the US is doing more than any other country to stop ISIS...he has killed many of their leaders and ISIS is no longer seizing territory......the fact that they are in Iraq is due to the cowardice of the Iraqi army and they are in Syria because Assad would not step down when his people asked him to....its not Obama's fault or George Bush's fault either
The people of San Bernardino would disagree with you.
And the fact they ran through Iraq is squarely the fault of President Obama.
And for the record, none of this has anything to do with the president's condescending remarks and poor leadership.
-
This is so blatantly dishonest I don't even need to comment. Other than what I just said. :)
"Dishonest" seems to be your favorite word.....I guess the mirror doesn't lie.....you stopped being fair a long time ago...sitting on the fence and pontificating seems to be your only relevance now..you don't even take a stand.....just speeches and ramblings... I guess Obama's black skin really has had that much of an affect on you :D :D
-
"Dishonest" seems to be your favorite word.....I guess the mirror doesn't lie.....you stopped being fair a long time ago...sitting on the fence and pontificating seems to be your only relevance now..you don't even take a stand.....just speeches and ramblings... I guess Obama's black skin really has had that much of an affect on you :D :D
I use it when it applies.
And there you go, playing the race card. Typical.
-
The people of San Bernardino would disagree with you.
And the fact they ran through Iraq is squarely the fault of President Obama.
And for the record, none of this has anything to do with the president's condescending remarks and poor leadership.
you're absolutely amazing....and so wrong I don't know how you sleep at night..the Iraqi Army was a well trained army with the latest equipment and billions of dollars in hardware...they also VASTLY outnumbered ISIS on the battlefield....they turned chicken and ran....a country has to be able to fight for itself and they chose not to.......and they kicked us out......its really weird again that you refuse to blame Maliki..but yet you love to blame Obama....
TRULY AND UTTERLY STRANGE
as for San Bernadino, we ourselves as christian Amedricans are killing more of us than any outside group....both by whites and blacks in the suburbs/rural areas/schools/and inner cities
-
I use it when it applies.
And there you go, playing the race card. Typical.
I played it for laughs......but again you have become so sensitive you wouldn't see that
-
you're absolutely amazing....and so wrong I don't know how you sleep at night..the Iraqi Army was a well trained army with the latest equipment and billions of dollars in hardware...they also VASTLY outnumbered ISIS on the battlefield....they turned chicken and ran....a country has to be able to fight for itself and they chose not to.......and they kicked us out......its really weird again that you refuse to blame Maliki..but yet you love to blame Obama....
TRULY AND UTTERLY STRANGE
as for San Bernadino, we ourselves as christian Amedricans are killing more of us than any outside group....both by whites and blacks in the suburbs/rural areas/schools/and inner cities
It's obvious the Iraqi was not "a well trained army" and able to fight without our support. We left because of the president's desire to "end the war in Iraq." He failed. Miserably. I know that's a difficult pill to swallow for an Obamabot.
You are equating the murder of the people in San Bernardino to "christian Americans"? Ok. This is obviously a waste of time. lol
-
I played it for laughs......but again you have become so sensitive you wouldn't see that
Sure. Just joking. Right. ::)
-
It's obvious the Iraqi was not "a well trained army" and able to fight without our support. We left because of the president's desire to "end the war in Iraq." He failed. Miserably. I know that's a difficult pill to swallow for an Obamabot.
You are equating the murder of the people in San Bernardino to "christian Americans"? Ok. This is obviously a waste of time. lol
it is a waste of time.......but I suspect with you, any subject concerning Obama is......especially if he's not to blame
-
It's obvious the Iraqi was not "a well trained army" and able to fight without our support. We left because of the president's desire to "end the war in Iraq." He failed. Miserably. I know that's a difficult pill to swallow for an Obamabot.
You are equating the murder of the people in San Bernardino to "christian Americans"? Ok. This is obviously a waste of time. lol
He followed teh plan bush laid out to a T, one the GOP wanted.
-
He followed teh plan bush laid out to a T, one the GOP wanted.
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
again.....ABSOLUTELY AMAZING...you simply have no shame...facts be damned
-
again.....ABSOLUTELY AMAZING...you simply have no shame...facts be damned
You don't care about the facts.
-
You don't care about the facts.
you're obviously posting whilst facing a mirror
-
you're obviously posting whilst facing a mirror
If you say so.
-
The president thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. He's not.
-
The president started his administration with a world butt kissing tour, throwing us under the bus. He is ending it by inviting criticism of our country--the greatest in world history--by a communist dictatorship with little respect for human rights. I cannot wait for this man to leave office.
Obama Welcomes Castro Criticism Of The United States
by Charlie Spiering
21 Mar 2016
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/03/AP_418842755092-640x480.jpg)
President Obama welcomed criticism from President Raul Castro on issues in the United State, particularly on race relations and economic inequality.
“President Castro has also addressed what he views as shortcomings in the United States around basic needs for people in poverty and inequality and race relations and we welcome that constructive dialogue as well,” Obama says. “Because we believe that when we share our deepest beliefs and ideas with an attitude of mutual respect that we can both learn and make the lives of our people better.”
Obama described the meeting with Castro earlier today as a “frank and candid” particularly on issues of human rights, but suggested that America has its own problems as well.
“I actually welcome President Castro commenting on some of the areas where he feels we’re falling short because I think we should not be immune or afraid of criticism or discussion as well,” he said.
Castro also demanded that the United States end the trade embargo with Cuba and return the territory from Guantanamo Bay before the two countries could expect full diplomatic relationships.
“The blockade stands as the most important obstacle. That’s why its removal will be of the essence to normalize bilateral relations,” Castro said. “In order to move forward towards normalization, it will also be necessary to return the territory illegally occupied by the naval base.”
Obama blamed Congress for not doing enough to end the Cuban trade embargo, although he insisted there were still ways to be “flexible” under the existing law.
“Frankly, Congress is not as productive as I would like during presidential election years,” he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/21/obama-welcomes-castro-criticism-of-the-united-states/
-
Obama Dances The Tango While The World Burns
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/03/AP_288638817567-640x480.jpg)
President Barack Obama kisses the dancer after doing the tango with her during the State Dinner at the Centro Cultural Kirchner, Wednesday, March 23, 2016, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
by CHARLIE SPIERING
24 Mar 2016
President Obama is enjoying a taste of Latin America culture, spending the evening at a state dinner in Argentina. After dinner, two dancers appeared to perform a tango dance for the President and the First Lady.
At one point, the female dancer asked Obama to dance and after initially resisting, he got up to dance while the First Lady danced with the male dancers.
According to the pool reporter, many guests began videotaping the presidential pair dancing with their partners.
During a press conference earlier in the day, Obama insisted that he would continue on his Latin America trip in spite of the terrorist attacks in Brussels. Thirty-one people were killed in the attacks and an estimated 270 were wounded.
Disrupting his schedule, Obama said, would only send a message to the terrorists that they were succeeding in making the world afraid.
“It is very important for us to not respond with fear … we defeat them in part by saying, ‘You are not strong. You are weak,’” Obama explained when asked by reporters why he attended a baseball game with Raul Castro in Cuba after the attacks.
He argued that it was important to visit countries in Latin America to promote good things like fighting climate change and creating jobs.
“We have to make sure that we lift up and stay focused as well on the things that are most important to us because we’re on the right side of history,” he added.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/24/obama-dances-while-the-world-burns/
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/EFQllGiT9KEAizV0Ag0OcQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://41.media.tumblr.com/6112e59917f32726ac7cf888a0b4dc50/tumblr_inline_o4jrv75UdD1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/d2qhBidWhhiPUay36jK4gw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://40.media.tumblr.com/8e1b2aebf48daf603f2d9a19d9d1321e/tumblr_inline_o4jsd4hO7F1tdoo3z_1280.jpg)
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/9hLp04dU8R2WoE6zLZHwlA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NzI1O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTEwOTk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/14613f39358d090f940f6a7067005f0d.jpg)
-
So we learned from our leader this week that you can defeat ISIS by telling them they are weak, dancing publicly and attending a baseball game with a dictator in the hours after a massacre is ok, we invite criticism from a communist dictatorship, and communism and our democracy are morally equivalent. Not a good week.
SHOCKING! Obama Tells Argentinian Youths There’s Little Difference Between Socialism, Marxism and Capitalism (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft Mar 25th, 2016
Barack Obama told an audience of Argentinian youths there really was not a big difference between capitalism, socialism and communism — Just pick something that works.
Unbelievable.
This man is so destructive, so harmful and so ignorant.
The Independent Sentinel reported:
“
Barack Obama told an audience of Argentinian youth that the differences between socialism and capitalism make interesting conversation but just pick whatever works. The ideological-left US president suddenly doesn’t have an affinity for ideology.
He said in the past there was a sharp division between communists, socialists and capitalists but that is merely an intellectual argument and it’s not so today.
The Marxist in the White House is erasing the lines between two dangerous ideologies and the one that made the US great, just as he erased our borders. This is a man who would be at home in communist China.
“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said at the Buenos Aires town hall.
“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”
For Obama, high taxation, wild spending, government agency domination over the people and heavy regulations work which tells you what he is.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/shocking-obama-tells-argentine-youths-theres-really-no-difference-socialism-marxism-capitalism-video/
-
Fidel Castro lectures Obama after Cuba trip
By NICK GASS 03/28/16
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/4546c82/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F39%2F25%2F2a97377b4cf0a395f8510525d6fa%2Ffidel-castro-1160-ap.jpg)
Fidel Castro ripped into the president, bringing up Obama's relative youth. | AP
President Barack Obama did not meet with Fidel Castro during his historic visit to Cuba last week, but apparently that does not mean that Castro did not have any thoughts about el presidente norteamericano in his country.
Castro ripped into the president and his words during the visit in El Granma, the official state newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party, bringing up Obama's relative youth, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the role of both countries in ending the apartheid in South Africa and elsewhere on the continent in an article titled "El hermano Obama."
"Native populations do not exist at all in the minds of Obama," Castro wrote. "Nor does he say that racial discrimination was swept away by the Revolution; that retirement and salary of all Cubans were enacted by this before Mr. Barack Obama was 10 years old."
