Sunday, April 29, 2012
Other Presidents might have done simular things, but look at Obama's numbers...he's taken this crony activity to new heights...He would pay off the devil if it would help him get reelected....His own JOB is the ONLY one he is worried about...
Obama appoints top campaign bundler to Netherlands ambassador post
Published April 29, 2012 FoxNews.com
President Obama has nominated a top campaign bundler to be the next U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, following in a rich presidential tradition of granting diplomatic posts to big-dollar fundraisers.
The White House announced this past week that Maryland lawyer Timothy Broas would be nominated for the Dutch ambassadorship.
According to the Obama campaign, Broas has helped raise more than $500,000 for the 2012 reelection effort. By law, Broas cannot contribute all that money himself -- so he, like other so-called "bundlers," serves as a fundraising point person and collects money from others to donate to the campaign.
These bundlers are frequently rewarded with prestigious positions -- in the administrations of President Obama as well as his predecessors. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated that Obama nominated two-dozen fundraisers to ambassador positions within his first year in office.
Broad is a lawyer with the Washington, D.C., firm Winston & Strawn, representing high-profile clients like UBS Securities and Papa John's International.
He was previously appointed by Obama in 2010 to a trustee position with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/29/obama-appoints-top-campaign-bundler-to-netherlands-ambassador-post/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo#ixzz1tSX5z6I6
This is Wrong on so many fronts....Firstly it is totally Divisive....How dare Obama suggest that Romney would not have done the same thing....Believe Me if Obama would authorize going after bin Laden then anyone would....He's so weak that if he would make that decision it means anyone...even his daughter would have made the same decision...AND if it hadn't been for Bush's tactics with the terrorists in Gitmo Obama wouldn't have had the information he needed to find bin Laden...
Then to have Clinton do the naration on the ad is also amazing...he's the guy that let bin Laden get out of his grasp when he was President.....
And now NBC ( the state-run media of all state-run media ) will run a piece from the situation room....more political posturing..,,,more lying to the American People...more trying to make something out of a four year term as a President that haas been all but a total FAILURE....
I have faith in the American People however....they have said that Obama made the right decision on bin Laden (but anyone would have), but they will see right through this political rhetoric....
Barack if you want some real credit....fix the economy....get us out of debt....make America secure....drill for more oil to get our gas prices down....downsize the federal government....repeal your precious Obamacare....support capitalism...and stop being a socialist and a Muslim supporter....
Do that and you will get some credit and some RESPECT....
Obama campaign defends bin Laden ad, as Romney adviser slams 'divisive' video
Published April 29, 2012 FoxNews.com
President Obama's reelection campaign on Sunday stood by its controversial web video which questioned whether Mitt Romney would have approved the Usama bin Laden raid -- as a top Romney adviser accused the president of twisting a unifying moment into a "divisive, partisan, political attack."
That video, released Friday, featured Bill Clinton touting Obama's role in directing the raid that resulted in bin Laden's death last May. But it went a step further, and suggested Romney would not have made the same call.
Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, said Sunday the ad was "fair game."
"I don't think it's clear that (Romney) would," Gibbs said, when asked whether Romney would have green-lighted the mission.
"Usama bin Laden no longer walks on this planet today because of that brave decision (by Obama) and the brave actions by the men and women in our military -- and quite frankly Mitt Romney said it was a foolish thing to do a few years ago," Gibbs said, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Maybe the comments he made a few years ago he admits are wrong, or he's flip-flopped on yet another issue," Gibbs added.
The Obama campaign is referring to a quote from Romney who once said, "it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
But Republicans describe the new web video as preposterous.
"I think most Americans will see it as a sign of a desperate campaign," Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said, speaking on the same program as Gibbs.
Gillespie said it's legitimate for Obama to say he's "proud" of the bin Laden raid -- with the one-year anniversary of that raid approaching this week. But Gillespie objected to the implication that Romney would not have made the same decision, calling the move "divisive."
"I can't envision, having served in the White House, any president having been told 'we have him, he's here, you know, should we go in,' saying, 'no we shouldn't'," Gillespie said. "This is an attack on something that might have not happened."
The campaign video was no outlier in the Obama campaign's emerging reelection message.
Vice President Biden, in a speech Thursday, suggested a new bumper sticker read: "Usama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."
He went on to question Romney's strength as a leader in that context, a day before the campaign released the web video.
"You have to ask yourself, if Gov. Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan -- in reverse? People are going to make that judgment. It's a legitimate thing to speculate on," Biden said.
Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene told Fox News on Sunday that the question "highlights" what she described as Romney's shortcomings on decisive leadership.
"This proves President Obama does have a lot more weight and carries a lot more weight in this area," she said.
But GOP strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer told Fox News the video "politicizes something that shouldn't have been politicized" and signals how "nasty" the 2012 campaign will become.
Then to have Clinton do the naration on the ad is also amazing...he's the guy that let bin Laden get out of his grasp when he was President.....
And now NBC ( the state-run media of all state-run media ) will run a piece from the situation room....more political posturing..,,,more lying to the American People...more trying to make something out of a four year term as a President that haas been all but a total FAILURE....
I have faith in the American People however....they have said that Obama made the right decision on bin Laden (but anyone would have), but they will see right through this political rhetoric....
Barack if you want some real credit....fix the economy....get us out of debt....make America secure....drill for more oil to get our gas prices down....downsize the federal government....repeal your precious Obamacare....support capitalism...and stop being a socialist and a Muslim supporter....
Do that and you will get some credit and some RESPECT....
Obama campaign defends bin Laden ad, as Romney adviser slams 'divisive' video
Published April 29, 2012 FoxNews.com
President Obama's reelection campaign on Sunday stood by its controversial web video which questioned whether Mitt Romney would have approved the Usama bin Laden raid -- as a top Romney adviser accused the president of twisting a unifying moment into a "divisive, partisan, political attack."
That video, released Friday, featured Bill Clinton touting Obama's role in directing the raid that resulted in bin Laden's death last May. But it went a step further, and suggested Romney would not have made the same call.
Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, said Sunday the ad was "fair game."
"I don't think it's clear that (Romney) would," Gibbs said, when asked whether Romney would have green-lighted the mission.
"Usama bin Laden no longer walks on this planet today because of that brave decision (by Obama) and the brave actions by the men and women in our military -- and quite frankly Mitt Romney said it was a foolish thing to do a few years ago," Gibbs said, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Maybe the comments he made a few years ago he admits are wrong, or he's flip-flopped on yet another issue," Gibbs added.
The Obama campaign is referring to a quote from Romney who once said, "it's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."
But Republicans describe the new web video as preposterous.
"I think most Americans will see it as a sign of a desperate campaign," Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said, speaking on the same program as Gibbs.
Gillespie said it's legitimate for Obama to say he's "proud" of the bin Laden raid -- with the one-year anniversary of that raid approaching this week. But Gillespie objected to the implication that Romney would not have made the same decision, calling the move "divisive."
"I can't envision, having served in the White House, any president having been told 'we have him, he's here, you know, should we go in,' saying, 'no we shouldn't'," Gillespie said. "This is an attack on something that might have not happened."
The campaign video was no outlier in the Obama campaign's emerging reelection message.
Vice President Biden, in a speech Thursday, suggested a new bumper sticker read: "Usama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."
He went on to question Romney's strength as a leader in that context, a day before the campaign released the web video.
"You have to ask yourself, if Gov. Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan -- in reverse? People are going to make that judgment. It's a legitimate thing to speculate on," Biden said.
Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene told Fox News on Sunday that the question "highlights" what she described as Romney's shortcomings on decisive leadership.
"This proves President Obama does have a lot more weight and carries a lot more weight in this area," she said.
But GOP strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer told Fox News the video "politicizes something that shouldn't have been politicized" and signals how "nasty" the 2012 campaign will become.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Weak Obama....an Embarassment to America
Just more evidence of the total inconsistency, total hypocrisy, total incompetency of Barack Obama's Presidency....He is a weak and both the American People AND the World knows it...
What an embarassment he is to America... He's got to GO in November!
While Syria Burns
If the U.S. is not prepared to intervene, we should be candid about it.
By Charles Krauthammer April 26, 2012 8:00 P.M.
Last year, President Obama ordered U.S. intervention in Libya under the grand new doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect.” Moammar Gaddafi was threatening a massacre in Benghazi. To stand by and do nothing “would have been a betrayal of who we are,” explained the president.
In the year since, the government of Syria has more than threatened massacres. It has carried them out. Nothing hypothetical about the disappearances, executions, indiscriminate shelling of populated neighborhoods. More than 9,000 are dead.
Obama has said that we cannot stand idly by. And what has he done? Stand idly by.
Yes, we’ve imposed economic sanctions. But as with Iran, the economic squeeze has not altered the regime’s behavior. Monday’s announced travel and financial restrictions on those who use social media to track down dissidents is a pinprick. No Disney World trips for the chiefs of the Iranian and Syrian security agencies. And they might now have to park their money in Dubai instead of New York. That’ll stop ’em.
Obama’s other major announcement — at Washington’s Holocaust Museum, no less — was the creation of an Atrocities Prevention Board.
