Original Post: Yahoo
By Olivier Knox
Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.
“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.
And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”
Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."
Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed.
He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.
"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."
Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."
In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."
And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."
An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted:
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.
And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.
Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."
"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.
On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Monday, May 13, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Memo spells out when it's OK to kill Al Qaeda-linked Americans without trial
Original Post: The Star
WASHINGTON—The White House and its critics faced off Tuesday over the legality of drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad, in a likely preview of arguments that will be raised during this week’s confirmation hearing for President Barack Obama’s choice to head the CIA.
The disclosure of an unclassified Justice Department memo laying out the legal framework for the U.S. government’s ability to attack its own citizens drew criticism from civil liberties groups. But the White House strongly defended the controversial policy as legal and ethical.
The memo, first obtained by NBC News, argues that drone strikes are justified under American law if a targeted U.S. citizen had “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a possible threat and provided there is no evidence suggesting the individual “renounced or abandoned” such activities. A top U.S. official must determine that the targeted person “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” cannot be captured, and that the strike “would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney defended current U.S. drone policy, saying they are used to mitigate threats, stop plots, prevent future attacks and save American lives. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” he said. Civil liberties groups expressed concerns, while lawmakers called on the White House to release more of its legal underpinning for the assertion that the president has the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad without trial.
“My initial reaction is that the paper only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government’s central claim,” Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote on the ACLU’s blog. “Even if the Obama administration is convinced of its own fundamental trustworthiness, the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president.”
The use of drones figures to be a prime topic for White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan when he faces the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday in a confirmation hearing on his nomination to become CIA director.
The U.S. government has dramatically increased its use of drones abroad in recent years to target Al Qaeda figures in far-flung places from Pakistan to Yemen.
The document was disclosed as a bipartisan group of U.S. senators called on the Obama administration to release to Congress “any and all” legal opinions laying out the government’s understanding of what legal powers the president has to authorize the killing of American citizens.
The senators who signed the letter, including members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the administration’s co-operation would “help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security purposes.”
One national security official said the leak of the Justice Department memo may have been timed to blunt such congressional demands for the release of additional documents. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat who chairs the Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that she had been calling on the administration to release legal analyses related to the use of drones for more than a year. Feinstein said the document obtained by NBC had been given to congressional committees last June on a confidential basis, and that her committee is seeking additional documents, which are believed to remain classified.
Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday said he was concerned that the release of more documents could put sources and operations at risk.
There is “a real concern to reveal sources, to potentially reveal sources and methods and put at risk the very mechanisms that we use to try to keep people safe, which is our primary responsibility,” he said at a news conference.
The memo is drawing new attention to the 2011 strike that killed U.S.-born Anwar al Awlaki, who U.S. investigators say was a major player with Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate and linked to a botched plot to blow up a U.S. airliner with a bomb hidden in a man’s underwear on Christmas Day 2009. His teenage son was also killed in a drone strike.
Targeted killings carried out by remotely piloted unmanned aircraft are controversial because of the risks to nearby civilians and because of their increasing frequency. The United Nations recently launched an investigation into their use.
Most such attacks have been carried out by the United States, but Britain and Israel have also used drones.
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU, which has sued for more information on the drone program, called the memo “profoundly disturbing” and “a stunning overreach of executive authority.”
Shamsi, head of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement called on the Obama administration to release what she said was a 50-page classified legal document on which the 16-page summary is based.
“Among other things, we need to know if the limits the executive purports to impose on its killing authority are as loosely defined as in this summary, because if they are, they ultimately mean little,” she said late Monday.
WASHINGTON—The White House and its critics faced off Tuesday over the legality of drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens abroad, in a likely preview of arguments that will be raised during this week’s confirmation hearing for President Barack Obama’s choice to head the CIA.
The disclosure of an unclassified Justice Department memo laying out the legal framework for the U.S. government’s ability to attack its own citizens drew criticism from civil liberties groups. But the White House strongly defended the controversial policy as legal and ethical.