Referring to the 1961 failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs, Castro wrote of the U.S.' "mercenary force with cannons and armored infantry, equipped with aircraft ... trained and accompanied by warships and aircraft carriers in the U.S. raiding our country. Nothing can justify this premeditated attack that cost our country hundreds of killed and wounded."
Castro referred also to Obama's invocation of both countries' role in the end of apartheid in South Africa, remarking upon his country's 1975 intervention in Angola backing the leftist People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola against other U.S.-backed revolutionary forces. Ridding apartheid South Africa of nuclear weapons "was not the goal of our solidarity," he wrote, "but [rather] to help the people of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and other fascist colonial rule of Portugal."
In referring to the origins of South Africa's nuclear weapons, Castro mentioned the "help that racist South Africa had received from [Ronald] Reagan and Israel."
"I do not know what Obama has to say on this story now," Castro wrote, adding, "although it is very doubtful that I knew absolutely nothing."
"My modest suggestion is to reflect and do not try now to develop theories about Cuban politics."
Cuba "has no need of gifts" from the United States, Castro concluded. "Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, because it is our commitment to peace and brotherhood of all human beings living on this planet."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/fidel-castro-obama-221279#ixzz44DJgTpBw
-
Is it November yet?
Obama’s ‘classified’ comments strike nerve
By Julian Hattem - 04/11/16
President Obama’s latest defense of Hillary Clinton has struck a nerve with both the GOP and government leakers such as Edward Snowden.
The president’s comments — “there’s classified and then there’s classified” — suggested some classified information is more sensitive than other classified information, uniting in scorn critics across the political spectrum.
To advocates for government transparency, the remarks stunk of duplicity by suggesting that federal classification rules are arbitrary and don't apply to the Democratic presidential front-runner.
“If only I had known,” tweeted Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who fled the country in 2013 before leaking reams of classified documents about global surveillance. Snowden is now facing multiple federal charges for his leaks.
“For a lower rank-and-file person, that’s not a defense you can ever use,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who handles matters related to classified information.
Conservatives saw new reasons to worry that the administration cannot be trusted to adequately investigate Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server as secretary of State.
Obama “concede[d]” that Clinton “mishandles classified information” and then “twist[ed] to defend her,” blared the Republican National Committee.
“It leaves you with a sense that he is reaching his thumb toward the scale,” said Ron Hosko, a former high-ranking FBI official. “I think it is, as I said, unnecessary and, from an investigators’ point of view, not at all beneficial.”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest was forced to defend the remark, which he said was a sign of the “disputes in the national security bureaucracy” about how to treat classified information that has been widely discussed in the media.
Obama made the comments in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” in response to a question about Clinton’s “homebrew” setup.
“There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of State, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source,” Obama said.
The government does have different levels for the sensitivity of classified material, ranging from “confidential” to “top-secret.” But criminal charges for mishandling classified information are largely blind to the distinction.
Obama has often prided himself on leading “the most transparent administration in history,” and in fact the number of new classified documents has declined under his watch.
Yet at the same time, the Obama administration has been pilloried for its poor responsiveness under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), with requests that can take years to fulfill and record levels of agencies withholding documents. Additionally, more leakers have faced charges under the 1917 Espionage Act under this president than all others combined.
Trying to split hairs with Clinton’s setup, his critics say, is hypocritical.
“I can’t make an excuse for someone mishandling a confidential document by saying, ‘Oh it was just confidential,’” said Moss, referring the lowest level of classification. “I’ll get laughed out of the room by security.”
The White House said on Monday that Obama has never asked for or received a classified briefing about the federal investigations concerning Clinton’s machine.
“His knowledge of the case is based on public reporting,” Earnest told reporters.
But if Obama had not been kept abreast of the investigation related to Clinton’s machine, then critics were left wondering why he would seek to characterize the contents of the roughly 2,000 emails now considered classified.
“How does he know?” said Hosko.
“For the president to weigh in on what might be the facts or might be wildly erroneous, I think it does little to help preserve the view of the integrity of the investigation and that it isn’t being politicized,” he added. “His comments certainly influence people.”
According to the State Department, none of the material on Clinton's machine was marked as classified at the time it was sent.
Obama’s distinction about what should and should not be classified will serve as little solace to journalists filing FOIA requests or people charged with mishandling sensitive documents. But they will surely be cited in legal briefings nonetheless, potentially undermining the government’s moral high ground.
Just last Friday, the Navy reportedly brought charges against Lt. Cmdr Edward Lin for handing classified information over to other countries, including potentially China and Taiwan.
“Now does this guy get to pick and choose what’s classified and what’s not classified?” said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with the U.S. government.
“Can you imagine now the legal arguments that people are going to create because of this?”
If nothing else, Obama opened his administration up for jokes at his own expense.
“Anyone have the number for the Attorney General?” Snowden tweeted on Sunday.
“Asking for a friend.”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275887-obamas-classified-comments-strike-nerve
-
The saddest piece of Barack Obama’s legacy
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/04/17/Editorial-Opinion/Images/AFP_9I0UG.jpg?uuid=VwFWjgTMEeahL-pa7XlY3A)
Iraqi soldiers show a flag they seized from the Islamic State on April 9 in Kharbardan during operations to recapture the northern Nineveh province, whose capital, Mosul is the main hub of the Islamic State in Iraq. (Safin Hamed/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)
By Jackson Diehl Deputy Editorial Page Editor
April 17, 2016
Shortly after the fall of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, to the Islamic State in June 2014, a delegation of senior officials from Iraqi Kurdistan visited Washington with a troubling question: From where, they asked, would the force come to retake the city? The Iraqi army was too shattered, and the Kurds were too weak, and outside powers such as Turkey and the United States were unwilling to commit ground forces.
A lot has happened in the nearly two years since then. Among other things, the Obama administration has retrained nearly 20,000 Iraqi troops, dispatched some 5,000 U.S. trainers, Marines and special operations forces to the area, and launched more than 11,000 combat air sorties against Islamic State targets. Yet when another senior Kurdish delegation circulated through Washington last week, their question about Mosul was unchanged: Who is going to do this?
“We heard a plan is close to being drawn up” for retaking the city, said Qubad Talabani, deputy prime minister of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, who recently met in Baghdad with Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and the senior U.S. commander in the theater, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland. “But we got a sense there are gaping holes in that plan.”
U.S. officials have lately been talking up what they say has been the growing momentum of the war against the Islamic State. They say President Obama, who has repeatedly called it his top priority, has asked for an “acceleration” of the campaign.
To listen to the Kurds, however, is to appreciate the towering obstacles that still must be overcome before the two most important cities held by the jihadists, Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, can be retaken. Missing is not just adequate numbers of forces, but also funding, political leadership and that most elusive of goods in the Middle East: a workable vision of what happens the day after the bad guys are dispatched.
It doesn’t help that Iraq is suffering through an economic and fiscal crisis caused by the drop in oil prices and yet another political emergency in Baghdad, where a besieged Abadi has been trying without success to introduce a new cabinet. Those upheavals have left Kurdistan, an autonomous region, broke: Its fighters, the peshmerga, have not been paid in three months. Talabani was in Washington in part to appeal for U.S. financial aid, without which the Kurdish forces probably could not be mobilized for a Mosul offensive. The Kurds asked for $200 million a month; the Pentagon suggested $50 million.
No White House decision on funding the Kurds has been made. Even if the money is forthcoming, the question remains: Who will conduct the street-by-street combat Mosul will require? The terrorists have built defensive berms across the city, seeded mines and IEDs and, the Kurds say, loaded mustard gas into artillery shells. An assaulting force might confront the chemical attacks that U.S. troops expected but never faced in 2003.
Iraqi army forces quickly faltered last month when they tried to begin clearing operations near the city of Makhmour, about 70 miles south of Mosul. That’s when 200 U.S. Marines were secretly sent to the area to establish a “fire base” with artillery. Even with that support, the Iraqis have managed to take only a handful of villages. “We all know the Iraqi army is not ready yet,” Falah Bakir, Kurdistan’s chief of foreign relations, told a group of Post journalists.
The Pentagon is now talking about establishing more fire bases on the way to Mosul, and sources say hundreds more special operations forces and other troops may be deployed as the campaign unfolds. Commanders hope that thousands of Sunni tribesmen being trained as security forces can be used to secure the liberated city. But that still raises the question of whether Iraqi Shiite militias backed by Iran will be allowed to join the assault, as they are pressing to do. If so, they may plunge into sectarian bloodletting with the Sunni population.
Such complexities probably explain why Abadi and MacFarland have yet to show a completed campaign plan to the Kurds. Even more remote is a strategy for postwar governance in Mosul and other Sunni-populated areas that would supplant the Islamic State with something the local population would support. Talabani reckons a Sunni jurisdiction inside a federal Iraq might be an answer, but there’s no sign that the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, its allies in Iran or even the Sunnis themselves would agree to it.
All this points to a stark bottom line: There will be no liberation of Mosul in 2016. The Islamic State will outlive the U.S. administration whose lapses in Syria and Iraq helped to create it. It will be the ugliest piece of Barack Obama’s legacy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-ugliest-piece-of-barack-obamas-legacy/2016/04/17/f83182d8-026d-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html
-
Finishing the way he stated.
VFW fires back at Obama: Politics not 'confused'
Published June 03, 2016
FoxNews.com
The nation’s largest veterans group hit back at President Obama on Thursday and urged him not to “denigrate” their intelligence after the president suggested their members were easily swayed by cable news and “right-wing radio.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars called out the president after Obama referenced the political opinions at “VFW halls” in an Indiana speech Wednesday that toggled between campaign politics and the economy.
“I don’t know how many VFW Posts the president has ever visited, but our near 1.7 million members are a direct reflection of America,” VFW National Commander John A. Biedrzycki Jr. said in a statement. “We don’t have confused politics, we don’t need left or rightwing media filters telling us how to think or vote, and we don’t need any President of the United States lecturing us about how we are individually [affected] by the economy.”
Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.
“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”
Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”
Biedrzycki suggested veterans are not so easily swayed.
“Our nation was created and continues to exist solely because of the men and women who wear the uniform,” he said. “Let’s not denigrate their service, their sacrifice or their intelligence.”