I kid you not. A board. Russia flies plane loads of weapons to Damascus. Iran supplies money, trainers, agents, more weapons. And what does America do? Supports a feckless U.N. peace mission that does nothing to stop the killing. (Indeed, some of the civilians who met with the peacekeepers were summarily executed.) And establishes an Atrocities Prevention Board.
With multi-agency participation, mind you. The liberal faith in the power of bureaucracy and flowcharts, of committees and reports, is legend. But this is parody.
Now, there’s an argument to be made that we do not have a duty to protect. That foreign policy is not social work. That you risk American lives only when national security and/or strategic interests are at stake, not merely to satisfy the humanitarian impulses of some of our leaders.
But Obama does not make this argument. On the contrary. He goes to the Holocaust Museum to commit himself and his country to defend the innocent, to affirm the moral imperative of rescue. And then does nothing of any consequence.
His case for passivity is buttressed by the implication that the only alternative to inaction is military intervention — bombing, boots on the ground.
But that’s false. It’s not the only alternative. Why aren’t we organizing, training, and arming the Syrian rebels in their sanctuaries in Turkey? Nothing unilateral here. Saudi Arabia is already planning to do so. Turkey has turned decisively against Assad. And the French are pushing for even more direct intervention.
Instead, Obama insists that we can only act with support of the “international community,” meaning the U.N. Security Council — where Russia and China have a permanent veto. By what logic does the moral legitimacy of U.S. action require the blessing of a thug like Vladimir Putin and the butchers of Tiananmen Square?
Our slavish, mindless self-subordination to “international legitimacy” does nothing but allow Russia — a pretend post-Soviet superpower — to extend a protective umbrella over whichever murderous client it chooses. Obama has all but announced that Russia (or China) has merely to veto international actions — sanctions, military assistance, direct intervention — and the U.S. will back off.
For what reason? Not even President Clinton, a confirmed internationalist, would acquiesce to such restraints. With Russia prepared to block U.N. intervention against its client, Serbia, Clinton saved Kosovo by summoning NATO to bomb the hell out of Serbia, the Russians be damned.
If Obama wants to stay out of Syria, fine. Make the case that it’s none of our business. That it’s too hard. That we have no security/national interests there.
In my view, the evidence argues against that, but at least a coherent case for hands off could be made. That would be an honest, straightforward policy. Instead, the president, basking in the sanctity of the Holocaust Museum, proclaims his solemn allegiance to a doctrine of responsibility — even as he stands by and watches Syria burn.
If we are not prepared to intervene, even indirectly by arming and training Syrians who want to liberate themselves, be candid. And then be quiet. Don’t pretend the U.N. is doing anything. Don’t pretend the U.S. is doing anything. And don’t embarrass the nation with an Atrocities Prevention Board. The tragedies of Rwanda, Darfur, and now Syria did not result from lack of information or lack of interagency coordination, but from lack of will.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Corrupt Goon Mentality of Obama and his Crew...
This is just representative of the Corrupt Goons that are involved with Obama and his Crew....
Congressmen: EPA official who wants to ‘crucify’ companies needs to resign
Published: 3:06 PM 04/26/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Two congressmen are demanding the immediate resignation of an Environmental Protection Agency official who publicly claimed it was his policy to “crucify” companies into compliance.
In a video that Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe first publicly criticized Wednesday, EPA Region VI administrator Al Armendariz compared his personal philosophy to that of ancient Roman conquerors.
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” Armendariz said in the video. “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.”
After that, Armendariz added, “that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
While Armendariz has since apologized publicly for his remarks, Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming doesn’t think that’s enough. He thinks it’s time for the EPA official to resign now. (SEE ALSO: Inhofe to investigate EPA official’s ‘crucify them’ approach to oil and gas companies)
“The use of threats and intimidation to force energy companies to submit to an extremist agenda may be fitting under a totalitarian regime, but it is never acceptable in the United States,” Fleming said in a Thursday afternoon statement. “The sad reality is that Mr. Armendariz employed this strategy. Without real evidence, the EPA tried to stop a company that was safely drilling with hydraulic fracturing. The case was finally dismissed earlier this year, but it stands as an example of the EPA’s willingness to ‘crucify’ energy companies.”
The official’s “apology for his remarks is simply not enough,” Fleming added. “He should no longer be in a position from which he can wield his authority to intimidate hard-working companies.”
Fellow Louisiana Republican Rep. Jeff Landry also called for Armendariz’s resignation or firing.
“Americans should have no doubt that 4 more years of Mr. Obama in the White House is 4 more years of extremely high gas prices,” Landry said in a statement. “So, for the sake of American families and businesses, I am not only calling for the firing of Dr. Armendariz but also that of his boss — President Obama.”
Bumbling Barack Obama...
Obama Should be Totally Ashamed of Himself....but the truth is he really doesn't care about misusing American Taxpayer Money...All he cares about is trying to get reelected...his job!
What a totally failed economic policy....but for once a favorable unintended consequence...
What a totally failed economic policy....but for once a favorable unintended consequence...
Government Employees Once again Given Special Treatment by the Courts....
Once again here's the government operating under completely different rules than private business....I worked for Sears for 35 years and we drug tested every prospective employee....what we found was that 30+% of them tested positive....So don't tell me it's not happening with those working for the state and federal government. Gov Scott is correct and when we get the Congress and White House back we need to fix this....drug test all state/federal employees...drug test all of those applying for welfare...
Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional
Gov. Scott's order ruled unconstitutional
Thursday, Apr 26, 2012 | Updated 2:34 PM EDT
A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.
The ruling marks the second blow to Scott's proposals regarding drug testing. The governor also suspended a state law he supported that required drug testing for welfare recipients last year after a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal judge in Orlando has temporarily blocked that law.
The ACLU and a government worker's union also filed a lawsuit last year challenging Scott's order to drug test state employees, saying the testing violates the Fourth Amendment by subjecting state workers to an unreasonable search without adequate suspicion that they used drugs. Scott, who suspended drug testing for state employees in June, said he will appeal Thursday's ruling.
"As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce," Scott said in a statement. "That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida's taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy."
Attorneys for the governor's office had argued there is adequate statistical evidence in years of national studies about workplace drug use and its dangers to justify the order. They also reasoned that employees aren't being forced to take state jobs and that they can find employment elsewhere if they don't want to be drug tested.
Scott's attorneys also cited state laws requiring some state employees under certain circumstances to make financial disclosures or provide open access to public records, arguing all state employees have diminished privacy interests regarding drug testing.
"But the Governor's reasoning is hardly transparent and frankly obscure," U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote. "He offers no plausible rationale explaining why the fact that a state employee's work product and financial status are publically accessible leads to the conclusion that the employee's expectation of privacy in his or her bodily functions and fluids is then diminished."
The ACLU and the workers union said that in 2010, only 46 of the 85,000 workers in question were subjected to drug testing because of suspicion they were using drugs - about five one-hundredths of 1 percent. Most were in the Corrections and Juvenile Justice departments, and most were found to be drug-free. In 2009, only four of more than 4,700 workers tested were found positive for drugs.
"There never was any evidence that state employees used drugs more than any other group so this was a case of using hard working state employees to score political points," said Alma Gonzalez, an attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Copyright Associated Press
Judge Declares State Worker Drug Testing Order Unconstitutional
Gov. Scott's order ruled unconstitutional
Thursday, Apr 26, 2012 | Updated 2:34 PM EDT
A federal judge declared Gov. Rick Scott's order requiring drug testing for some 85,000 state workers unconstitutional Thursday, saying the governor showed no evidence of a drug problem at the agencies to warrant suspicionless testing.
The ruling marks the second blow to Scott's proposals regarding drug testing. The governor also suspended a state law he supported that required drug testing for welfare recipients last year after a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal judge in Orlando has temporarily blocked that law.
The ACLU and a government worker's union also filed a lawsuit last year challenging Scott's order to drug test state employees, saying the testing violates the Fourth Amendment by subjecting state workers to an unreasonable search without adequate suspicion that they used drugs. Scott, who suspended drug testing for state employees in June, said he will appeal Thursday's ruling.
"As I have repeatedly explained, I believe that drug testing state employees is a common sense means of ensuring a safe, efficient and productive workforce," Scott said in a statement. "That is why so many private employers drug test, and why the public and Florida's taxpayers overwhelmingly support this policy."
Attorneys for the governor's office had argued there is adequate statistical evidence in years of national studies about workplace drug use and its dangers to justify the order. They also reasoned that employees aren't being forced to take state jobs and that they can find employment elsewhere if they don't want to be drug tested.
Scott's attorneys also cited state laws requiring some state employees under certain circumstances to make financial disclosures or provide open access to public records, arguing all state employees have diminished privacy interests regarding drug testing.
"But the Governor's reasoning is hardly transparent and frankly obscure," U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro wrote. "He offers no plausible rationale explaining why the fact that a state employee's work product and financial status are publically accessible leads to the conclusion that the employee's expectation of privacy in his or her bodily functions and fluids is then diminished."