The memo, first obtained by NBC News, argues that drone strikes are justified under American law if a targeted U.S. citizen had “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a possible threat and provided there is no evidence suggesting the individual “renounced or abandoned” such activities. A top U.S. official must determine that the targeted person “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” cannot be captured, and that the strike “would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney defended current U.S. drone policy, saying they are used to mitigate threats, stop plots, prevent future attacks and save American lives. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” he said. Civil liberties groups expressed concerns, while lawmakers called on the White House to release more of its legal underpinning for the assertion that the president has the power to kill U.S. citizens abroad without trial.
“My initial reaction is that the paper only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government’s central claim,” Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote on the ACLU’s blog. “Even if the Obama administration is convinced of its own fundamental trustworthiness, the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president.”
The use of drones figures to be a prime topic for White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan when he faces the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday in a confirmation hearing on his nomination to become CIA director.
The U.S. government has dramatically increased its use of drones abroad in recent years to target Al Qaeda figures in far-flung places from Pakistan to Yemen.
The document was disclosed as a bipartisan group of U.S. senators called on the Obama administration to release to Congress “any and all” legal opinions laying out the government’s understanding of what legal powers the president has to authorize the killing of American citizens.
The senators who signed the letter, including members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the administration’s co-operation would “help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate’s consideration of nominees for national security purposes.”
One national security official said the leak of the Justice Department memo may have been timed to blunt such congressional demands for the release of additional documents. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat who chairs the Intelligence Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday that she had been calling on the administration to release legal analyses related to the use of drones for more than a year. Feinstein said the document obtained by NBC had been given to congressional committees last June on a confidential basis, and that her committee is seeking additional documents, which are believed to remain classified.
Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday said he was concerned that the release of more documents could put sources and operations at risk.
There is “a real concern to reveal sources, to potentially reveal sources and methods and put at risk the very mechanisms that we use to try to keep people safe, which is our primary responsibility,” he said at a news conference.
The memo is drawing new attention to the 2011 strike that killed U.S.-born Anwar al Awlaki, who U.S. investigators say was a major player with Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate and linked to a botched plot to blow up a U.S. airliner with a bomb hidden in a man’s underwear on Christmas Day 2009. His teenage son was also killed in a drone strike.
Targeted killings carried out by remotely piloted unmanned aircraft are controversial because of the risks to nearby civilians and because of their increasing frequency. The United Nations recently launched an investigation into their use.
Most such attacks have been carried out by the United States, but Britain and Israel have also used drones.
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU, which has sued for more information on the drone program, called the memo “profoundly disturbing” and “a stunning overreach of executive authority.”
Shamsi, head of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement called on the Obama administration to release what she said was a 50-page classified legal document on which the 16-page summary is based.
“Among other things, we need to know if the limits the executive purports to impose on its killing authority are as loosely defined as in this summary, because if they are, they ultimately mean little,” she said late Monday.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
N.Y. Times Op-Ed bashes Obama on drone strikes for assassination
Original Post:Yahoo
By Rachel Rose Hartman
"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?" a scathing New York Times op-ed asked Thursday.
The opinion piece, written by Vicki Divoll, former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, heaps criticism on the administration for the practice of using drone strikes for assassination and calls for greater transparency. Divoll writes:
Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Divoll notes the known killings of three American citizens who were suspected terrorists: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who edited an English-language magazine and was with Awlaki at the time of his death; and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were all killed overseas.
By Rachel Rose Hartman
"Who Says You Can Kill Americans, Mr. President?" a scathing New York Times op-ed asked Thursday.
The opinion piece, written by Vicki Divoll, former general counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy legal adviser to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, heaps criticism on the administration for the practice of using drone strikes for assassination and calls for greater transparency. Divoll writes:
Mr. Obama should declassify and release, to Congress, the press and the public, documents that set forth the detailed constitutional and statutory analysis he relies on for targeting and killing American citizens. Perhaps Mr. Obama still believes that, in a democracy, the people have a right to know the legal theories upon which the president executes his great powers. Certainly, we can hope so. After all, his interpretation might be wrong.
Divoll notes the known killings of three American citizens who were suspected terrorists: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born Muslim cleric; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who edited an English-language magazine and was with Awlaki at the time of his death; and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were all killed overseas.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Our pick for president: Romney
Original Post: Orlando Sentinel
Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government's monthly jobless report for September showed the nation's unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can't.
Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate.
Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009.
And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.
We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.
Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years.
Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.
With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1.
The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.
Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties.
Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.
Romney is not our ideal candidate for president. We've been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.
But the core of Romney's campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government's balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.
This is Romney's time to lead, again. If he doesn't produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we'll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States.
But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race.
We endorse Mitt Romney for president.
Two days after his lackluster first debate performance, President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a timely boost. The government's monthly jobless report for September showed the nation's unemployment rate fell below 8 percent for the first time since he took office.
If that were the only metric that mattered, the president might credibly argue that the U.S. economy was finally on the right track. Unfortunately for him, and for the American people, he can't.
Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate.
Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009.
And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.
We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.
Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years.
Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.
With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1.
The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.
Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties.
Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.
Romney is not our ideal candidate for president. We've been turned off by his appeals to social conservatives and immigration extremists. Like most presidential hopefuls, including Obama four years ago, Romney faces a steep learning curve on foreign policy.
But the core of Romney's campaign platform, his five-point plan, at least shows he understands that reviving the economy and repairing the government's balance sheet are imperative — now, not four years in the future.
Romney has a strong record of leadership to run on. He built a successful business. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature to close a $3billion budget deficit without borrowing or raising taxes, and pass the health plan that became a national model.
This is Romney's time to lead, again. If he doesn't produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we'll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will.
We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States.
But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race.
We endorse Mitt Romney for president.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Voting Machines Force Voters to Vote for Obama
Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama on machine
Original Post:Fox 8
by Scott Gustin, Brandon Jones and Charlie Glancy
GREENSBORO, N.C. –The presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.
On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote. All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.
One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama. “I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.
Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers. “It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said. After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed.
“I should have just mailed it in,” Coromalis said. Marie Haydock, who also voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location, had the same problem.
“The frustration is… every vote counts,” said Haydock. Elections officials say the machines have been fixed as of Tuesday, and no problems have been reported since.
Early voting ends November 3.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Obama condemns violence tied to anti-Muslim film
Apparently I have to post this because the President and Crowley have forgotten that it has happened. It has already gone down the Memory Hole.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Monday, October 15, 2012
SOLAR PANELS THAT BURST INTO FLAMES
Original Post:Human Events
By: Audrey Hudson
A congressional oversight panel wants to know when the Obama administration became aware of significant technological issues at a renewable energy company it helped fund, including the propensity of its solar panels to burst into flames when exposed to the sun.
Abound Solar Manufacturing was awarded a $400 million line-of-credit in taxpayer-backed loans from the Energy Department (DOE), and is the third company funded by President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan to go bankrupt, along with Solyndra and Beacon Power.
Republican Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Cliff Stearns of Florida and Cory Gardner of Colorado, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Wednesday instructing the agency to turn over certain information on the loan.
“While documents prepared at the time DOE awarded a conditional commitment to Abound do not mention any technological problems, an engineering report submitted to DOE just two months before DOE closed Abound’s $400 million loan guarantee indicates that Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the lawmaker said.
Abound spent $70 million of the loan it received in 2011 before going bankrupt in July. Company officials blamed the failure on China for dumping solar panels subsidized by the Communist regime on the U.S. at prices below market value.
Upton’s committee led the congressional investigation into whether the Obama White House pressured the Energy Department to lend another solar panel company, Solyndra, $535 million in guaranteed loans. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last year.
The committee is asking the Energy Department to turn over all engineering reports, tests and technical assessments it was provided by Abound, as well as all documents relating to the performance of its products by Oct. 24.
By: Audrey Hudson
A congressional oversight panel wants to know when the Obama administration became aware of significant technological issues at a renewable energy company it helped fund, including the propensity of its solar panels to burst into flames when exposed to the sun.
Abound Solar Manufacturing was awarded a $400 million line-of-credit in taxpayer-backed loans from the Energy Department (DOE), and is the third company funded by President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan to go bankrupt, along with Solyndra and Beacon Power.
Republican Reps. Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Cliff Stearns of Florida and Cory Gardner of Colorado, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Wednesday instructing the agency to turn over certain information on the loan.