Obama is no stranger to the VFW, having addressed the group’s national convention several times dating back to his first presidential campaign.
He last spoke to the VFW convention last July in Pittsburgh, calling the occasion a “great honor.” He used the speech to address ongoing efforts to help America’s veterans, especially in the area of health care, in the wake of the Veterans Affairs wait-times scandal.
“As president, I consider it my obligation to help make sure that, even though less than 1 percent of Americans wear the uniform, that 100 percent of Americans honor your sacrifices and your service,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/03/vfw-fires-back-at-obama-politics-not-confused.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
O-fag is every bit the worthless pos he ever was.
Finishing the way he stated.
VFW fires back at Obama: Politics not 'confused'
Published June 03, 2016
FoxNews.com
The nation’s largest veterans group hit back at President Obama on Thursday and urged him not to “denigrate” their intelligence after the president suggested their members were easily swayed by cable news and “right-wing radio.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars called out the president after Obama referenced the political opinions at “VFW halls” in an Indiana speech Wednesday that toggled between campaign politics and the economy.
“I don’t know how many VFW Posts the president has ever visited, but our near 1.7 million members are a direct reflection of America,” VFW National Commander John A. Biedrzycki Jr. said in a statement. “We don’t have confused politics, we don’t need left or rightwing media filters telling us how to think or vote, and we don’t need any President of the United States lecturing us about how we are individually [affected] by the economy.”
Obama, speaking in Elkhart, Ind., had lamented the “primary story” he claimed Republicans are telling about the economy – one that focuses on how “moochers at the bottom of the income ladder” are squeezing middle-class families.
“We have been hearing this story for decades,” Obama said. “Tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the ‘47percent.’ It's the story that is broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio, it's pumped into cars, and bars, and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”
Obama continued: “And if you're hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It's no wonder people think big government is the problem.”
Biedrzycki suggested veterans are not so easily swayed.
“Our nation was created and continues to exist solely because of the men and women who wear the uniform,” he said. “Let’s not denigrate their service, their sacrifice or their intelligence.”
Obama is no stranger to the VFW, having addressed the group’s national convention several times dating back to his first presidential campaign.
He last spoke to the VFW convention last July in Pittsburgh, calling the occasion a “great honor.” He used the speech to address ongoing efforts to help America’s veterans, especially in the area of health care, in the wake of the Veterans Affairs wait-times scandal.
“As president, I consider it my obligation to help make sure that, even though less than 1 percent of Americans wear the uniform, that 100 percent of Americans honor your sacrifices and your service,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/03/vfw-fires-back-at-obama-politics-not-confused.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
O-fag is every bit the worthless pos he ever was.
give it up..Obama has destroyed you and Dos Equis over and over during his term...and even now in his final year and he is accomplishing so much that even the public now recognizes how good hes doing....52% approval rating
-
give it up..Obama has destroyed you and Dos Equis over and over during his term...and even now in his final year and he is accomplishing so much that even the public now recognizes how good hes doing....52% approval rating
Yeah - 52% is awesome - its called failure in even the worst inner city schools where even a pulse gets a passing grade.
O-TWINK has made a complete mess of foreign policy, the economy sucks still, he is left pursuing bullshit causes like trannys in the bathroom, etc.
-
Yeah - 52% is awesome - its called failure in even the worst inner city schools where even a pulse gets a passing grade.
O-TWINK has made a complete mess of foreign policy, the economy sucks still, he is left pursuing bullshit causes like trannys in the bathroom, etc.
economy is doing well......Foreign policy seemed to suck because Obama does niot want to use our military so of course the world looks rotten because the world could NEVER take care of itself anyway unless the U.S. was its policeman
-
Sorry shitbag but your worthless lib douchbag will go down as the worst leftwing failure in this countries' history. The world burns and your half black homo plays golf and laughs.
This is a leader guy not bathhouse barry
-
This is a leader guy not bathhouse barry
Reagan gave amnesty to 3.2 million people when the US population was 240 million.
Obama gave amnesty to 4.4 million people when the US population was 321 million.
Looks like Reagan actually did MORE damage with amnesty than obama did. Some leadership. And that's back when it was harder to track these illegals. Lots of damage to unleash on our nation.
Obama tried to match reagan's kindness, but failed by not legalizing enough of these illegal fvckers.
-
Yeah - 52% is awesome - its called failure in even the worst inner city schools where even a pulse gets a passing grade.
O-TWINK has made a complete mess of foreign policy, the economy sucks still, he is left pursuing bullshit causes like trannys in the bathroom, etc.
Actually, the right started this bullshit.
You know that's true.
While I don't think Obama will be in the list of greatest. He certainly won't be in the list of worst.
History will be kind to him in general.
-
Reagan gave amnesty to 3.2 million people when the US population was 240 million.
Obama gave amnesty to 4.4 million people when the US population was 321 million.
Looks like Reagan actually did MORE damage with amnesty than obama did. Some leadership. And that's back when it was harder to track these illegals. Lots of damage to unleash on our nation.
Obama tried to match reagan's kindness, but failed by not legalizing enough of these illegal fvckers.
Really 240.....no Reagan's mistake was trusting the leftist shitbags in Congress to keep their word. You are an epic lefty fail.
-
Actually, the right started this bullshit.
You know that's true.
While I don't think Obama will be in the list of greatest. He certainly won't be in the list of worst.
History will be kind to him in general.
No, that was the left. A small leftist group in Charlotte, NC started it knowing what the rights reaction would be. Just another ruse from the leftist playbook using transgendered as the pawns this time.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/the-truth-about-north-carolinas-bathroom-bill/
But this is a right leaning website so I'm sure it's BS, right?
-
No, that was the left. A small leftist group in Charlotte, NC started it knowing what the rights reaction would be. Just another ruse from the leftist playbook using transgendered as the pawns this time.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/the-truth-about-north-carolinas-bathroom-bill/
But this is a right leaning website so I'm sure it's BS, right?
Who made the law?
-
Who made the law?
Did you even read the link? You replied within 1 minute of my post so obviously not. Republicans made the law, that is not disputed. But why? The Democrat city council was offered alternatives, but as always with leftists, it's their way or no way. Read the link know it all, you may learn some info that may change your perspective.
-
Did you even read the link? You replied within 1 minute of my post so obviously not. Republicans made the law, that is not disputed. But why? The Democrat city council was offered alternatives, but as always with leftists, it's their way or no way. Read the link know it all, you may learn some info that may change your perspective.
First. Reading your link and asking my question are two completely different things.
Secondly. The law was directly designed to overturn a city ordinance that was in place.
City ordinances happen all of the time, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. Just because the state decided to purposefully go against an ordinance by creating a statewide law doesn't make any difference.
As I have stated numerous times. None of this is worthwhile as the law is a pointless law. One whose sole purpose is to push down LGBT rights as it were.
Trans people have been going to the bathroom they identify with for many many years and there was no problem. So now there is a statewide law that was a waste of tax payer dollars.
I get that you are on the right side... that's fine, but how do you console yourself with the fact that the conservatives are fine wasting tax payer dollars on certain things, but then get all upset when democrats do it as well?
I personally hate it when both of them waste money, so I'm different.
-
Really 240.....no Reagan's mistake was trusting the leftist shitbags in Congress to keep their word. You are an epic lefty fail.
pretty big mistake. I thought reagan had better judgment.
-
First. Reading your link and asking my question are two completely different things.
Secondly. The law was directly designed to overturn a city ordinance that was in place.
City ordinances happen all of the time, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. Just because the state decided to purposefully go against an ordinance by creating a statewide law doesn't make any difference.
As I have stated numerous times. None of this is worthwhile as the law is a pointless law. One whose sole purpose is to push down LGBT rights as it were.
Trans people have been going to the bathroom they identify with for many many years and there was no problem. So now there is a statewide law that was a waste of tax payer dollars.
I get that you are on the right side... that's fine, but how do you console yourself with the fact that the conservatives are fine wasting tax payer dollars on certain things, but then get all upset when democrats do it as well?
I personally hate it when both of them waste money, so I'm different.
Again, did you actually READ the article?!? Charlotte enacted an ordinance opening all restrooms and showers to ALL sexes. Not just people who identified as transgendered, but all. Charlotte had zero basis to enact such an ordinance. From the article you will not read:
The Charlotte city council had no authority to enact its ordinance, much less threaten tens of thousands of businesses with fines and minor punishments if they didn’t comply. They were threatening 23,000 businesses and nonprofits, including small “mom and pop” establishments, with fines and other minor punishments if they didn’t conform to that policy.
So of course the state is going to step in. Not because of some homophobe right wing conservatives, but because businesses were being threatened by something that had no legal legs to stand on.
More from the article you have not read:
This constitutional standard is not unique to North Carolina. North Carolina is one of at least 37 states like Virginia where cities and towns cannot pass rules or regulations that exceed the authority given to them by the state. This practice assures that laws and policies are consistent throughout a state and do not change with every border or small town.
And as far as me personally, I don't believe we need a law either way. We had no problems with this before, so why now? Oh, that's right, because the leftists democrat council in Charlotte new exactly what would happen when they created this ordinance. It would cause the right to react and create a law. Tell me, 3/10 of 1% is the estimated amount of truly transgendered people nationwide. So these individuals are so overly persecuted in NC that Charlotte had to create this ordinance? Really? If, like you say it was never a problem before, why create the ordinance? Because they set a trap and it worked just as intended. Again, this isn't about trangender rights, they are just the pawns in a bigger overall agenda.
-
Again, did you actually READ the article?!? Charlotte enacted an ordinance opening all restrooms and showers to ALL sexes. Not just people who identified as transgendered, but all. Charlotte had zero basis to enact such an ordinance. From the article you will not read:
The Charlotte city council had no authority to enact its ordinance, much less threaten tens of thousands of businesses with fines and minor punishments if they didn’t comply. They were threatening 23,000 businesses and nonprofits, including small “mom and pop” establishments, with fines and other minor punishments if they didn’t conform to that policy.
So of course the state is going to step in. Not because of some homophobe right wing conservatives, but because businesses were being threatened by something that had no legal legs to stand on.