The ACLU and the workers union said that in 2010, only 46 of the 85,000 workers in question were subjected to drug testing because of suspicion they were using drugs - about five one-hundredths of 1 percent. Most were in the Corrections and Juvenile Justice departments, and most were found to be drug-free. In 2009, only four of more than 4,700 workers tested were found positive for drugs.
"There never was any evidence that state employees used drugs more than any other group so this was a case of using hard working state employees to score political points," said Alma Gonzalez, an attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Copyright Associated Press
The Democrat are Getting Restless with Obama
Looks like Democrat "Natives" are getting restless......
Vacation backlash: Blue collar Dems jealous, angry at Obamas
April 26, 2012 -- 12:39 PM 107Comments
Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing “staycations” because they can’t afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family’s 17 lavish vacations around the world and don’t want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas’ holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.
“They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” said pollster John McLaughlin. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he’s not sharing in that struggle and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars,” added the GOP pollster.
He and several other top-tier Republican pollsters, organized by Resurgent Republic, traveled to 11 battleground states to host focus groups of independent and swing voters, mostly Democrats, who voted for President Obama in 2008 but who are now on the fence.
McLaughlin handled blue collar and Catholic voters in Pittsburgh on April 3 and Cleveland on March 20. He found that they are very depressed about the economy and feel that their tax dollars are being sucked up by both the rich and those living on government assistance.
During the focus group discussions about debt and spending cuts, many in his group volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as something that should be cut. Among the lines McLaughlin wrote down was one from a Democratic woman who said, “Michelle Obama spends $1 million to take the kids to Hawaii,” and another who said, “President Obama was the only president to take so many trips.”
The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters.
He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working, but the voters were also lumping in the president’s vacation spending in with the General Services Administration’s Las Vegas scandal and federal spending for those who aren’t looking for work.
“There really wasn’t a real dislike for Romney. It was just that he is too rich. But on the other hand there is a start of resentment of the government,” he said. “What surprised me is that these were Democrats back biting on their own president,” added McLaughlin.
Obama....Totally out of Touch and Living Large on Our Money....
Just more evidence that this is an Administration that is TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH with America....All Obama, his family and his crew of crooks are concerned about is living large on the taxpayer's dime. Several weeks ago a small town reporter confronted Obama about all his expensive vacations and he looked totally shocked that that would be the impression of the American People. He's totally out of touch...totally out of ideas....totally removed from truth....
It's time that Obama get sent back to Chicago so he can start spending his own money...not our's...
Michelle Obama's Spain vacation cost taxpayers nearly $470G, watchdog group claims
Published April 26, 2012 FoxNews.com
First lady Michelle Obama's 2010 trip to Spain cost taxpayers nearly $470,000, according to a conservative watchdog group that obtained Secret Service records from the overseas excursion.
That trip, which the first lady took with her younger daughter Sasha, drew widespread criticism at the time -- as the visuals of the first lady in an elegant Mediterranean setting clashed with the still-struggling U.S. economy.
Judicial Watch, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request, claimed Thursday that documents show the trip cost at least $467,585.
Those costs are split between Secret Service expenses and expenses for the flight and flight crew.
Secret Service costs totaled nearly $255,000, according to Judicial Watch.
Based on Pentagon estimates of flight costs, another $199,000 went toward the flight from the United States to Mallorca and back. On top of that were various expenses for the 15-person flight crew. They stayed at a local motel at a cost of roughly $10,000, according to Judicial Watch, in addition to money spent on rental cars and food.
A representative from the first lady's office has not yet responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
At the time of the Spanish getaway, the White House described the vacation as a private trip and said the first lady and others would be paying their own expenses.
But while the first lady is not technically an elected official, any trip away from Washington comes with inevitable costs borne by the taxpayer -- such as Secret Service protection. The same was true for previous first ladies.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton invoked the recent scandal involving the General Services Administration's costly conference in the Las Vegas area in chastising the president's family for the trip.
"The American people can ill afford to keep sending the First Family on vacations around the globe," he said in a written statement. "There needs to be greater sensitivity to the costs borne by taxpayers for these personal trips. It is hypocritical for President Obama to fire GSA officials for wasteful conference spending, while his family went on a luxury vacation in the Costa del Sol Spain that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars."
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
"Dirty" Harry Reid is a Prime Example of the Failure of the Obama Administration!!
What's the Senate Thinking?
April 29 marks the third year in which the U.S. Senate has not passed a budget -- a staggering dereliction of duty, particularly given the country's near-$16 trillion debt. But that's not the Senate's only blockbuster failure under the leadership of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). From spending to jobs to energy policy, the Senate has totally dropped the ball, leaving one to wonder, "What's the Senate thinking?"
But it's not just a matter of a simple failure or benign neglect, like forgetting to take out the trash. The way some in the Senate are behaving is equivalent to buying a dog but then deliberately choosing not to feed it. These men and women sought elective office, won a seat in the Senate and now have the power to take action to confront America's problems. But under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid, they're making the choice not to do so.
When it comes to the Senate's failure to pass a budget, the facts are bleak. From 2012 to 2022, federal spending per household is projected to rise to $34,602 -- a 15 percent increase. Without entitlement reform, that spending is swelling to a crippling level, exceeding 40 percent of the economy by 2050. Despite all this, the Senate is sitting on its hands and not pursuing the significant reforms that are necessary -- and opting not to pass a budget for three years is emblematic of their reckless inaction.
Last week, in fact, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), whose primary responsibility is to marshal bipartisan support of a budget resolution, declined to take on the task, remarking that it would be too difficult in an election year. Last year was not an election year, and they didn't bother to do it then, either.
Meanwhile, as America continues to wrestle with staggering unemployment and weak job creation, Senate Democrats yesterday blocked an effort to help workers, employers and the U.S. economy.
Republican lawmakers moved to halt the National Labor Relation Board's (NLRB) latest effort to give unions the upper hand in organizing work places. Earlier this year, the NLRB enacted a rule that speeds up union elections, making it easier for unions to grow their ranks by unionizing more workplaces while depriving workers of a truly informed choice in the matter.
Normally when unions try to organize workers in a business, they plan their efforts before they request an election. Once the employer receives an election request, they have a limited amount of time to inform their workers of why unionization might not be right for them. Under the NLRB's new rule, employers will have even less time to make their case, all to the detriment of their employees. Heritage's James Sherk explains the rest of the story that the workers won't hear:
Employers, not union organizers, will explain that unions often do not achieve their promised wage increases, but they always take up to 2 percent of workers' wages in dues. Employers will also point out patterns of union corruption and clauses in union constitutions that levy stiff fines against workers who stray from union rules. Employers are free to tell workers what the union organizers do not.
Because Senate Democrats blocked the effort to put a stop to the NLRB's rule, workers will be more likely to be pushed into unions. And make no mistake, the economic consequences won't be good. Unions reduce profitability, meaning that unionized companies invest less and create fewer new jobs than nonunion companies. Overall, that's bad news for workers, companies and the U.S. economy.
Perhaps the ultimate example of what the Senate is all about emerged yesterday when Majority Leader Reid said he would not help in the House Republicans' effort to force President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the United States (as well as jobs, economic growth and tax revenue). "Personally I think Keystone is a program that we're not going -- that I am not going to help in any way I can," Reid said. "The president feels that way. I do, too."
Under Reid's leadership, that's the name of the game in the U.S. Senate. Regardless of the country's exploding debt, soaring energy prices or 12.7 million unemployed workers, Reid and his like-minded colleagues are flat out refusing to do the job they were hired to do, all in accord with the president's agenda. So if you're wondering what the Senate's thinking, now you know. Unfortunately, the country's best interests aren't what they have in mind.
Another BAD DAY for Obama at the Supreme Court....This time on Immigration Legislation....
Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument. “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs. Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination.
He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree. “It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer. Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Critics have said the law, known as SB 1070, will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics in Arizona. But the Obama administration has not challenged the law on those grounds, instead focusing on issues of federal versus state power.
Mr. Verrilli said Arizona’s goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance concerns over available resources and international relations. “What [Arizona is] going to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration,” he said. “It poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems.”
Some of the justices, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed concerned that allowing police to perform immigration checks could end up leading citizens being held even longer during stops by police.
Mr. Clement said the law still complies with the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable searches. Anticipating an unfavorable ruling,
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state’s law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters. Mr. Schumer’s legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees’ legal status using E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic verification system.
In that instance Congress specifically left open the chance for states to pass their own business licensing laws, and in a 5-3 ruling the justices upheld Arizona’s attempt.
Since Arizona passed its laws, other states have followed suit. Local enforcement laws have been adopted in a half-dozen states, though all have been challenged in court. Still states have adopted requirements that businesses use E-Verify.
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument. “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs. Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination.
He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree. “It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer. Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Critics have said the law, known as SB 1070, will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics in Arizona. But the Obama administration has not challenged the law on those grounds, instead focusing on issues of federal versus state power.
Mr. Verrilli said Arizona’s goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance concerns over available resources and international relations. “What [Arizona is] going to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration,” he said. “It poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems.”
Some of the justices, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed concerned that allowing police to perform immigration checks could end up leading citizens being held even longer during stops by police.