“While documents prepared at the time DOE awarded a conditional commitment to Abound do not mention any technological problems, an engineering report submitted to DOE just two months before DOE closed Abound’s $400 million loan guarantee indicates that Abound’s panels were already experiencing significant efficiency and technological difficulties,” the lawmaker said.
Abound spent $70 million of the loan it received in 2011 before going bankrupt in July. Company officials blamed the failure on China for dumping solar panels subsidized by the Communist regime on the U.S. at prices below market value.
Upton’s committee led the congressional investigation into whether the Obama White House pressured the Energy Department to lend another solar panel company, Solyndra, $535 million in guaranteed loans. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last year.
The committee is asking the Energy Department to turn over all engineering reports, tests and technical assessments it was provided by Abound, as well as all documents relating to the performance of its products by Oct. 24.
Friday, October 12, 2012
And people wonder why we call the President a socialist
Obama dedicates Chavez national monument
Original Post: Bakersfield Californian
BY JAMES BURGER, COURTENAY EDELHART AND STEVEN MAYER, Californian staff writers
KEENE — President Barack Obama on Monday declared La Paz, the nickname of the United Farm Workers union headquarters and onetime home of Cesar Chavez, a national monument and said it will help tell the story of “who we are as Americans.”
He said the story is about hardworking people determined to make America “a little more just, a little more free.”
Before his speech, Obama laid a single red rose on the grave of Chavez.
The sun-splashed event at the longtime UFW compound was crowded with about 6,600 visitors, but many others were unexpectedly shut out.
Organizers said too many people had responded to an email invitation, so over the weekend they began disinviting hundreds, if not thousands, of those who thought they could attend. Facebook pages quickly filled up with the comments of unhappy people whose dream to see the president would be thwarted.
Obama’s brief speech, in large part, was a tribute to Chavez and his family, and by extension, to the indomitable spirit of the American people.The nation’s monuments, Obama said, tell a story of people, of determined, fearless, hopeful people who have always been willing to devote their lives to making this country a little more just and a little more free.
“And one of those people lies here, beneath the rose garden at the foot of a hill he used to climb to watch the sunrise,” he said.
Chavez, Obama said, embodied the hope and determination that has been evident in generations of immigrants who looked to America, not just as a place to set down roots, but as a land of unlimited possibilities, for themselves and their posterity.
The president stayed away from overt campaign language, never mentioning the upcoming election or his Republican opponent. His only nod to the election was an acknowledgement that the work Chavez began is not yet finished, that more work needs to be done.
Before Obama spoke, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed the audience.
Villaraigosa said Chavez taught America “the promise of freedom is not always for the powerful but also the powerless. Not just for those who owned the fields but also the people who worked the fields.”
Solis said Chavez’s legacy is that “work is not just a source of income, it’s a source of dignity” and that Chavez “brought the plight of farmworkers to anyone who would listen and some who would not.”
Salazar said the Interior Department is working to make sure national monuments reflect all people of all backgrounds.
The crowd erupted into cheers as Cesar Chavez Foundation President Paul Chavez, Cesar's son, took the stage and talked about his father’s connection to Nuestra Señora Reina de La Paz.
"He found the place where he could plan and strategize," he said. "But it was more than that for my father. La Paz became a spiritual harbor for him."
Next to come to the stage was UFW President Arturo Rodriguez.
"Si se puede," he shouted, the UFW motto. He was echoed by the crowd.
Farmworkers and supporters from 25 states came to the event, Rodriguez said.
The monument is, he said, a tribute to Chavez but also to the thousands of people who still carry on the legacy he left behind.
"Each farmworker can change the world," Rodriguez said.
Then he introduced Obama.
"Si se puede," the president shouted. The crowd shouted back, "Si se puede."
The president spoke for about 10 minutes then headed back to Meadows Field for departure out of Bakersfield.
Before making his remarks, Obama stopped to visit Cesar Chavez’s grave.
The gravesite sits amid a lush garden surrounded by low, white adobe walls and arbors of dark wood beams covered in climbing vines. Planters of river rock and terra cotta pots contain a wide variety of flowers and plants. Walkways and steps lead up to the grave, which is flanked by two planters full of red roses.
The Chavez grave is marked by an unpainted wooden cross and low stone marker that sits alone in the midst of a plot of well-tended grass.