More from the article you have not read:
This constitutional standard is not unique to North Carolina. North Carolina is one of at least 37 states like Virginia where cities and towns cannot pass rules or regulations that exceed the authority given to them by the state. This practice assures that laws and policies are consistent throughout a state and do not change with every border or small town.
And as far as me personally, I don't believe we need a law either way. We had no problems with this before, so why now? Oh, that's right, because the leftists democrat council in Charlotte new exactly what would happen when they created this ordinance. It would cause the right to react and create a law. Tell me, 3/10 of 1% is the estimated amount of truly transgendered people nationwide. So these individuals are so overly persecuted in NC that Charlotte had to create this ordinance? Really? If, like you say it was never a problem before, why create the ordinance? Because they set a trap and it worked just as intended. Again, this isn't about trangender rights, they are just the pawns in a bigger overall agenda.
Let me make sure what you're saying. You're saying that if a city makes a law, that the correct response is to waste more tax payer dollars to enact a law that is unjust?
Just want to make sure here.
Yes, I read your article. So what? It doesn't change anything that I've said at all.
Charlotte has numerous ordinances that are not specifically designated by the state. So what?
-
Let me make sure what you're saying. You're saying that if a city makes a law, that the correct response is to waste more tax payer dollars to enact a law that is unjust?
Just want to make sure here.
Yes, I read your article. So what? It doesn't change anything that I've said at all.
Charlotte has numerous ordinances that are not specifically designated by the state. So what?
You are an ideologue who just likes to argue. And I suspect you are a tranny as well with the passion you defend this. Anyone with a little common sense could see this was a trap set up by certain members on a local city council. But I digress, I'll leave you be to go hit the local glory hole in your finest dress and heels. TuTranny👍😀
-
You are an ideologue who just likes to argue. And I suspect you are a tranny as well with the passion you defend this. Anyone with a little common sense could see this was a trap set up by certain members on a local city council. But I digress, I'll leave you be to go hit the local glory hole in your finest dress and heels. TuTranny👍😀
Yeah, that's it.
::)
The final statement of someone with no good answer right here folks.
PS. being an ideologue isn't some slight. Everyone should have their own systems and beliefs.
-
Yeah, that's it.
::)
The final statement of someone with no good answer right here folks.
PS. being an ideologue isn't some slight. Everyone should have their own systems and beliefs.
No good answer? Well answer me this then TuTranny, since you have deflected every sensible question I have asked. Why did the city council of Charlotte see fit to create an ordinance allowing all restrooms and SHOWERS to be open to both sexes, to include transgenders? You think it's cool for a fully grown man to shower with prepubescent girls? Because that ordinance creates just that. Are transgenders being strung up left and right at such a rate in NC that an ordinance was justified? Why was an ordinance NEEDED? Was it n-e-e-d-e-d???
-
No good answer? Well answer me this then TuTranny, since you have deflected every sensible question I have asked. Why did the city council of Charlotte see fit to create an ordinance allowing all restrooms and SHOWERS to be open to both sexes, to include transgenders? You think it's cool for a fully grown man to shower with prepubescent girls? Because that ordinance creates just that. Are transgenders being strung up left and right at such a rate in NC that an ordinance was justified? Why was an ordinance NEEDED? Was it n-e-e-d-e-d???
No. It wasn't needed. As a matter of fact, I think it was also a completely wasted law.
You haven't asked any sensible questions until just this one.
Ask sensible questions and you get answers.
Actually, prior to this you only asked ONE question...twice.
You asked if I read the link.
The rest was you making statements. Statements are not questions.
-
Bolton Rips 'Narcissistic' Obama: 'A Small Man Who's Never Been Qualified'
Jun 14, 2016 // 1:25pm
As seen on Outnumbered
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton slammed President Obama's "snarky" comments in which the president went after Republicans for their criticism over his refusal to say "radical Islamic terrorism."
Speaking from the White House this afternoon, Obama chose to angrily target GOP politicians, arguing that 'radical Islam' is not a "magic phrase."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
He said the whole debate over the words "radical Islam" is merely a "political distraction."
"There's no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam,'" Obama said. "It's a political talking point, not a strategy."
Amb. Bolton and Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted on Outnumbered after the speech ended, with Bolton going after the president for his tone after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
"Snark is not an admirable trait and criticizing your political opponents in a speech to the nation at a time when they want to know what we're doing to protect ourselves from other attacks is beneath the dignity of the office. He's never been qualified to be commander-in-chief," he said.
Bolton argued that the country wants to hear answers from Obama on how future attacks are going to be stopped, not a "lecture" directed at his political rivals.
"I think that's un-presidential. I think it shows the president to be a small man," said Bolton, calling Obama "one of the most narcissistic individuals to ever hold that job."
Bolton recommended that Hillary Clinton break with the president on this issue and declare that "as long as Americans are dying, we are not doing enough" against the ISIS threat.
Judge Pirro said Obama's criticism "was an embarrassment" and his words will not make Americans feel safer.
Watch the full segment above and see Obama's remarks here.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/bolton-rips-obama-radical-islam-comments-small-man-whos-never-been-qualified
-
Obamarama is in transition like Catlykin Jenner for after the WH
Bolton Rips 'Narcissistic' Obama: 'A Small Man Who's Never Been Qualified'
Jun 14, 2016 // 1:25pm
As seen on Outnumbered
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton slammed President Obama's "snarky" comments in which the president went after Republicans for their criticism over his refusal to say "radical Islamic terrorism."
Speaking from the White House this afternoon, Obama chose to angrily target GOP politicians, arguing that 'radical Islam' is not a "magic phrase."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
He said the whole debate over the words "radical Islam" is merely a "political distraction."
"There's no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam,'" Obama said. "It's a political talking point, not a strategy."
Amb. Bolton and Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted on Outnumbered after the speech ended, with Bolton going after the president for his tone after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
"Snark is not an admirable trait and criticizing your political opponents in a speech to the nation at a time when they want to know what we're doing to protect ourselves from other attacks is beneath the dignity of the office. He's never been qualified to be commander-in-chief," he said.
Bolton argued that the country wants to hear answers from Obama on how future attacks are going to be stopped, not a "lecture" directed at his political rivals.
"I think that's un-presidential. I think it shows the president to be a small man," said Bolton, calling Obama "one of the most narcissistic individuals to ever hold that job."
Bolton recommended that Hillary Clinton break with the president on this issue and declare that "as long as Americans are dying, we are not doing enough" against the ISIS threat.
Judge Pirro said Obama's criticism "was an embarrassment" and his words will not make Americans feel safer.
Watch the full segment above and see Obama's remarks here.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/bolton-rips-obama-radical-islam-comments-small-man-whos-never-been-qualified
-
Bolton Rips 'Narcissistic' Obama: 'A Small Man Who's Never Been Qualified'
Jun 14, 2016 // 1:25pm
As seen on Outnumbered
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton slammed President Obama's "snarky" comments in which the president went after Republicans for their criticism over his refusal to say "radical Islamic terrorism."
Speaking from the White House this afternoon, Obama chose to angrily target GOP politicians, arguing that 'radical Islam' is not a "magic phrase."
"What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."
He said the whole debate over the words "radical Islam" is merely a "political distraction."
"There's no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam,'" Obama said. "It's a political talking point, not a strategy."
Amb. Bolton and Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted on Outnumbered after the speech ended, with Bolton going after the president for his tone after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
"Snark is not an admirable trait and criticizing your political opponents in a speech to the nation at a time when they want to know what we're doing to protect ourselves from other attacks is beneath the dignity of the office. He's never been qualified to be commander-in-chief," he said.
Bolton argued that the country wants to hear answers from Obama on how future attacks are going to be stopped, not a "lecture" directed at his political rivals.
"I think that's un-presidential. I think it shows the president to be a small man," said Bolton, calling Obama "one of the most narcissistic individuals to ever hold that job."
Bolton recommended that Hillary Clinton break with the president on this issue and declare that "as long as Americans are dying, we are not doing enough" against the ISIS threat.
Judge Pirro said Obama's criticism "was an embarrassment" and his words will not make Americans feel safer.
Watch the full segment above and see Obama's remarks here.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/14/bolton-rips-obama-radical-islam-comments-small-man-whos-never-been-qualified
sigh..Bolton still obviously angry that he was beat out for the national security position by Condi Rice in the Bush administration.
-
Obama Hasn’t Bothered to Call Florida Gov. Scott
Posted on June 14, 2016
by Keith Koffler
President Obama as of Tuesday morning had not called Florida Gov. Rick Scott to discuss an act of terror in Orlando that is also the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
“A staffer has called, but no, he has not called,” Scott said on Fox News.
How could this possibly be, even for a president as inattentive and uncommunicative and insular as Obama? Isn’t there information that he would want to get, so he can issue directives to his aides? Is he on top of this situation at all or just having a series of meetings and delivering statements for show?
Maybe he is busy booking activities for his three-day excursion out West Friday to a couple of National Parks.
The White House also has refused to share vetting information with Florida on Syrian refugees coming into the state, according to Scott.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/06/14/obama-bothered-call-florida-gov-scott/
-
Obama Hasn’t Bothered to Call Florida Gov. Scott
Oh, fuuuck that. Gov Scott is a POS that wasn't affected by the shooting. Call the victims, if you want to all someone.
Scott declared a state of emergency.
http://www.flgov.com/2016/06/12/governor-scott-declares-state-of-emergency-in-orange-county-following-tragic-shooting/
THis is just repubs being whiny victims. Scott spends most of his week shitting on obama. He's butthurt that Obama isn't calling him for what reason?
Sheesh, it's not a hurricane, it's a shooting. Rick Scott whines on fox news, great... spend those resources with the poor families, not scott.
-
Oh look. It's Obama's biggest cheerleader/apologist.
-
Oh look. It's Obama's biggest cheerleader/apologist.
come on man, Rick Scott upset because Obama was talking to victims, and not him?
Gimme a break. The shit yall get mad about...
-
Brexit Leader Rips Obama In Front of the Entire World
Jordan Riddle
June 28, 2016
A leader of Brexit just took a major swing at Obama in front of the entire world.