Mr. Clement said the law still complies with the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable searches. Anticipating an unfavorable ruling,
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state’s law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters. Mr. Schumer’s legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees’ legal status using E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic verification system.
In that instance Congress specifically left open the chance for states to pass their own business licensing laws, and in a 5-3 ruling the justices upheld Arizona’s attempt.
Since Arizona passed its laws, other states have followed suit. Local enforcement laws have been adopted in a half-dozen states, though all have been challenged in court. Still states have adopted requirements that businesses use E-Verify.
|
Supreme Court takes up Arizona
immigration law
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court justices strongly suggested
Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a
controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration
status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the
Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it
made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal
immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at
driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia
Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of
the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked
provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration
registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on
hand for the final argument of the court's term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and
states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is
essentially under the federal government's control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should
view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy.
He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass
incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court
who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration
status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has
someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the
federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's
not," Roberts said.
Outside the courthouse, more than 200 protesters gathered.
The law's opponents made up a clear majority of the crowd, chanting and carrying
signs like "Do I Look Illegal To You?" Some shouted "shame" at Brewer when she
emerged from the building after the argument.
Brewer told reporters she was "very, very encouraged" by the
justices' questions.
The administration challenged the law in federal court.
Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws, parts of
which also are on hold pending the high court's decision.
The court argument took place as presumptive Republican
nominee Mitt Romney is trying to find a way to cut President Barack Obama's
strong support among Latino voters. Romney was drawn to the right on issues like
immigration as he fought off other Republicans in state GOP primary elections.
On Monday, Romney signaled he was considering a wide range of immigration
policies, including a proposal from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow
some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants a chance at visas to stay in
the U.S.
A decision in the high-profile immigration case is expected
in late June as both camps will be gearing up for the general election.
Arizona argues that with its 370-mile border with Mexico, it
has paid a disproportionate price for illegal immigration. It says its 2010 law
is consistent with federal immigration policy.
The administration says the law, and Arizona's approach of
maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy
that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human
rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.
Civil rights groups that back the administration say
Arizona's and the other states' measures encourage racial profiling and ethnic
stereotyping. California, New York and nine other states with significant
immigrant populations support the Obama administration.
Florida, Michigan and 14 other states, many of which also
are challenging Obama's health care overhaul, argue that Arizona's law does not
conflict with federal law.
Justice Elena Kagan, who was Obama's first solicitor
general, is not taking part in the case, presumably because she worked on it
while in the Justice Department.
The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.
---
|
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Corrupt Obama Organization....It has to be Stopped!!!
This tells you a lot about the Obama Organization and this corrupt Administration....It's simply rotten to the core, just like Barack Obama...He HAS to be stopped in November 2012...
Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now?
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "Golden Parachute” valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when in fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
** WHERE ARE THEY NOW ? ********************************
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor. TIM
HOWARD? Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines. JIM
JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
Our government is rotten to the core! Are we stupid or what? Vote in 2012. It is the most important election of our time.
Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now?
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "Golden Parachute” valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when in fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
** WHERE ARE THEY NOW ? ********************************
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor. TIM
HOWARD? Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines. JIM
JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
Our government is rotten to the core! Are we stupid or what? Vote in 2012. It is the most important election of our time.
Obama's Supporters.....It's all about a free handout!
Amazing that Pelosi's daughter made this video and it was aired on Bill Maher's show.....But the content looks accurate to me and it's THE reason that Obama has to Go in November...
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Obama...LYING to the American People AGAIN and Here's Proof....
More Proof that Obama is simply LYING to the American People....Unfortunately you CANNOT believe a word Barack Obama Says...
Republicans say new study belies Obama claim US has 2 percent of world oil
Published April 19, 2012 FoxNews.com
Republican senators are accusing President Obama of pushing a "less-than-honest" claim about the scarcity of domestic oil, after a U.S. Geological Survey study showed the United States might actually hold a quarter of the world's untapped, undiscovered supply.
The president often uses a much different statistic in speeches.
He said Tuesday, as he has before, that "the problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world's oil and we only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves."
"Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we'd still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil," Obama said, while pitching a plan to crack down on oil market speculators.
But a U.S. Geological Survey released Wednesday paints a seemingly different picture. The analysis showed the world outside of the U.S. holds 565 billion barrels of undiscovered conventional oil -- it was the first such study in 12 years. The study did not address U.S. resources, but a prior analysis by the Energy Information Administration pegged the country's supply at 198 billion barrels. That works out to 26 percent of the world supply.
Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, suggested Thursday that the 2 percent stat is becoming obsolete.
"Well, there goes President Obama's favorite talking point," Inhofe said in a statement.
"The president's own administration has released a report which reveals that the United States has 26 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional oil resources, and that's not including our enormous oil shale, tight oil and heavy oil resources. This report from the U.S. Geological Survey is vindication for anyone who thought that President Obama's claims ... are less than honest."
The president and the USGS, though, are referring to different kinds of oil reserves.
What the president talks about is "proven oil reserves" -- or oil deposits that have been discovered and are considered viable.
In the other, much bigger, category are the "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves -- or all the other stuff geologists estimate is out in the world regardless of how accessible or economically viable it might be. That's what the USGS looked at.
The Interior Department chided lawmakers for trying to suggest the new statistic contradicts the 2 percent figure used by Obama.
"This comparison confuses two very distinct concepts, each measuring a different set of facts," Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes said in a statement, calling the two categories "apples and oranges."
He said the proven reserves -- the measurement used by Obama -- are the "well established" deposits.
"In other words, reserves are like cash in your bank account," he said.
All the rest, Hayes said, is "more like your long-term future earning potential."
"This study does not take into account any other factors such as whether or not a company might find it financially prudent to explore or develop," he said of the USGS analysis.
Outside of the United States, the USGS study found the bulk of the undiscovered reserves are in four regions. The region with the most is South America and the Caribbean, followed by sub-Saharan Africa; the Middle East and North Africa; and "Arctic provinces" of North America.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement that the new figures on global potential should help officials "make better decisions regarding both domestic and global energy policy and resource management." He stressed the importance of working with Western Hemisphere nations like Brazil, given how much oil the region potentially holds.
According to the Interior Department, foreign oil dependence has dropped every year under the Obama administration.
Republicans say new study belies Obama claim US has 2 percent of world oil
Published April 19, 2012 FoxNews.com
Republican senators are accusing President Obama of pushing a "less-than-honest" claim about the scarcity of domestic oil, after a U.S. Geological Survey study showed the United States might actually hold a quarter of the world's untapped, undiscovered supply.
The president often uses a much different statistic in speeches.
He said Tuesday, as he has before, that "the problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world's oil and we only have 2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves."
"Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we'd still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil," Obama said, while pitching a plan to crack down on oil market speculators.
But a U.S. Geological Survey released Wednesday paints a seemingly different picture. The analysis showed the world outside of the U.S. holds 565 billion barrels of undiscovered conventional oil -- it was the first such study in 12 years. The study did not address U.S. resources, but a prior analysis by the Energy Information Administration pegged the country's supply at 198 billion barrels. That works out to 26 percent of the world supply.
Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, suggested Thursday that the 2 percent stat is becoming obsolete.
"Well, there goes President Obama's favorite talking point," Inhofe said in a statement.
"The president's own administration has released a report which reveals that the United States has 26 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional oil resources, and that's not including our enormous oil shale, tight oil and heavy oil resources. This report from the U.S. Geological Survey is vindication for anyone who thought that President Obama's claims ... are less than honest."
The president and the USGS, though, are referring to different kinds of oil reserves.
What the president talks about is "proven oil reserves" -- or oil deposits that have been discovered and are considered viable.
In the other, much bigger, category are the "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves -- or all the other stuff geologists estimate is out in the world regardless of how accessible or economically viable it might be. That's what the USGS looked at.
The Interior Department chided lawmakers for trying to suggest the new statistic contradicts the 2 percent figure used by Obama.
"This comparison confuses two very distinct concepts, each measuring a different set of facts," Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes said in a statement, calling the two categories "apples and oranges."
He said the proven reserves -- the measurement used by Obama -- are the "well established" deposits.
"In other words, reserves are like cash in your bank account," he said.
All the rest, Hayes said, is "more like your long-term future earning potential."
"This study does not take into account any other factors such as whether or not a company might find it financially prudent to explore or develop," he said of the USGS analysis.
Outside of the United States, the USGS study found the bulk of the undiscovered reserves are in four regions. The region with the most is South America and the Caribbean, followed by sub-Saharan Africa; the Middle East and North Africa; and "Arctic provinces" of North America.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement that the new figures on global potential should help officials "make better decisions regarding both domestic and global energy policy and resource management." He stressed the importance of working with Western Hemisphere nations like Brazil, given how much oil the region potentially holds.
According to the Interior Department, foreign oil dependence has dropped every year under the Obama administration.
The hypocrisy of Democrats....
It just occurred to me... With all the noise the media is making about
Romney's wealth, I don't recall such bluster and hand-wringing over the
Kennedy fortune. Or, for that matter, John Kerry. Or the fact that John
Kerry gave virtually nothing to charity while Romney gave something on the
order of $4 million...in addition to his entire inheritance from his father.