Obama was joined by Chavez’s widow, Helen Chavez; Huerta; Paul Chavez; and Rodriguez. The president talked quietly with Helen Chavez at the grave then listened as Paul Chavez, standing in a white shirt, explained the words engraved behind the grave:
“It is my deepest belief that only by giving of our lives do we find life.”
Obama left the gravesite with his arms around Huerta and Helen Chavez.
The president’s visit came a little less than a month before election day, timing not lost on many political pundits and everyday voters who pointed out Obama’s need to turn out the Latino electorate.
Most polls, including CNN’s national survey of likely Latino voters, show Obama is expected to receive close to 70 percent of the Latino vote Nov. 6. But Latino Americans, as a whole, are less likely to vote than whites and blacks, and Latinos are reporting less enthusiasm for the 2012 race than they reported four years ago.
MEMORIES Thousands began arriving at La Paz as early as 4:30 a.m. to watch Obama dedicate the monument.
Victor Garza brought his 10-year-old son, Arik. The longtime civil rights activist from Fresno has come to pray and meditate at the center but said this visit was special.
“I wanted to bring my son to meet President Obama because it’s something that he can remember and cherish for the rest of his life,” he said.
Cesar Chavez Elementary School in northeast Bakersfield brought 23 second- through fifth-graders to the event to sing the program’s closing song.
They wore khaki pants or skirts and navy blue school uniform shirts. The girls wore patriotic red, white and blue ribbons in their hair.
They were happy to be there even though the trip in was grueling.
“It was very long, exhausting and slow,” said fifth-grader Kylie Lopez, 9. “But it’s very exciting. I have only seen (Obama) on television and in pictures.”
Roberta Cumberland, 55, of Bakersfield, woke up at 6 a.m. to head out from Bakersfield with her daughter Cara Cumberland, 28.
"I've actually never been to anything political or anything like this before, so this is my first experience like this," Cara said.
Her mother said she wanted to come because she admires both Chavez and the president and considered the event a historic milestone.
"This is the first time a president I've actually supported has come to Kern County," Roberta said.
Cal State Bakersfield seniors Gracy Mendez, 25, and Maria Moreno, 21, said the speech was well worth rising at 4:45 a.m. to get to La Paz from southwest Bakersfield.
"I thought it was inspiring," Mendez said.
Moreno called the address "touching."
"I love the way he used the ‘Si se puede’ slogan from Cesar Chavez."
The Rev. John Schmoll of St. Augustine Church in Lamont wore a UFW cap. His pastor's collar peeked out from beneath a black T-shirt with "Who would Jesus deport?" in bold white letters.
He said the church office closed Monday so its small staff could come, and the speech was "well worth waiting for. You could live your whole life and never see a president, and it was a good speech to top it all off."
US officials: We didn't link Libya attack to video
Original Post: Yahoo
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
IPAB Is Even Worse than Romney Says
Original Post: Cato
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
In Wednesday night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney claimed that ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board is “an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.”
President Obama officially denies it, yet he confirmed Romney’s claim when he said, “what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.”
In this excerpt from his column in today’s The Washington Post, George F. Will quotes my coauthor Diane Cohen and me to show that IPAB is even worse than Romney claimed:
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.
Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
In Wednesday night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney claimed that ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board is “an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.”
President Obama officially denies it, yet he confirmed Romney’s claim when he said, “what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.”
In this excerpt from his column in today’s The Washington Post, George F. Will quotes my coauthor Diane Cohen and me to show that IPAB is even worse than Romney claimed:
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”
By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.
Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Editorial: Dallas Morning News endorses Mitt Romney for president
Original Post: Dallas News
Barack Obama will forever be a historic, as well as historical, figure in American life. The 44th U.S. president, yes, but more noteworthy, he will forever be the first African-American to lead a nation riven through centuries by racial and ethnic division.
His election in November 2008 inspired. Even those who may not have supported him could not deny the significance.
With it came an optimism that the ideals he stressed as a candidate, like a post-partisan Washington where Democrats and Republicans worked together, were within reach. He took office amid great turmoil, a crashing economy and two wars atop his priorities.