Check this out, it’s glorious…
From Western Journalism:
A leader of the effort to pull Britain out of the European Union continued his attack on President Barack Obama Monday, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin behaved in a more “statesmanlike” manner than America’s president during the Brexit vote.
Nigel Farage, leader of the Independent Party, last week said that Obama’s chiding in April of Britons to remain in the EU was one factor that influenced their vote to leave.
Obama’s anti-Brexit remarks “backfired,” Farage said last week. “We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote. A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?’”
Farage reiterated this point Monday night on Fox News.
“Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain, and I think, behaved disgracefully, telling us we’d be at the back of the queue … treating us, America’s strongest, oldest ally, in this most extraordinary way,” he said.
Obama just got roasted by the leader of the Brexit movement on the global stage for all to see.
If that’s not a major embarrassment for our nation I don’t know what is.
January, 2017, can’t come soon enough.
http://www.youngcons.com/brexit-leader-rips-obama-in-front-of-the-entire-world/
-
Saying this about someone who might be the next president while standing next to a foreign leader. President Obama's poor leadership on full display.
Obama says Trump 'unfit' for presidency
By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Tue August 2, 2016
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama offered one of his sharpest denunciations of Donald Trump to date Tuesday, declaring the Republican nominee entirely unfit to serve as president and lambasting Republicans for sticking by their nominee.
The strong rebuke in the White House East Room came after Trump's criticism of the family of a slain Muslim US soldier, along with comments that displayed apparent confusion related to the Russian incursion into Ukraine.
"The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president," Obama said at a White House news conference with the Prime Minister of Singapore. "He keeps on proving it."
The Trump campaign responded by going after the Democratic nominee as well as the President.
"Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office," a Trump statement said, listing a number of policy concerns. "Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi."
Later Trump in an interview with WJLA said of Obama: "He's a terrible president. He'll probably go down as the worst president in the history of our country. He's been a total disaster."
Obama on Tuesday described his feelings about Trump as unprecedented, recalling disagreements with previous GOP presidential nominees Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney -- but never an outright sense they were unfit to serve.
"The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he's woefully unprepared to do this job," Obama said.
Speaking alongside Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the White House East Room, Obama said there are now weekly episodes in which even Republican party leaders distance themselves from Trump.
"There has to be a point at which you say, 'Enough,' " Obama said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/obama-says-trump-unfit-for-presidency/
-
Yeah. That's tasteless.
I've never heard of a sitting president saying something like that.
It's terrible.
-
The worst president of my lifetime going out with a bang.
Obama to Announce Release of 15 Guantanamo Detainees in Largest Transfer of Presidency
08/15/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-prisoners-guantanamo-bay_us_57b225fce4b07184041270a4?section=&
-
The worst president of my lifetime going out with a bang.
Obama to Announce Release of 15 Guantanamo Detainees in Largest Transfer of Presidency
08/15/2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/15-prisoners-guantanamo-bay_us_57b225fce4b07184041270a4?section=&
what exactly should he do with all these detainees oh great pontificator???
-
what exactly should he do with all these detainees oh great pontificator???
send them to dubai, india.
(c) getbig 2005
-
what exactly should he do with all these detainees oh great pontificator???
Either prosecute them or let them go, you blind partisan liberal lackey.
-
Either prosecute them or let them go, you blind partisan liberal lackey.
eh, prosecuting them is hard. They were in a field of battle 15 years ago. not a lot of evidence they did bad things, they may be POWs, and we know they're going to do bad shit again. So yeah, ship them to UAE and let them stall it for another decade. No biggie, right?
-
Either prosecute them or let them go, you blind partisan liberal lackey.
ummmmmmmm....isn't that what he has been doing??????????????...he just released 15 of them to a middle eastern country......its the repubs and Congress that won't let him close Guantanomo.....yet you seem not to criticize them you partisan hack....I wonder why??????
The president has no authority to close Guantanomo unless Congress oks it
SORRY
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-hasnt-the-guantanamo-bay-prison-closed/
-
ummmmmmmm....isn't that what he has been doing??????????????...he just released 15 of them to a middle eastern country......its the repubs and Congress that won't let him close Guantanomo.....yet you seem not to criticize them you partisan hack....I wonder why??????
The president has no authority to close Guantanomo unless Congress oks it
SORRY
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-hasnt-the-guantanamo-bay-prison-closed/
He is relocating them, where they will be released and likely return to the battle field, like so many others have done. I'm not in favor of releasing them. I think if they are being held they should be tried. I don't believe in detaining anyone indefinitely without charging and prosecuting them.
The president doesn't care about separation of powers. If you weren't a blind partisan disciple you'd see that.
-
He is relocating them, where they will be released and likely return to the battle field, like so many others have done. I'm not in favor of releasing them. I think if they are being held they should be tried. I don't believe in detaining anyone indefinitely without charging and prosecuting them.
The president doesn't care about separation of powers. If you weren't a blind partisan disciple you'd see that.
why not just address the real issue that you brought up...WHY HASNT OBAMA SHUT DOWN GUANTANOMO.....I explained why...that Congress keeps saying no........and won't compromise......thats the answeer...
you refuse to admit when you are wrong about anything pertaining to Obama because you love to blame him for everything
THINK
-
why not just address the real issue that you brought up...WHY HASNT OBAMA SHUT DOWN GUANTANOMO.....I explained why...that Congress keeps saying no........and won't compromise......thats the answeer...
you refuse to admit when you are wrong about anything pertaining to Obama because you love to blame him for everything
THINK
He has pledged to shut it down before he leaves office, regardless of what Congress authorizes. He's still in office.
I get that you haven't seen all those times Obama has ignored the separation of powers and the times he has been checked by the courts. You don't see it, because you have been carrying his water for eight years.
And notice how I typed all that without yelling. Talk about hysterical tirades. lol
-
He has pledged to shut it down before he leaves office, regardless of what Congress authorizes. He's still in office.
I get that you haven't seen all those times Obama has ignored the separation of powers and the times he has been checked by the courts. You don't see it, because you have been carrying his water for eight years.
And notice how I typed all that without yelling. Talk about hysterical tirades. lol
yes he has pledged this...but again....Congress keeps saying no.....now..please stop being dishonest and answer my question ....does this fact that Congress refuses to shut down Guantanomo mean that Obama is taking unfair criticism for its STILL being open????? simple yes or no
-
yes he has pledged this...but again....Congress keeps saying no.....now..please stop being dishonest and answer my question ....does this fact that Congress refuses to shut down Guantanomo mean that Obama is taking unfair criticism for its STILL being open????? simple yes or no
I already answered your question. He is trying to shut it down and has pledged to do so before he leaves office. He hasn't left office. So "no," he isn't taking unfair criticism. He is making the country (and the world) less safe, just like he helped destabilize the Middle East. An absolute disaster. Horrible leader. Unless you are a true believer.
-
I already answered your question. He is trying to shut it down and has pledged to do so before he leaves office. He hasn't left office. So "no," he isn't taking unfair criticism. He is making the country (and the world) less safe, just like he helped destabilize the Middle East. An absolute disaster. Horrible leader. Unless you are a true believer.
I'm a true believer in being honest and fair....Congress has said NO to shutting down Guantanomo over Obama's objections...YET you still persist in blaming Obama.....you are being dishonest
As a mod you are held to a higher standard and you are trusted with discerning truth from fiction in order to uphold civilized discussion.....but you can't do that when you ignore reality because it suits you to do so.... I expect that from SC but I hope you will begin to stop being a knee jerk reactionist against Obama because you identify with his opponents
-
I'm a true believer in being honest and fair....Congress has said NO to shutting down Guantanomo over Obama's objections...YET you still persist in blaming Obama.....you are being dishonest
As a mod you are held to a higher standard and you are trusted with discerning truth from fiction in order to uphold civilized discussion.....but you can't do that when you ignore reality because it suits you to do so.... I expect that from SC but I hope you will begin to stop being a knee jerk reactionist against Obama because you identify with his opponents
There is nothing dishonest about my criticism of your cult leader. He is going to do exactly what he has done since he has been in office: trample on the separation of powers. He is a lawless dishonest train wreck of a leader.
I know this whole message board thing holds a special place in your life. But it's ok. You'll survive.
-
I'm a true believer in being honest and fair....Congress has said NO to shutting down Guantanomo over Obama's objections...YET you still persist in blaming Obama.....you are being dishonest
As a mod you are held to a higher standard and you are trusted with discerning truth from fiction in order to uphold civilized discussion.....but you can't do that when you ignore reality because it suits you to do so.... I expect that from SC but I hope you will begin to stop being a knee jerk reactionist against Obama because you identify with his opponents
So are you saying that if we can get you promoted to mod, you will start being truthful and unbiased?
-
There is nothing dishonest about my criticism of your cult leader. He is going to do exactly what he has done since he has been in office: trample on the separation of powers. He is a lawless dishonest train wreck of a leader.
I know this whole message board thing holds a special place in your life. But it's ok. You'll survive.
HA!..coming from the guy who has triple my posts.....I guess I hurt your feelings again oh great pontificator........
cult leader????....hilarious!....why are you so angry????????????
-
HA!..coming from the guy who has triple my posts.....I guess I hurt your feelings again oh great pontificator........
cult leader????....hilarious!....why are you so angry????????????
Oh we are asking stupid questions? I'll play. When did you realize you are a hermaphrodite?
-
Oh we are asking stupid questions? I'll play. When did you realize you are a hermaphrodite?
you ARE angry.....WOW!.....all because you refused to acknowledge that the failure to close Guantanomo bay is not Obama's fault....yes he did make the pledge to do so...but I don't think he anticipated the level of resistance that he would get from the Republicans once he took office
now aagain.....based upon what I told you...is Obama the reason that Gitmo is still open>??????????????????????
-
you ARE angry.....WOW!.....all because you refused to acknowledge that the failure to close Guantanomo bay is not Obama's fault....yes he did make the pledge to do so...but I don't think he anticipated the level of resistance that he would get from the Republicans once he took office
now aagain.....based upon what I told you...is Obama the reason that Gitmo is still open>??????????????????????
Obama deserves to be in GITMO with all the other pedo goat humpers so they can practice islam together 5 times a day.