...
Oh. Wait. I just remembered.... Romney is Republican.
Kerry and the Kennedys are Democrats.
Also, Romney worked for his money.
Kennedy inherited his.
And Kerry married his.
Never mind. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed." ...Mark Twain
Romney's wealth, I don't recall such bluster and hand-wringing over the
Kennedy fortune. Or, for that matter, John Kerry. Or the fact that John
Kerry gave virtually nothing to charity while Romney gave something on the
order of $4 million...in addition to his entire inheritance from his father.
...
Oh. Wait. I just remembered.... Romney is Republican.
Kerry and the Kennedys are Democrats.
Also, Romney worked for his money.
Kennedy inherited his.
And Kerry married his.
Never mind. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed." ...Mark Twain
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Obama...Failed Policies....But Continuing to Blame Everyone Else....
Once again instead of Obama trying to really solve a major American Problem...all he does is find someone else to BLAME....He really needs to start looking in the MIRROR!
Obama's New Gas Price Scapegoat
High gas prices are not a president's friend, especially in an election year, so it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is trying his darndest to shift the blame for record-high fuel prices onto something other than his failed energy policies. Yesterday he made a desperate attempt to distract from those failures and redirect America's gas price rage with a flawed proposal to punish speculators for supposedly driving up the cost of energy.
Speaking from the Rose Garden, the president announced a proposal to spend $52 million to fund increased government oversight of oil futures market trading in addition to harsher civil and criminal penalties for manipulation in energy markets. "We can't afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions, while millions of American families get the short end of the stick," Obama said. "That's not the way the market should work."
The implication, of course, is that evil Wall Street barons are the reason gas prices are so high, and that they're walking away with millions at the expense of the rest of the country. (The president even went so far as to invoke Enron.) That simply isn't the case, and even the president said that "none of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight" -- a point that White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated in a press conference later in the afternoon when he admitted "it's hard to know" what the impact of the president's proposal would be.
Heritage's David Kreutzer explains that the president's "the speculators did it" argument is flawed on several levels. If speculators are making unconscionable profits on energy, why are they only doing it occasionally and not all the time? Why are there only speculators in oil, not natural gas (whose current price is about half of what it averaged over the last decade)? And given how the petroleum market works -- for every speculator who makes money on a trade, somebody else will lose money -- the president's theory "requires an endless string of chumps to take the other side of the speculators' deals." Finally, Kreutzer writes:
For speculation to drive up prices, the speculators must either cause oil production to slow down (which they haven't) or to pull oil off the market. If the flow of petroleum and its products remains unchanged, the price at the pump will not change. If petroleum is pulled off the market, which can happen even though there are limits to what can be stored, it will eventually come back on the market.
The question becomes, 'When the oil comes back on the market, is the price higher or lower than when it was pulled off the market?' The price will only be higher if the amount supplied at that time is lower or the demand is higher. In either of those cases, speculators have helped moderate price fluctuations and will be rewarded with profits. If the price is lower, then the speculators did a bad thing and will be punished by losing money.
In short, the president's theory that devious energy speculators are at work driving up the price of oil just doesn't hold water. So what's the point of all this? Action for the sake of action, in order to provide a distraction from his failed energy policies.
If the president truly wanted to lower gas prices, he would work to increase supply. But when given the opportunity, he just says "no." He turned turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. His Administration has made it even harder for companies to explore and extract domestic energy resources by canceling, delaying, or withdrawing a number of lease sales for exploration and development. Meanwhile, huge swaths of federal lands have been put off limits for energy exploration.
The other energy policies he has pursued have either made energy prices higher or proven to be nothing more than abysmal wastes of taxpayer dollars. Take for example new EPA regulations that would effectively ban new coal power plants, thereby increasing the cost of your electricity, or new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles that could add $10,000 to the cost of a new car. Then there's Obama's green jobs stimulus, whose poster child of failure is none other than the bankrupt Solyndra solar company that took $540 million of taxpayer funds with it.
In yesterday's press conference, Carney said, "The president had made clear that there is no silver bullet, there is no pixie dust, there are no magic beans that will -- or a 3-point plan that will reduce the price of gas at the pump." The president is hoping, though, that blaming speculators is all the magic he needs to convince the American people that his energy policies are not a total failure.
Obama's New Gas Price Scapegoat
High gas prices are not a president's friend, especially in an election year, so it's not surprising that President Barack Obama is trying his darndest to shift the blame for record-high fuel prices onto something other than his failed energy policies. Yesterday he made a desperate attempt to distract from those failures and redirect America's gas price rage with a flawed proposal to punish speculators for supposedly driving up the cost of energy.
Speaking from the Rose Garden, the president announced a proposal to spend $52 million to fund increased government oversight of oil futures market trading in addition to harsher civil and criminal penalties for manipulation in energy markets. "We can't afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions, while millions of American families get the short end of the stick," Obama said. "That's not the way the market should work."
The implication, of course, is that evil Wall Street barons are the reason gas prices are so high, and that they're walking away with millions at the expense of the rest of the country. (The president even went so far as to invoke Enron.) That simply isn't the case, and even the president said that "none of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight" -- a point that White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated in a press conference later in the afternoon when he admitted "it's hard to know" what the impact of the president's proposal would be.
Heritage's David Kreutzer explains that the president's "the speculators did it" argument is flawed on several levels. If speculators are making unconscionable profits on energy, why are they only doing it occasionally and not all the time? Why are there only speculators in oil, not natural gas (whose current price is about half of what it averaged over the last decade)? And given how the petroleum market works -- for every speculator who makes money on a trade, somebody else will lose money -- the president's theory "requires an endless string of chumps to take the other side of the speculators' deals." Finally, Kreutzer writes:
For speculation to drive up prices, the speculators must either cause oil production to slow down (which they haven't) or to pull oil off the market. If the flow of petroleum and its products remains unchanged, the price at the pump will not change. If petroleum is pulled off the market, which can happen even though there are limits to what can be stored, it will eventually come back on the market.
The question becomes, 'When the oil comes back on the market, is the price higher or lower than when it was pulled off the market?' The price will only be higher if the amount supplied at that time is lower or the demand is higher. In either of those cases, speculators have helped moderate price fluctuations and will be rewarded with profits. If the price is lower, then the speculators did a bad thing and will be punished by losing money.
In short, the president's theory that devious energy speculators are at work driving up the price of oil just doesn't hold water. So what's the point of all this? Action for the sake of action, in order to provide a distraction from his failed energy policies.
If the president truly wanted to lower gas prices, he would work to increase supply. But when given the opportunity, he just says "no." He turned turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. His Administration has made it even harder for companies to explore and extract domestic energy resources by canceling, delaying, or withdrawing a number of lease sales for exploration and development. Meanwhile, huge swaths of federal lands have been put off limits for energy exploration.
The other energy policies he has pursued have either made energy prices higher or proven to be nothing more than abysmal wastes of taxpayer dollars. Take for example new EPA regulations that would effectively ban new coal power plants, thereby increasing the cost of your electricity, or new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles that could add $10,000 to the cost of a new car. Then there's Obama's green jobs stimulus, whose poster child of failure is none other than the bankrupt Solyndra solar company that took $540 million of taxpayer funds with it.
In yesterday's press conference, Carney said, "The president had made clear that there is no silver bullet, there is no pixie dust, there are no magic beans that will -- or a 3-point plan that will reduce the price of gas at the pump." The president is hoping, though, that blaming speculators is all the magic he needs to convince the American people that his energy policies are not a total failure.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Senators Take on Obama over Sham NLRB Nominees....
It's about time that the Republicans start to stand up against Obama....Good Job Mitch and Senators....
GOP senators sue Obama over sham labor board nominees
April 17, 2012 -- 4:10 PM
In a double-barrelled blast at President Obama, Senate Republicans today moved to join a lawsuit challenging the White House’s Christmas “recess appointment” of National Labor Relations Board members even though the Senate was technically in session. To handle their case, they hired Miguel Estrada, who in 2002 became the first-ever judicial nominee to be torpedoed by a Democratic filibuster.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that his side would join a suit brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned business in Washington State that bottles and distributes soft drinks. The company is challenging the NLRB’s determination that it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
Canning’s suit charges that Obama appointments were not lawful because the Senate had scheduled frequent pro-forma sessions to block recess appointments--which the president ignored. Typically nominations to the labor board would be voted on by the Senate.
“The president’s decision to circumvent the American people by installing his appointees at a powerful federal agency, when the Senate was not in recess, and without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate, is an unprecedented power grab,” McConnell said. “We will demonstrate to the court how the president’s unconstitutional actions fundamentally endanger the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”
The fight is over a simple issue: When is the Senate technically in session. The GOP argues that there was enough action over the holidays to determine that the chamber was in session, but the president disagreed and went ahead with the appointments.
“The Senate should decide when the Senate is in session,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who joked that Obama might try to make “recess appointments” when the chamber is in lunch recess. McConnell said that Senate Republicans didn’t jump fast after the recess appointments because they have been “looking for the best case.”