Candidate Obama, an orator of great skill and cadence, might have overcome everything and put the U.S. on a brighter path. President Obama, unfortunately, fell short of the challenge. The wars have largely faded from headlines, but the economic struggles remain, along with an attendant worry about future federal spending, deficits and debt.
Obama’s Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nation’s problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.
We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency — a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt — Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights. For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.
We see evidence of Obama’s shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters’ patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for “the mess he left behind.”
Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama. Romney had to survive a fractious primary by steering too far right on some issues. At his core, however, we see him as a “Chamber of Commerce Republican,” more attuned to business interests than the tea party/social conservatism that defines today’s GOP.
Importantly, Romney speaks the language of industry. His tenure leading Bain Capital, for instance, has come under sharp criticism for years, but it also reveals a man who understands capital formation and how that, extrapolated through an economy, can lift the U.S. from its stalled state. Even some of Obama’s Democratic allies — notably rising star Cory Booker, former adviser Steven Rattner and former Rep. Harold Ford — were quick to criticize the campaign’s Bain-centric attacks on profit.
Unlike many in his party, Romney understands that government has a place in the economy and in American life, just not as much of a place as Obama would afford it. Obama has cited, with some justification, recalcitrance from congressional Republicans for thwarting him. But in his first two years, when Democrats had a wide margin in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama’s wounds were self-inflicted. He put his chips on a necessary but ill-conceived stimulus program and a massive health care overhaul. Left to languish were a broad-based energy bill, comprehensive immigration reform, entitlement reform and, most ominously, effective job-creation programs.
Obama’s people warned of unemployment rates as high as 8 percent without the stimulus spending, only to see rates exceed 8 percent, anyway, for 43 consecutive months — and counting. Real household income has fallen in consecutive years. Food stamp enrollment has hit record highs; the percentage of adults in the workforce approaches record lows.
Annual deficits for every year of the Obama presidency will top $1 trillion, pushing the federal debt past an astounding $16 trillion.
Obama’s Affordable Care Act was his signature domestic achievement. Its many laudable features included the individual mandate, but one was not its financing, which led this newspaper to oppose it. Obama left the details to Congress, and what emerged had no realistic funding stream and did too little to contain future costs.
Of most concern, Obama was not unaware of the fiscal problem. He put together a bipartisan panel to help forge a solution but then abandoned it. Left to languish, the Simpson-Bowles group could not achieve the votes to force congressional action. The proposal, which included a roughly 3-to-1 package of spending cuts to revenue increases, was the kind of compromise candidate Obama had advocated. As president, he chose not to act.
Romney has shown an ability to lead, from turning around the deficit-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics to his term as Massachusetts governor. His plans for tax and entitlement reform are encouraging, shifting the focus from government first to freeing the private sector to innovate. Voters should demand more specifics, but at the heart of his plans — especially on reforming a teetering Medicare system — is an instinct to rely on competition over regulation to drive growth.
Yet Romney does give us pause. His famed flip-flops on issues from immigration to health care, always pushing further right, are worrisome. His difficulty in speaking precisely and inoffensively on such issues as London’s Olympic preparedness, Israeli Palestinian issues and U.S. embassy assaults paint him, at best, as a foreign policy neophyte.
And his secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser drew an unreasonably sharp line between those who pay income taxes and “the 47 percent” of Americans who only take and would never support him, anyway. These ill-advised statements offended many and played directly into the Obama campaign’s picture of an excessively wealthy candidate out of touch with the common man.
Not his finest moment, nor was it the lone defining one for Romney. What we’ve seen of him over many years — from business success to running a state to impeccable personal and family attributes — convinces this newspaper that the time is right for someone with his broad skill set.
Obama himself once said that if he didn’t repair the economy “in three years, this would be a one-term proposition.” The facts show it’s time for a principled, pragmatic leader who can get Washington working again.
Barack Obama will forever be a historic, as well as historical, figure in American life. The 44th U.S. president, yes, but more noteworthy, he will forever be the first African-American to lead a nation riven through centuries by racial and ethnic division.
His election in November 2008 inspired. Even those who may not have supported him could not deny the significance.