-
I think it is fair to say that Obama has shown he will do things using executive order if he feels he really wants to bad enough.
If he wanted to close Gitmo, he would.
That's just an opinion though.
-
you ARE angry.....WOW!.....all because you refused to acknowledge that the failure to close Guantanomo bay is not Obama's fault....yes he did make the pledge to do so...but I don't think he anticipated the level of resistance that he would get from the Republicans once he took office
now aagain.....based upon what I told you...is Obama the reason that Gitmo is still open>??????????????????????
Oh yes. Frothing at the mouth angry. Banging my keyboard with all caps (yelling), exclamation marks galore. Hyperbole.
Wait. That's you. :)
-
Oh yes. Frothing at the mouth angry. Banging my keyboard with all caps (yelling), exclamation marks galore. Hyperbole.
Wait. That's you. :)
you still are dancing around my direct question to you
-
you still are dancing around my direct question to you
What direct question?
-
What direct question?
Holy shit...now you see why we can't have an honest discussion..I've asked you about three times already
-
Holy shit...now you see why we can't have an honest discussion..I've asked you about three times already
Perhaps I did answer you and you are too much of a dope to realize it? What specific question are you talking about?
-
You are definitely proving why I call you the great pontificator.......carry on
-
You are definitely proving why I call you the great pontificator.......carry on
No worries zombie.
-
No worries zombie.
pontificate on
-
So are you saying that if we can get you promoted to mod, you will start being truthful and unbiased?
It appears they don't make Liberals into mods around here
-
Rep. Pete King Denounces Obama's 'Shameful' Defense of Kaepernick
By Mark Swanson | Monday, 05 Sep 2016
Rep. Pete King on Monday took President Barack Obama to task for his "shameful" defense of Colin Kapernick, accusing the president of "propagating the big lie against our nation's police."
"President Obama's defense of Colin Kaepernick is shameful and intentionally misleading," King said in a statement. "No one questions Kaepernick's right to protest. Every American can protest any issue no matter how biased, bigoted or uninformed."
King, R-N.Y., was responding to Obama's assertion Monday that Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, "cares about some real, legitimate issues." Kaepernick has refused to stand for the national anthem out of protest for the deaths of several black men in police-involved shootings.
"By saying that Kaepernick is raising a legitimate issue when he says that police are intentionally killing and targeting African-Americans, President Obama is giving moral cover and approval to hideous slander and propagating the big lie against our nation's police emanating from the likes of Black Lives Matter," King wrote. "The facts are that police shootings against whites are the same as against African-Americans, and in almost all cases justified. No one does more to save and protect all lives -- black and white -- than the police. It is the police who are being targeted and assassinated."
Kaepernick has said his protest is a means to bring attention to what he calls racial injustice, something Obama approves of, saying that these are "issues that need to be talked about."
"President Obama says Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem and his slander against police is "messy." No, Mr. President, it is disgraceful," King wrote. "There is no moral equivalence between criminals like Michael Brown and innocent cops who are being assassinated. It is time for America to honestly address racial tensions and injustices. Kaepernick adds nothing intelligent to the debate. He just inflames those tensions. Sadly the President has chosen to side with Kaepernick."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pete-king-obama-kaepernick/2016/09/05/id/746710/#ixzz4JPF6zInp
-
Rep. Pete King Denounces Obama's 'Shameful' Defense of Kaepernick
By Mark Swanson | Monday, 05 Sep 2016
Rep. Pete King on Monday took President Barack Obama to task for his "shameful" defense of Colin Kapernick, accusing the president of "propagating the big lie against our nation's police."
"President Obama's defense of Colin Kaepernick is shameful and intentionally misleading," King said in a statement. "No one questions Kaepernick's right to protest. Every American can protest any issue no matter how biased, bigoted or uninformed."
King, R-N.Y., was responding to Obama's assertion Monday that Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, "cares about some real, legitimate issues." Kaepernick has refused to stand for the national anthem out of protest for the deaths of several black men in police-involved shootings.
"By saying that Kaepernick is raising a legitimate issue when he says that police are intentionally killing and targeting African-Americans, President Obama is giving moral cover and approval to hideous slander and propagating the big lie against our nation's police emanating from the likes of Black Lives Matter," King wrote. "The facts are that police shootings against whites are the same as against African-Americans, and in almost all cases justified. No one does more to save and protect all lives -- black and white -- than the police. It is the police who are being targeted and assassinated."
Kaepernick has said his protest is a means to bring attention to what he calls racial injustice, something Obama approves of, saying that these are "issues that need to be talked about."
"President Obama says Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the National Anthem and his slander against police is "messy." No, Mr. President, it is disgraceful," King wrote. "There is no moral equivalence between criminals like Michael Brown and innocent cops who are being assassinated. It is time for America to honestly address racial tensions and injustices. Kaepernick adds nothing intelligent to the debate. He just inflames those tensions. Sadly the President has chosen to side with Kaepernick."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pete-king-obama-kaepernick/2016/09/05/id/746710/#ixzz4JPF6zInp
Whats all this nonsense about?...Kaepernick has a right to sit down during the national anthem.....so what?...its his right.....
-
Whats all this nonsense about?...Kaepernick has a right to sit down during the national anthem.....so what?...its his right.....
No he doesn't. No it isn't.
-
No he doesn't. No it isn't.
It's not his right?
Now I'm confused.
Could you explain this?
-
It's not his right?
Now I'm confused.
Could you explain this?
He can't.....he usually reacts illogically to anything I say......he can't help it
-
It's not his right?
Now I'm confused.
Could you explain this?
The First Amendment doesn't protect speech/expression, unless it is being infringed by the government. You don't have the right to say whatever you want in the workplace. You have the right to say or express whatever your employer permits.
So, you could he has "the right" to protest, but the Niners and the NFL also have the right to punish and/or fire him (which they have elected not to do).
-
He can't.....he usually reacts illogically to anything I say......he can't help it
You should sit this one out simpleton.
-
The First Amendment doesn't protect speech/expression, unless it is being infringed by the government. You don't have the right to say whatever you want in the workplace. You have the right to say or express whatever your employer permits.
So, you could he has "the right" to protest, but the Niners and the NFL also have the right to punish and/or fire him (which they have elected not to do).
you basically just admitted he has a right to protest..which is what i said......consequences be damned....does he have the right?...YES
-
you basically just admitted he has a right to protest..which is what i said......consequences be damned....does he have the right?...YES
I told you to sit this one out. When people are talking about his "right" to protest, they are talking about the First Amendment, often not understanding that it only protects you from the government. Pretty sure you don't understand that.
-
I told you to sit this one out. When people are talking about his "right" to protest, they are talking about the First Amendment, often not understanding that it only protects you from the government. Pretty sure you don't understand that.
No, thats not what people are talking about at all....the question has nothing to do with government....people have grown up thinking that nothing should be done to "disrespect" the flag and that you should always stand and pledge yourslef to the flag.....and that not doing so makes one evil and untrustworthy.....even traitorous.......due to this, people who don't stand and put their hand over their heart are stigmatized.....the "right" that people are talking about is that he and others who refuse to stand and to place their hands over their hearts have a right to do so and SHOULD NOT be stigmatized for protesting which is an American right...
Can we please have an honest discussion just ONCE?????????????????????
-
No, thats not what people are talking about at all....the question has nothing to do with government....people have grown up thinking that nothing should be done to "disrespect" the flag and that you should always stand and pledge yourslef to the flag.....and that not doing so makes one evil and untrustworthy.....even traitorous.......due to this, people who don't stand and put their hand over their heart are stigmatized.....the "right" that people are talking about is that he and others who refuse to stand and to place their hands over their hearts have a right to do so and SHOULD NOT be stigmatized for protesting which is an American right...
Can we please have an honest discussion just ONCE?????????????????????
It's difficult to have an honest discussion when you just make stuff up. President Obama said: “He’s following his constitutional right to make a statement . . . I think there’s a long history of sports figures doing so.”
Now go ahead and tell me President Obama wasn't talking about the First Amendment.
-
It's difficult to have an honest discussion when you just make stuff up. President Obama said: “He’s following his constitutional right to make a statement . . . I think there’s a long history of sports figures doing so.”
Now go ahead and tell me President Obama wasn't talking about the First Amendment.
Look, I understand perfectly well that my repeated destructions and ownings of you have put you in a state of mind of constantly having to prove yourself against me.....which is why you behave the way you do when we debate.......even when we are on the same side you switch the debate to something else so as to oppose me....the original question was, DOES HE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST BY SITTING DOWN DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM???????you said NO....Tu and i said yes he does.....then you change your argument to "constitutional right" and say YES..which is it???????..or are you going to do what you usually do and say "I already told you" when you haven't really said anything
STRANGE...........
-
Look, I understand perfectly well that my repeated destructions and ownings of you have put you in a state of mind of constantly having to prove yourself against me.....which is why you behave the way you do when we debate.......even when we are on the same side you switch the debate to something else so as to oppose me....the original question was, DOES HE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST BY SITTING DOWN DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM???????you said NO....Tu and i said yes he does.....then you change your argument to "constitutional right" and say YES..which is it???????..or are you going to do what you usually do and say "I already told you" when you haven't really said anything
STRANGE...........
*yawn*
I gave you the quote from the president. Was he talking about the First Amendment or not?
-
*yawn*
I gave you the quote from the president. Was he talking about the First Amendment or not?
so in other words, you're wrong AGAIN as usual?????????????????
-
so in other words, you're wrong AGAIN as usual?????????????????
You have should have listened to me when I told you to sit this one out. You are an Obamabot zombie. You lack critical thinking skills. How are you going to survive when Obama leaves office?
I posted an article about Obama's claim that Kaepernick had a "constitutional right" to protest.
You claimed Kaepernick does have a "right" to protest, clearly not understanding that he has no First Amendment protection.
You then said this:
No, thats not what people are talking about at all....the question has nothing to do with government....
In other words, you said people (like the president) are not saying Kapernick has a First Amendment right to protest.
I responded with the exact quote from Obama:
President Obama said: “He’s following his constitutional right to make a statement . . . I think there’s a long history of sports figures doing so.”