He called Estrada “one of the country’s foremost appellate advocates. He has argued 20 cases before the United States Supreme Court, and we are gratified that he will defend the Senate’s constitutional role in the confirmation process.”
GOP senators sue Obama over sham labor board nominees
April 17, 2012 -- 4:10 PM
In a double-barrelled blast at President Obama, Senate Republicans today moved to join a lawsuit challenging the White House’s Christmas “recess appointment” of National Labor Relations Board members even though the Senate was technically in session. To handle their case, they hired Miguel Estrada, who in 2002 became the first-ever judicial nominee to be torpedoed by a Democratic filibuster.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that his side would join a suit brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned business in Washington State that bottles and distributes soft drinks. The company is challenging the NLRB’s determination that it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
Canning’s suit charges that Obama appointments were not lawful because the Senate had scheduled frequent pro-forma sessions to block recess appointments--which the president ignored. Typically nominations to the labor board would be voted on by the Senate.
“The president’s decision to circumvent the American people by installing his appointees at a powerful federal agency, when the Senate was not in recess, and without obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate, is an unprecedented power grab,” McConnell said. “We will demonstrate to the court how the president’s unconstitutional actions fundamentally endanger the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.”
The fight is over a simple issue: When is the Senate technically in session. The GOP argues that there was enough action over the holidays to determine that the chamber was in session, but the president disagreed and went ahead with the appointments.
“The Senate should decide when the Senate is in session,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who joked that Obama might try to make “recess appointments” when the chamber is in lunch recess. McConnell said that Senate Republicans didn’t jump fast after the recess appointments because they have been “looking for the best case.”
He called Estrada “one of the country’s foremost appellate advocates. He has argued 20 cases before the United States Supreme Court, and we are gratified that he will defend the Senate’s constitutional role in the confirmation process.”
Monday, April 16, 2012
Obama - More Rhetoric...More Politics...STILL NO SOLUTIONS....
Once again Obama doesn't have any real solutions...he's just all about needless rhetoric and blaming others for the failure of his policies....It's time for politicians to really try to fix our nation's problems....not just spin political propaganda that does nothing to fix anything....
Tax Gimmicks, Tax Doom
The U.S. Senate could vote today on the gimmicky distraction known as the Buffett Rule -- President Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators in order to supposedly bring "fairness" to the tax code and pay down the debt. As the paper-thin justification for the proposal continues to fade away, the American people are staring down Tax Day, continued joblessness, and the prospect of a major tax meltdown coming on January 1, 2013.
The facts of the Buffett Rule are simple. The President wants millionaires (and small businesses taxed as individuals) to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent. For all of his rhetoric that the measure would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade," the Buffett Rule would bring in only $47 billion in revenue in ten years. To put those numbers in context, President Obama's budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. So the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.007% of all of Obama's debt and .001% of Obama's spending.
None of this even touches on the failure in logic underlying the President's argument, as we detailed in depth last week. In short, President Obama is employing the Buffett Rule as an election-year class warfare weapon. And he's aiming it at the highest-earning families and businesses in America who are already shouldering the vast majority of the country's tax burden. Just one example: The top 1 percent of income earners -- those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 -- paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income.
What's more, the whole idea of the Buffett Rule is based on a fallacy. The President says his tax is necessary because people like billionaire Warren Buffett's secretary pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. In reality, Warren Buffett pays over 50 percent tax on his income. He earns much of his income as capital gains and dividends from stock he owns in businesses -- he pays a 15 percent tax on this income, but first, the businesses that generate this income pay a 35 percent corporate income tax. Corporate income is subject to at least two layers of tax. To create an artificial political fight, Obama and Buffett conveniently ignore the first.
Even some of the President's friends on the left are seeing the Buffett Rule for the ploy that it is. Last week, liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank devoted an entire column to "Rebuffing Obama's gimmicky 'Buffett Rule,'" picking it apart as flawed policy and political rhetoric, noting that even White House reporters are "tiring of the theme." Milbank concludes that, "Obama's prioritization is no mystery: The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements."
While the President keeps delivering those speeches and waging his war on the wealthy, the rest of America is being left behind in an economy that's barely growing. Placing more of a burden on investors and job creators will exacerbate the problem, and the debt will only keep growing.
To make matters worse, American taxpayers face an even bigger burden coming on January 1, 2013, unless Washington takes action. On that day, an unprecedented $494 billion tax hike known as "Taxmageddon" will descend on the United States. That includes, among other things, the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax, the ability for businesses to fully expense capital investments, and the tax cuts from the 2009 stimulus. On top of all that, Obamacare's new taxes will arrive, and the death tax will rise to 55 percent while the exemption will fall. And while America waits for some certainty in tax policy, job creators are taking a step back not knowing what the future will hold. In turn, the economy is suffering as a result.
Instead of focusing on the country's debt crisis, unemployment, or the imminent tax maelstrom, the President is pitching a policy that makes for a nice talking point in his war on the wealthy. What the nation needs are serious solutions to our spending and debt crisis, and policies that really do create jobs. What it doesn't need are distractions from the problems at hand.
Tax Gimmicks, Tax Doom
The U.S. Senate could vote today on the gimmicky distraction known as the Buffett Rule -- President Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators in order to supposedly bring "fairness" to the tax code and pay down the debt. As the paper-thin justification for the proposal continues to fade away, the American people are staring down Tax Day, continued joblessness, and the prospect of a major tax meltdown coming on January 1, 2013.
The facts of the Buffett Rule are simple. The President wants millionaires (and small businesses taxed as individuals) to pay a minimum tax of 30 percent. For all of his rhetoric that the measure would "stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade," the Buffett Rule would bring in only $47 billion in revenue in ten years. To put those numbers in context, President Obama's budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. So the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.007% of all of Obama's debt and .001% of Obama's spending.
None of this even touches on the failure in logic underlying the President's argument, as we detailed in depth last week. In short, President Obama is employing the Buffett Rule as an election-year class warfare weapon. And he's aiming it at the highest-earning families and businesses in America who are already shouldering the vast majority of the country's tax burden. Just one example: The top 1 percent of income earners -- those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 -- paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income.
What's more, the whole idea of the Buffett Rule is based on a fallacy. The President says his tax is necessary because people like billionaire Warren Buffett's secretary pay a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans. In reality, Warren Buffett pays over 50 percent tax on his income. He earns much of his income as capital gains and dividends from stock he owns in businesses -- he pays a 15 percent tax on this income, but first, the businesses that generate this income pay a 35 percent corporate income tax. Corporate income is subject to at least two layers of tax. To create an artificial political fight, Obama and Buffett conveniently ignore the first.
Even some of the President's friends on the left are seeing the Buffett Rule for the ploy that it is. Last week, liberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank devoted an entire column to "Rebuffing Obama's gimmicky 'Buffett Rule,'" picking it apart as flawed policy and political rhetoric, noting that even White House reporters are "tiring of the theme." Milbank concludes that, "Obama's prioritization is no mystery: The populist Buffett Rule polls well. This explains its inclusion in countless presidential speeches and statements."
While the President keeps delivering those speeches and waging his war on the wealthy, the rest of America is being left behind in an economy that's barely growing. Placing more of a burden on investors and job creators will exacerbate the problem, and the debt will only keep growing.
To make matters worse, American taxpayers face an even bigger burden coming on January 1, 2013, unless Washington takes action. On that day, an unprecedented $494 billion tax hike known as "Taxmageddon" will descend on the United States. That includes, among other things, the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the payroll tax cut, the patch on the Alternative Minimum Tax, the ability for businesses to fully expense capital investments, and the tax cuts from the 2009 stimulus. On top of all that, Obamacare's new taxes will arrive, and the death tax will rise to 55 percent while the exemption will fall. And while America waits for some certainty in tax policy, job creators are taking a step back not knowing what the future will hold. In turn, the economy is suffering as a result.
Instead of focusing on the country's debt crisis, unemployment, or the imminent tax maelstrom, the President is pitching a policy that makes for a nice talking point in his war on the wealthy. What the nation needs are serious solutions to our spending and debt crisis, and policies that really do create jobs. What it doesn't need are distractions from the problems at hand.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Obama - The Blamer in Chief...Once Again Won't Take Responsibility....
Here he goes again...our Blamer in Chief now blaming Bush for excessive spending by one of his agencies three years AFTER Bush left office....Obama has had plenty of time to set the ground rules for his administration on spending and it appears he has failed at that just like everything else he's attempted to do....And this is one thing he has pledged to fix about Washington in many speeches from when he was just a candidate up until just recently...again all rhetoric, no action...
Adn furthermore he's and his Administration have known about this for months and took NO ACTION until it came out in the open...
Once again what a hypocrite...what a weak leader....what a joke for America...He's Got to Go in November...
White House pushing blame on Bush administration for GSA debacle
Published April 07, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is responding to the recent report that shows a federal agency spent more that $800,000 on a lavish conference near Las Vegas by putting some of the blame on the Bush administration.
“At least we have taken, bold, swift forceful action to hold those responsible accountable and put in place protections to make sure this never happened again,” a White House official told Fox News.
Federal employee at Vegas bash jokes about investigation
Video from taxpayer-paid government conference shows employee joking about coming under investigation
Issa: Obama administration knew for 11 months about lavish Vegas conference
Agency under fire for Vegas conference had ballooning budgets in recent years
The Inspector General Office’s report last week about the 2010 General Services Administration conference outside of Las Vegas indicates the Obama administration knew about the trip since May 2010. The report was followed by a release of videos.
One video shows an employee performing in the fake music video, which is laced with jokes and references that only federal employees are likely to get.
In the lyrics, the employee sings: "Donate my vacation, love to the nation, I'll never be under OIG investigation."
The report found the Public Buildings Service, part of the General Services Administration, spent more than $840,000 on the conference.
Two House committees now are probing the agency. One of those, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, posted the video of the GSA employees online.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said a briefing Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General shows General Services Administrator Martha Johnson and Steven Leeds, senior counselor to the administrator, were told in May 2011 about the investigation of the conference. They resigned Monday.
The administration also argued Friday night that the cost of the Western Regional Conference increased sharply under the Bush White House -- from $93,000 in 2004 to $323,855 in 2006 to $655,025 in 2008, then $840,616 in 2010, or just 28 percent under Obama.
However, on Saturday morning Emily Miller, a former GSA regional administrator for President Bush, suggested to Fox News that the Obama administration is spinning the numbers.
"When they're talking about that it sounds good to say it went up over 100 percent," she said. "It went up to about $250,000 dollars. I mean it's a lot but when you start small it's easy to say it increased a lot."
Ed Henry, Doug McKelway and Judson Berger contributed to this report.
Adn furthermore he's and his Administration have known about this for months and took NO ACTION until it came out in the open...
Once again what a hypocrite...what a weak leader....what a joke for America...He's Got to Go in November...
White House pushing blame on Bush administration for GSA debacle
Published April 07, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is responding to the recent report that shows a federal agency spent more that $800,000 on a lavish conference near Las Vegas by putting some of the blame on the Bush administration.
“At least we have taken, bold, swift forceful action to hold those responsible accountable and put in place protections to make sure this never happened again,” a White House official told Fox News.
Federal employee at Vegas bash jokes about investigation
Video from taxpayer-paid government conference shows employee joking about coming under investigation
Issa: Obama administration knew for 11 months about lavish Vegas conference
Agency under fire for Vegas conference had ballooning budgets in recent years
The Inspector General Office’s report last week about the 2010 General Services Administration conference outside of Las Vegas indicates the Obama administration knew about the trip since May 2010. The report was followed by a release of videos.
One video shows an employee performing in the fake music video, which is laced with jokes and references that only federal employees are likely to get.
In the lyrics, the employee sings: "Donate my vacation, love to the nation, I'll never be under OIG investigation."
The report found the Public Buildings Service, part of the General Services Administration, spent more than $840,000 on the conference.
Two House committees now are probing the agency. One of those, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, posted the video of the GSA employees online.
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said a briefing Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General shows General Services Administrator Martha Johnson and Steven Leeds, senior counselor to the administrator, were told in May 2011 about the investigation of the conference. They resigned Monday.
The administration also argued Friday night that the cost of the Western Regional Conference increased sharply under the Bush White House -- from $93,000 in 2004 to $323,855 in 2006 to $655,025 in 2008, then $840,616 in 2010, or just 28 percent under Obama.
However, on Saturday morning Emily Miller, a former GSA regional administrator for President Bush, suggested to Fox News that the Obama administration is spinning the numbers.
"When they're talking about that it sounds good to say it went up over 100 percent," she said. "It went up to about $250,000 dollars. I mean it's a lot but when you start small it's easy to say it increased a lot."
Ed Henry, Doug McKelway and Judson Berger contributed to this report.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
One of Obama's Law Students Comments with Shock at Obama's Comments about the SCOTUS
My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review
Posted by Thom Lambert on April 3, 2012
Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Fortunately, another bit of my educational background somewhat mitigates the reputational damage inflicted by the President’s unfortunate comments. This morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff.
Here’s a bit of transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Physicians Hospital of America v. Sebelius, a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:
Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the President, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the President’s statements and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now. And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.
Posted by Thom Lambert on April 3, 2012
Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Fortunately, another bit of my educational background somewhat mitigates the reputational damage inflicted by the President’s unfortunate comments. This morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff.
Here’s a bit of transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Physicians Hospital of America v. Sebelius, a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:
Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the President, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the President’s statements and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now. And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.
Obama - Just a Bully trying to inappropriately through his weight around...Just shows how Arrogant He Really Is....
Holder says court power to review laws 'beyond dispute'
Published April 05, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases." He also claimed laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional."
Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter Thursday to a federal appeals court explaining the administration's position on judicial powers following President Obama's comments about the health care law case.
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond.
Obama originally said Monday it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials later insisted that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.
The comments, though, caught the attention of a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit, as Judge Jerry Smith paused during a hearing Tuesday to chide the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority.
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith, part of a panel of all Republican appointees, then ordered an explanation by Thursday of no fewer than three pages.
Holder provided the single-spaced, three-page letter by the deadline. In it, he backed up the president's remarks. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."
He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.
The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."
Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.
"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.
An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.
Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Published April 05, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases." He also claimed laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional."
Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter Thursday to a federal appeals court explaining the administration's position on judicial powers following President Obama's comments about the health care law case.
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond.
Obama originally said Monday it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials later insisted that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.
The comments, though, caught the attention of a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit, as Judge Jerry Smith paused during a hearing Tuesday to chide the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority.
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith, part of a panel of all Republican appointees, then ordered an explanation by Thursday of no fewer than three pages.
Holder provided the single-spaced, three-page letter by the deadline. In it, he backed up the president's remarks. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."
He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.
The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."
Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.
"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.
An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.
Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Obama Once Again ignoring America's Problems only to Drift into Issues that are NONE of HIS CONCERN....
Obama needs to work on the problems that America is facing like a soaring national debt, soaring gas prices, jobs/reducing unemployment, getting the economy back on track, keeping America Safe RATHER than sticking his nose into issues that frankly are none of his business....The problem is he has NO solutions for the nation's problems and has proven through his failed policies that he is incapable of fixing America so he has no other way to get into the press other than commenting on inane issues that are frankly none of his concern...
And again it's don't do as I do...do as I say....have we forgotten all the flack over the fact that Obama never plays golf with women....it's always a big boys club....see second attached article...
Obama thinks Augusta golf club should admit women as members
Published April 05, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama thinks women should be admitted as members to the all-male Augusta National golf club, the White House said Thursday.
Press Secretary Jay Carney conveyed the president's position just as the Masters tournament hosted by Augusta got underway.
"He believes Augusta should admit women," Carney said. "Kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything."
Carney said Obama thinks it's "up to the club to decide," but that Obama told him he personally thinks women should be welcome.
Augusta's exclusion of women routinely has surfaced as a controversial issue, as the club is the longtime home of the prestigious Masters tournament. The issue has attracted particular attention as one of the club's sponsors, IBM, has a new female CEO, Virginia Rometty.
The last four CEOs at IBM, all male, have been invited to be members.
The chairman of Augusta National this week said the club will decide for itself whom to allow in its ranks.
"As has been the case whenever that question is asked, all issues of membership have been and are subject to private deliberations of the members," Billy Payne said when the inevitable question was asked Wednesday. "That statement remains accurate and that remains my statement."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama’s War On Women
BY: Andrew Stiles - April 5, 2012 1:37 pm
President Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
The remarks were viewed by some as a conscious effort by the White House to propagate the meme of a “war on women” being waged by Republicans against the fairer sex.
The president himself, however, has a well-documented history of excluding women, especially on the golf course.
Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome, the New York Times reported. This was emblematic of broader concerns over the president’s preference for the company and advice of men:
The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.
“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the Times.
In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated enviroments.
“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The President blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”
And again it's don't do as I do...do as I say....have we forgotten all the flack over the fact that Obama never plays golf with women....it's always a big boys club....see second attached article...
Obama thinks Augusta golf club should admit women as members
Published April 05, 2012 | FoxNews.com
President Obama thinks women should be admitted as members to the all-male Augusta National golf club, the White House said Thursday.
Press Secretary Jay Carney conveyed the president's position just as the Masters tournament hosted by Augusta got underway.
"He believes Augusta should admit women," Carney said. "Kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything."
Carney said Obama thinks it's "up to the club to decide," but that Obama told him he personally thinks women should be welcome.
Augusta's exclusion of women routinely has surfaced as a controversial issue, as the club is the longtime home of the prestigious Masters tournament. The issue has attracted particular attention as one of the club's sponsors, IBM, has a new female CEO, Virginia Rometty.
The last four CEOs at IBM, all male, have been invited to be members.
The chairman of Augusta National this week said the club will decide for itself whom to allow in its ranks.
"As has been the case whenever that question is asked, all issues of membership have been and are subject to private deliberations of the members," Billy Payne said when the inevitable question was asked Wednesday. "That statement remains accurate and that remains my statement."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama’s War On Women
BY: Andrew Stiles - April 5, 2012 1:37 pm
President Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday.