Anyone with just a little capacity to reason, who isn't a hack, understands exactly what Obama was trying to say (i.e., mistakenly saying Kaepernick has a First Amendment right to protest). And if you are claiming that the entire discussion about his "right" to protest hasn't been grounded on people's belief that Kaepernick has a First Amendment right to protest, you are a lying fool.
-
The First Amendment doesn't protect speech/expression, unless it is being infringed by the government. You don't have the right to say whatever you want in the workplace. You have the right to say or express whatever your employer permits.
So, you could he has "the right" to protest, but the Niners and the NFL also have the right to punish and/or fire him (which they have elected not to do).
No argument with either of these statements.
He has the right to do what he chooses to do, but of course anyone deciding to hold him accountable are also within their "rights".
-
No argument with either of these statements.
He has the right to do what he chooses to do, but of course anyone deciding to hold him accountable are also within their "rights".
IMO, conduct isn't really a "right" if you get penalized for engaging in it. We have the "right" to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc. and the government cannot infringe on that right (with exceptions). That's different than saying we have the "right" to proselytize in the workplace if the employer says don't do it. If the boss says no, and an employee does it anyway and gets fired, I don't see that as a "right" being exercised by the employee. Same with this free speech/expression issue. If the Niners decided to fine or cut Kaepernick for disrespecting the national anthem, Kaepernick would be exercising his right to get fined/fired. Seems pretty hollow to me.
It's pretty remarkable, but not surprising, that President Obama who taught constitutional law doesn't understand how the First Amendment works. Or maybe he's just pandering.
-
IMO, conduct isn't really a "right" if you get penalized for engaging in it. We have the "right" to be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc. and the government cannot infringe on that right (with exceptions). That's different than saying we have the "right" to proselytize in the workplace if the employer says don't do it. If the boss says no, and an employee does it anyway and gets fired, I don't see that as a "right" being exercised by the employee. Same with this free speech/expression issue. If the Niners decided to fine or cut Kaepernick for disrespecting the national anthem, Kaepernick would be exercising his right to get fined/fired. Seems pretty hollow to me.
It's pretty remarkable, but not surprising, that President Obama who taught constitutional law doesn't understand how the First Amendment works. Or maybe he's just pandering.
O- sharpton needs to keep is plantation slaves happy by tossing them a bone like this
-
O- sharpton needs to keep is plantation slaves happy by tossing them a bone like this
Yeah. He has been doing it for his entire presidency.
-
He couldn't work through the legislative process, so he his legacy is largely tied in executive orders. An absolute leadership failure.
Spree of Obama actions revives GOP concerns over ‘midnight’ regs, agenda
By Fred Lucas
Published December 26, 2016
FoxNews.com
A flurry of big decisions out of the Obama administration just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office has rekindled Republican concerns about President Obama’s plans for jamming through so-called “midnight regulations” and other leftover items from his wish-list on his way out the door.
In the last week alone, the Obama administration blocked future oil and gas leases in swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans; granted a record number of pardons and commutations for a single day; and scrapped a dormant registry for male immigrants from a list of largely Muslim countries.
Defense officials told Fox News there is an effort underway to transfer up to 22 additional detainees out of Guantanamo Bay. And Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations stunned Israel on Friday by abstaining on a Security Council measure condemning settlement activity, allowing it to pass.
And Obama still has a month left in office. The most recent announcements were made while the first family was on vacation in Hawaii – leaving unclear what Obama has in store for when he gets back to Washington.
GINGRICH: OBAMA IN 'DESPERATE FRENZY'
Hanging over any final actions is the likelihood that Trump, once in office, will roll back many of them. “The things he’s done this week will be turned around,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said of Obama on “Fox News Sunday.” “He’s in this desperate frenzy.”
But Democrats are urging the outgoing president to pursue further actions, as the administration weighs its next steps.
Among the possibilities:
Sixty-four House Democrats recently asked Obama to use his pardon power to preserve his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which spared millions of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation. Led by Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., the lawmakers asked Obama in a letter to “exercise your Constitutional authority to provide pardons to young people who are American in every way but on paper.” The goal is to make it more difficult for Trump to potentially deport them.
The White House already has teed up the strong possibility of more clemency for nonviolent drug offenders and others. After Obama pardoned 78 people and granted another 153 commutations on Monday, White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said he expects “more grants of both commutations and pardons before [Obama] leaves office.”
Former President Jimmy Carter has called on Obama to go further in the Middle East and recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. In a New York Times op-ed, he wrote: “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.”
The White House has expressed reluctance to take some of these steps.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz said “there is a process at the Department of Justice to review pardon applications” and “the president has said he is not going to do anything to circumvent that process.” As for Carter’s appeal, Schultz said, “I don't think [Carter’s] views are new today, so I don't have any new positions or views from us on that.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest also said recently that any executive actions the president takes at this stage likely were in the works before the November election.
“What I can rule out are any sort of hastily added executive actions that weren’t previously considered that would just be tacked on at the end,” Earnest said.
Regulation ‘Finish Line’
While Obama weighs his last batch of policy decisions, many regulations already are coming through the pipeline. The final plans reportedly include as many as 98 regulations classified as “economically significant,” meaning each would cost the economy $100 million through compliance and consumer impact.
According to an analysis by the conservative American Action Forum, based on the Federal Register agenda, the administration is eyeing $44.1 billion in “midnight regulations” – or rules pushed in the final two months of an outgoing administration.
“This has been the most active December ever for regulations,” Sam Batkins, AAF’s director of regulatory affairs.
Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn’t conceal her eagerness in a staff memo sent after the election. “As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running—not walking—through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency,” McCarthy wrote.
By late November, the EPA announced stronger greenhouse gas emission standards, pushing 54.1 miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2022-2025. In mid-November, the Interior Department finalized a rule to cut methane emissions during oil and natural gas production on federal lands.
Among regulations expected to take effect: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services plans to make it easier for employers to sponsor highly skilled immigrants in the country; the Education Department is working on student debt relief at for-profit colleges; and on the financial services side, the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission are working on matters such as executive pay and mutual fund management.
According to an administration official, the number of active rules at the end of this administration still is 15 percent lower than at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The administration also notes that some economically significant regulations help the economy.
Republican Roll-Back
Congressional Republicans are bent on stopping or reversing the onslaught of new rules.
In a Dec. 5 letter, 20 Republican senators asked Obama to “honor the will of the American people and refrain from working on or issuing any new, non-emergency regulations while carrying out your remaining term in office.”
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in a Nov. 15 letter to federal agency heads signed by other House committee chairmen, asserted, “we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions—and, if appropriate, overturns them.”
The Congressional Review Act of 1996 allows Congress, with the president’s signature, to rescind regulations and prohibit agencies from imposing rules that are substantively the same.
That, however, would have limits even when Trump takes office, Batkins said.
“Congress can rescind regulations when it gets back, using the CRA, but the House and Senate will be working on health care, the economy and infrastructure,” Batkins told FoxNews.com. “Congress has a lot on its plate. Of the 100 or more midnight regulations that could fly through, there probably won’t be more than a dozen they would be interested in repealing.”
Asked at a November press conference about GOP calls to hold off on finalizing rules in his final weeks in office, Obama defended their rulemaking pace: “The regulations that we have issued are ones that we've been working on for a very long time. … These aren't things that we've been surprising people with.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/26/spree-obama-actions-revives-gop-concerns-over-midnight-regs-agenda.html?refresh=true
-
And here I thought this thread was dead. This man is a lousy leader even in retirement. He needs to shut the heck up and go make his overpriced speeches.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obamacare-repeal-push-draws-obama-into-fight.html
-
And here I thought this thread was dead. This man is a lousy leader even in retirement. He needs to shut the heck up and go make his overpriced speeches.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obamacare-repeal-push-draws-obama-into-fight.html
He is a gay failed communist think andbloser
-
And here I thought this thread was dead. This man is a lousy leader even in retirement. He needs to shut the heck up and go make his overpriced speeches.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obamacare-repeal-push-draws-obama-into-fight.html
All I can say is the Republicans had better actually repeal Obamacare or they are potentially destroying themselves. The founder of Obamacare laughed about the bill as it is basically the same except now the Republicans will be the ones to blame. Playing right into the democrats hands as now they can both criticize the "new" bill viciously and won't be looked at as to the ones to blame when the new Obamacare fails as well.
Pandering to people who didnt vote them in. Crazy.
-
All I can say is the Republicans had better actually repeal Obamacare or they are potentially destroying themselves. The founder of Obamacare laughed about the bill as it is basically the same except now the Republicans will be the ones to blame. Playing right into the democrats hands as now they can both criticize the "new" bill viciously and won't be looked at as to the ones to blame when the new Obamacare fails as well.
Pandering to people who didnt vote them in. Crazy.
The Republicans in DC are turning out to be a joke. They should have had a bill teed up and ready to go the moment Trump was sworn in. No excuse.
-
The Republicans in DC are turning out to be a joke. They should have had a bill teed up and ready to go the moment Trump was sworn in. No excuse.
This is true. It's quite sad they have nothing ready except for a bunch of shit.
I don't expect Obamacare is going anywhere. It's shit, but it's a smaller pile of shit than the Republican plans.
They won't get a full repeal. Too many people will lose healthcare and the trend of the country is to take care of people who need it.
There has been time with Obamacare in place to kind of show that a lot of the things like "Death Panels" aren't going to happen. The Republicans should have some smart people to resolve this, but apparently they are not talking to them.
My thought is to fix Welfare and then move welfare money into allowing everyone into medicaid if they want and that would fix a lot of the problems. The Republicans have had zero real plan other than to just complain about the fact that Obamacare is a problem. Simplistic, but I think it could be worked.
-
This is true. It's quite sad they have nothing ready except for a bunch of shit.
I don't expect Obamacare is going anywhere. It's shit, but it's a smaller pile of shit than the Republican plans.
They won't get a full repeal. Too many people will lose healthcare and the trend of the country is to take care of people who need it.
There has been time with Obamacare in place to kind of show that a lot of the things like "Death Panels" aren't going to happen. The Republicans should have some smart people to resolve this, but apparently they are not talking to them.