The remarks were viewed by some as a conscious effort by the White House to propagate the meme of a “war on women” being waged by Republicans against the fairer sex.
The president himself, however, has a well-documented history of excluding women, especially on the golf course.
Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome, the New York Times reported. This was emblematic of broader concerns over the president’s preference for the company and advice of men:
The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.
“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the Times.
In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated enviroments.
“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The President blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Rush is Always Entertaining and Almost Always Right...Just Like he is in this Situation...
Limbaugh: Olbermann ‘not a $10 million chandelier,’ but ‘the guy wearing a $50 lampshade’
Published: 3:46 PM 04/04/2012 inShare.3 By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
On CBS’s “The Late Show” on Monday night, former MSNBC and Current TV host Keith Olbermann explained to host David Letterman why he wasn’t a good fit at former Vice President Al Gore’s network, comparing himself to a $10 million chandelier in a house unworthy of it.
But Rush Limbaugh had a different take on Olbermann’s analogy. On his Wednesday show, he gave his listeners his own interpretation of Olbermann’s remarks. (RELATED: Olbermann compares himself to a $10 million chandelier)
“Did you hear that Keith Olbermann was on Letterman last night?” Limbaugh asked. “And he said, ‘I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have gone to Gore’s network. I was like the $10 million chandelier.’ And what he meant was ‘I’m a $10 million a year’ — because he’s getting $10 million a year for five years. ‘I’m a $10 million a year chandelier, but I’m nothing if you don’t put me in the right room.’”
Limbaugh said that analogy was incorrect, and Olbermann is not a high-dollar chandelier, but rather more along the lines of a lampshade.
“Keith, you are not a $10 million chandelier,” Limbaugh said. “You’re the guy wearing a $50 lampshade sitting in the corner of the room that nobody else wants to go in. That’s what you are — not a $10 million chandelier.”
Published: 3:46 PM 04/04/2012 inShare.3 By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller
On CBS’s “The Late Show” on Monday night, former MSNBC and Current TV host Keith Olbermann explained to host David Letterman why he wasn’t a good fit at former Vice President Al Gore’s network, comparing himself to a $10 million chandelier in a house unworthy of it.
But Rush Limbaugh had a different take on Olbermann’s analogy. On his Wednesday show, he gave his listeners his own interpretation of Olbermann’s remarks. (RELATED: Olbermann compares himself to a $10 million chandelier)
“Did you hear that Keith Olbermann was on Letterman last night?” Limbaugh asked. “And he said, ‘I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have gone to Gore’s network. I was like the $10 million chandelier.’ And what he meant was ‘I’m a $10 million a year’ — because he’s getting $10 million a year for five years. ‘I’m a $10 million a year chandelier, but I’m nothing if you don’t put me in the right room.’”
Limbaugh said that analogy was incorrect, and Olbermann is not a high-dollar chandelier, but rather more along the lines of a lampshade.
“Keith, you are not a $10 million chandelier,” Limbaugh said. “You’re the guy wearing a $50 lampshade sitting in the corner of the room that nobody else wants to go in. That’s what you are — not a $10 million chandelier.”
Pathetic Obama......No Results to Show....Still Just Blaming Everyone....
Obama is so pathetic that he doesn't even make sense....he has NOTHING to run on, so he does his normal blame everyone else for everything.....BUD...it's time for YOU to take some responsibility for not only doing nothing, but making things worse for America....the American People are smarter than you think Barack...they see right through you.....
The President's Curious Speech Lacks Solutions
If you're looking for an iron-clad indictment of Barack Obama's failed fiscal policies, you don't have to look much farther than the President's own words in a speech he delivered yesterday at the Associated Press luncheon in Washington, D.C.
In what was seemingly an attempt to criticize House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) FY2013 budget plan -- the only such proposal to emerge from either the House or the Senate -- the President dredged up his stale complaints about President George W. Bush's policies -- many of which he has maintained -- and turned to scary rhetoric about Trojan horses and social Darwinism in order to paint the conservative vision for fixing America's budget crisis as a radical one.
To help bolster his case that more Obama-style policies are needed, the President detailed the problems America is still facing, despite three and a half years of his own policies:
Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.
To the extent that the President has identified the problems America is facing today -- an unemployment rate that is too high, an economy that is recovering too slowly, lack of financial security, and an out-of-control debt -- he's right. Thank you, Mr. President, for identifying the problems that we are well aware of. Unfortunately, this Administration has not offered any solutions that will fix them. Yet Obama yesterday had the audacity to criticize the Ryan plan -- the only budget to pass the House of Representatives that addresses America's fiscal crisis -- saying it would cause air pollution, disease, park closures, flight cancellations, and even a crisis in weather forecasting. Interestingly, President Obama's own budget was defeated unanimously in the House (414-0) as it was last year in the Senate (97-0).
Heritage's Patrick Knudsen explains that while the Ryan budget isn't perfect and could benefit from more aggressive entitlement reforms, "Its policies are measured and carefully crafted, rooted in sound conservative principles, and aimed at winning consensus." Meanwhile, Knudsen writes, the President is presiding over the fourth straight trillion-dollar-plus deficit of his tenure, has ignored the deficit-cutting recommendations of his fiscal commission, increased the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion without agreeing to any entitlement savings, and has proposed a budget that would increase publicly held debt to more than 76 percent of gross domestic product by 2022.
Contrast the President's total failure to confront America's debt crisis with the Ryan plan, which includes proposals similar to those in Heritage's Saving the American Dream plan. Heritage's Alison Fraser explains that under Ryan's plan, the debt crisis is squarely addressed; Obamacare is repealed and health care is moved from the hands of bureaucrats to patients and doctors; Medicare is preserved with a premium support system that allows America's seniors to pick the plan that suits them best; and the tax code is reformed not to punish the productive, but to increase growth, wages, and jobs. But under Obama's vision, Fraser writes, "we close our eyes and pretend that big government has all the answers to every risk and problem in society, real or perceived."
We have seen the results of that theory in the direction America is headed. Even the President acknowledges the country is in dire straits, yet he refuses to accept that he has had the privilege and responsibility to do something about it. Unfortunately, even though he has the power to help lead the country out of its fiscal crisis, he has consistently refused to do it. Instead he is criticizing those who are stepping up to the plate with real solutions for the American people.
The President's Curious Speech Lacks Solutions
If you're looking for an iron-clad indictment of Barack Obama's failed fiscal policies, you don't have to look much farther than the President's own words in a speech he delivered yesterday at the Associated Press luncheon in Washington, D.C.
In what was seemingly an attempt to criticize House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) FY2013 budget plan -- the only such proposal to emerge from either the House or the Senate -- the President dredged up his stale complaints about President George W. Bush's policies -- many of which he has maintained -- and turned to scary rhetoric about Trojan horses and social Darwinism in order to paint the conservative vision for fixing America's budget crisis as a radical one.
To help bolster his case that more Obama-style policies are needed, the President detailed the problems America is still facing, despite three and a half years of his own policies:
Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.
To the extent that the President has identified the problems America is facing today -- an unemployment rate that is too high, an economy that is recovering too slowly, lack of financial security, and an out-of-control debt -- he's right. Thank you, Mr. President, for identifying the problems that we are well aware of. Unfortunately, this Administration has not offered any solutions that will fix them. Yet Obama yesterday had the audacity to criticize the Ryan plan -- the only budget to pass the House of Representatives that addresses America's fiscal crisis -- saying it would cause air pollution, disease, park closures, flight cancellations, and even a crisis in weather forecasting. Interestingly, President Obama's own budget was defeated unanimously in the House (414-0) as it was last year in the Senate (97-0).
Heritage's Patrick Knudsen explains that while the Ryan budget isn't perfect and could benefit from more aggressive entitlement reforms, "Its policies are measured and carefully crafted, rooted in sound conservative principles, and aimed at winning consensus." Meanwhile, Knudsen writes, the President is presiding over the fourth straight trillion-dollar-plus deficit of his tenure, has ignored the deficit-cutting recommendations of his fiscal commission, increased the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion without agreeing to any entitlement savings, and has proposed a budget that would increase publicly held debt to more than 76 percent of gross domestic product by 2022.
Contrast the President's total failure to confront America's debt crisis with the Ryan plan, which includes proposals similar to those in Heritage's Saving the American Dream plan. Heritage's Alison Fraser explains that under Ryan's plan, the debt crisis is squarely addressed; Obamacare is repealed and health care is moved from the hands of bureaucrats to patients and doctors; Medicare is preserved with a premium support system that allows America's seniors to pick the plan that suits them best; and the tax code is reformed not to punish the productive, but to increase growth, wages, and jobs. But under Obama's vision, Fraser writes, "we close our eyes and pretend that big government has all the answers to every risk and problem in society, real or perceived."
We have seen the results of that theory in the direction America is headed. Even the President acknowledges the country is in dire straits, yet he refuses to accept that he has had the privilege and responsibility to do something about it. Unfortunately, even though he has the power to help lead the country out of its fiscal crisis, he has consistently refused to do it. Instead he is criticizing those who are stepping up to the plate with real solutions for the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)