My thought is to fix Welfare and then move welfare money into allowing everyone into medicaid if they want and that would fix a lot of the problems. The Republicans have had zero real plan other than to just complain about the fact that Obamacare is a problem. Simplistic, but I think it could be worked.
Your idea makes since, although I will not be holding my breath waiting for them to get anything productive done.
-
Your idea makes since, although I will not be holding my breath waiting for them to get anything productive done.
I think we should treat anyone who is a welfare recipient exactly like normal working people in the sense that if you have more kids, you make it work with what you have.
I am willing to help the poor, with expectations.
1. Try to work.
2. You get a cap of 2 children. So let's use some general numbers. Lets say you receive 750 dollars a month per child in assistance. If you have a second child, you get another 750. After that, if you have a third child, you're out of luck. You get no more money. Have a fourth, still nothing else. Same with however many children you seem to have. This will eliminate the Welfare state in that sort of instance. We all work, if we work, and have more kids, your boss doesn't just give you more money to take care of the new child. You make it work yourself.
That's what we should do.
-
I think we should treat anyone who is a welfare recipient exactly like normal working people in the sense that if you have more kids, you make it work with what you have.
I am willing to help the poor, with expectations.
1. Try to work.
2. You get a cap of 2 children. So let's use some general numbers. Lets say you receive 750 dollars a month per child in assistance. If you have a second child, you get another 750. After that, if you have a third child, you're out of luck. You get no more money. Have a fourth, still nothing else. Same with however many children you seem to have. This will eliminate the Welfare state in that sort of instance. We all work, if we work, and have more kids, your boss doesn't just give you more money to take care of the new child. You make it work yourself.
That's what we should do.
Completely agree. This shouldn't be some kind of lifetime, expanding benefit for able-bodied people. In addition to what you propose, I'd put a time limit on benefits (except for disabled people).
-
Completely agree. This shouldn't be some kind of lifetime, expanding benefit for able-bodied people. In addition to what you propose, I'd put a time limit on benefits (except for disabled people).
I can see that as an addition. It makes sense to me.
-
Yeah we know.
Former British PM David Cameron thought Barack Obama was one of the 'most narcissistic and self-absorbed people' he had ever met
Steve Hilton tried to shatter view Barack Obama and David Cameron were close
He tore into the former US President for thinking he was the smartest in the room
But David Cameron's spokesman strongly denied claim of tension between pair
By KATE FERGUSON, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 8 January 2018
David Cameron thought Barack Obama was one of the 'most narcissistic, self-absorbed people' he had ever dealt with, his former strategy guru has claimed.
While in office the two leaders had a cosy bromance and were pictured high-fiving and playing rounds of golf and ping pong together.
But Steve Hilton tore into Mr Obama for thinking he was 'smarter' than everyone else in the room.
And he claimed that his old boss Mr Cameron would get wound up by the ex President's self absorption.
Hilton, who was Mr Cameron's adviser when he entered Downing Street but later parted way with him and moved to Silicon Valley where his wife, Rachel Whetstone was working first for Google, then Uber, and now Facebook as a communications executive.
Hilton is also hosting a Fox News show on Sundays called The Next Revolution and used it to jump into the aftermath of the publication of the explosive book Fire and Fury, on Donald Trump's time in the White House.
The former Downing Street adviser was highly critical of Mr Obama and said: 'My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he'd ever dealt with.
'Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else.
'This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.'
But the claims were immediately slapped down by a spokesman for the former Prime Minister who said they do not reflect his views.
Mr Hilton made the shocking claim as he railed against 'elitists' for criticising Donald Trump and claiming he is unfit to hold office.
He said: 'For them, it's all about style and tone, not substance and results. Donald Trump offends the elites aesthetically, like a piece of art that's not to their taste.
'They can afford to do that because they live in a world of booming neighbourhoods, delightful hipster eateries and everyone they know employed in the virtual world of the knowledge economy.
'They don't see what's going on in the actual economy. Whatever his mental state, [Trump] has achieved more for working Americans in one year than his predecessors did in eight, or 16, frankly.'
The viewpoint pushed by Hilton on Sunday is one he has been aggressively putting forward for months.
On Sunday he said: 'Every supporter of President Trump should understand one thing about this book, the argument that Donald Trump is mentally unfit is not Michael Wolff's opinion, it's the opinion of some of the people closest to the president.
'I said back in the summer when I first learned what these aides and hangers-on were saying to Wolff, that the president is surrounded by too many two-faced self-serving Muppets who say one thing in public and another behind the president's back.'
That was an apparent dig at Steve Bannon, who until the publication of the book in which he openly attacked the White House, had been close to Mr Trump - rather similar to Mr Hilton's relationship to Mr Cameron.
Mr Cameron and Mr Obama had been understood to get on well together while in office, and were pictured together playing ping-pong and watching a basketball game.
The former Tory leader once said of the the President: 'Yes, he sometimes calls me bro.'
But their special relationship deteriorated and Mr Obama later criticised Mr Cameron for failing to do enough to intervene in Libya saying he had been 'distracted by a range of other things'.
Mr Hilton fell out with Mr Cameron during the EU referendum campaign after the strategist announced he was backing Brexit.
A spokesman for Cameron said: 'This does not represent David Cameron's opinion at all and could not be further from the truth.
'David Cameron's views on President Obama – whether in public or in private – are the same: he considers Barack Obama a hugely accomplished president, a great partner for Britain and a good friend to our country and to him personally.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5247473/Hilton-David-Cameron-thought-Obama-narcissistic.html
-
He has taken a number of vacations, including pretty much every holiday, and has not spent one of them with the troops. I think he can show a great deal of leadership by spending Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. down range. Instead, he does things like spend Christmas on the one of nicest beaches on earth, takes a small break to go meet with Marines on one of the nicest military installations in the country (location wise). I am not impressed.
Obama, military mingle
The president visits service members and their families at the Kaneohe Marine base
By Craig Gima
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 26, 2010
President Barack Obama took time out of a quiet Christmas with family, friends and basketball to greet servicemen and women during their Christmas dinner on the Marine Corps Base Hawaii yesterday afternoon.
The president and first lady Michelle Obama posed for pictures, shook hands, hugged children and picked up babies. The president even joked about his busted lip.
"I don't think he left before he got a chance to shake hands with everyone who was there," said Maj. Alan Crouch, the public affairs officer for the base. "He seemed appreciative of the service members and family members. It seemed like he got a lot out of it, as well."
The unannounced visit to Anderson Hall happened at about 3:30 p.m. but may not have been much of a surprise. Obama visited with service members at the same dining hall at the same base at about the same times during his last two vacations in Hawaii.
About 200 service members and their families got to meet the president and first lady.
Marines from Kaneohe were part of the surge in Afghanistan ordered by Obama last year. About 1,400 Marines—the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment and a helicopter squadron—deployed to Helmand province in 2009. Some of the Marines went directly from Iraq to Afghanistan to be part of the surge.
Marines and sailors from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Regiment just returned from Afghanistan earlier this month.
The 3rd Battalion, which left Hawaii in May, lost at least three Marines during the seven-month deployment in the Nawa district.
The base's three infantry battalions rotate to southern Afghanistan. The 2nd Battalion is back in Helmand.
The president and his wife spent more than an hour shaking hands and hugging service members who had arrived for a Christmas dinner of prime rib, turkey, ham, stuffing, potatoes, vegetables, salad, pie, pastries and soft-serve ice cream.
"Hey, guys, merry Christmas. How are you?" the president asked Lisa Lao, 21, and Maha Lao, 23, sitting at a booth with their two children.
Obama picked up 3-month-old Jensen Lao and bounced him a couple of times.
"Merry Christmas, Mr. President," one little boy called out.
"Did you get everything you wanted?" Obama asked a little girl. She showed him a new bracelet and the president pointed to Michelle Obama, who also had a new bracelet, and the first lady and the little girl compared bracelets.
With U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and other outposts around the world, the Obamas also used the president's weekly radio and Internet address to encourage Americans to find ways to support service members during the holiday season.
"Let's all remind them this holiday season that we're thinking of them, and that America will forever be here for them, just as they've been there for us," the president said.
Mrs. Obama, who has made working with military families one of her priorities as first lady, said Americans don't need to be experts in military life to give back to those who serve their country. She urged the public to reach out through their schools and churches, or volunteer with organizations that support military families.
"Anybody can send a care package or prepaid calling card to the front lines, or give what's sometimes the most important gift of all: simply saying thank you," Mrs. Obama said.
As the president moved down a dining table, he encountered a large man, taller than the president, wearing a Dallas Cowboys T-shirt.
"We've got to get you on the court," Obama quipped. "I will not get an elbow in the lip if we play with this guy."
Alan Rogers, a chaplain at the base; his wife, Lisa; daughters Sarah and Laurin; and sons John and Jackson spent several minutes talking with the president and first lady about sports, school and another son—Lance Cpl. Jacob Rogers, now serving in Afghanistan.
"It was very affirming," said Sarah Rogers. "The first family recognizes all the sacrafices we make as a military family. They took the time to talk to us about our lives and our brother in Afghanistan."
The public appearance contrasts with the rest of the president's Christmas Day, spent at a luxurious oceanfront home in Kailua with his wife and daughters, Malia and Sasha. The first family celebrated Christmas with a small circle of friends and family, including some of Obama's childhood friends and the president's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who lives here on Oahu, the island where Obama was born and spent much of his childhood.
The Obamas dined on steak, roasted potatoes, green beans and pie, and the sports-obsessed president got a chance to relax and watch some basketball.
The president's Christmas has been far quieter than last year's holiday, when a 23-year-old Nigerian man allegedly attempted to blow up a plane bound for Detroit. The incident raised questions about the nation's terror readiness and consumed the rest of Obama's vacation.
Thus far, Obama's excursions in Hawaii have been mostly to the gym and golf course, although he skipped the gym yesterday morning. On Christmas Eve, he went to the beach with his daughters.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101226_Obama_military_mingle.html
And there he is, doing what leaders do.
President Trump arrives in Afghanistan for surprise Thanksgiving visit with troops
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-arrives-in-afghanistan-for-surprise-thanksgiving-visit-with-troops