With it came an optimism that the ideals he stressed as a candidate, like a post-partisan Washington where Democrats and Republicans worked together, were within reach. He took office amid great turmoil, a crashing economy and two wars atop his priorities.
Candidate Obama, an orator of great skill and cadence, might have overcome everything and put the U.S. on a brighter path. President Obama, unfortunately, fell short of the challenge. The wars have largely faded from headlines, but the economic struggles remain, along with an attendant worry about future federal spending, deficits and debt.
Obama’s Democratic supporters would argue that no one could have succeeded in what he inherited, that the nation’s problems were far more severe than anyone could handle in four years.
We respectfully disagree. On the central issue that will define his presidency — a stalled U.S. economy weighed down by crushing annual deficits and accumulated debt — Obama showed himself to be less leader than follower. While he expended his political capital on new government programs, unemployment stayed at debilitating heights. For that reason, this newspaper recommends Republican challenger Mitt Romney for president.
We see evidence of Obama’s shortcomings in his re-election campaign, a relentlessly negative push to disqualify his opponent instead of standing on his accomplishments. His campaign has worn voters’ patience thin by constantly blaming predecessor George W. Bush for “the mess he left behind.”
Cleaning up that mess, however large, was what Americans trusted to Obama. Romney had to survive a fractious primary by steering too far right on some issues. At his core, however, we see him as a “Chamber of Commerce Republican,” more attuned to business interests than the tea party/social conservatism that defines today’s GOP.
Importantly, Romney speaks the language of industry. His tenure leading Bain Capital, for instance, has come under sharp criticism for years, but it also reveals a man who understands capital formation and how that, extrapolated through an economy, can lift the U.S. from its stalled state. Even some of Obama’s Democratic allies — notably rising star Cory Booker, former adviser Steven Rattner and former Rep. Harold Ford — were quick to criticize the campaign’s Bain-centric attacks on profit.
Unlike many in his party, Romney understands that government has a place in the economy and in American life, just not as much of a place as Obama would afford it. Obama has cited, with some justification, recalcitrance from congressional Republicans for thwarting him. But in his first two years, when Democrats had a wide margin in the House and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama’s wounds were self-inflicted. He put his chips on a necessary but ill-conceived stimulus program and a massive health care overhaul. Left to languish were a broad-based energy bill, comprehensive immigration reform, entitlement reform and, most ominously, effective job-creation programs.
Obama’s people warned of unemployment rates as high as 8 percent without the stimulus spending, only to see rates exceed 8 percent, anyway, for 43 consecutive months — and counting. Real household income has fallen in consecutive years. Food stamp enrollment has hit record highs; the percentage of adults in the workforce approaches record lows.
Annual deficits for every year of the Obama presidency will top $1 trillion, pushing the federal debt past an astounding $16 trillion.
Obama’s Affordable Care Act was his signature domestic achievement. Its many laudable features included the individual mandate, but one was not its financing, which led this newspaper to oppose it. Obama left the details to Congress, and what emerged had no realistic funding stream and did too little to contain future costs.
Of most concern, Obama was not unaware of the fiscal problem. He put together a bipartisan panel to help forge a solution but then abandoned it. Left to languish, the Simpson-Bowles group could not achieve the votes to force congressional action. The proposal, which included a roughly 3-to-1 package of spending cuts to revenue increases, was the kind of compromise candidate Obama had advocated. As president, he chose not to act.
Romney has shown an ability to lead, from turning around the deficit-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics to his term as Massachusetts governor. His plans for tax and entitlement reform are encouraging, shifting the focus from government first to freeing the private sector to innovate. Voters should demand more specifics, but at the heart of his plans — especially on reforming a teetering Medicare system — is an instinct to rely on competition over regulation to drive growth.
Yet Romney does give us pause. His famed flip-flops on issues from immigration to health care, always pushing further right, are worrisome. His difficulty in speaking precisely and inoffensively on such issues as London’s Olympic preparedness, Israeli Palestinian issues and U.S. embassy assaults paint him, at best, as a foreign policy neophyte.
And his secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser drew an unreasonably sharp line between those who pay income taxes and “the 47 percent” of Americans who only take and would never support him, anyway. These ill-advised statements offended many and played directly into the Obama campaign’s picture of an excessively wealthy candidate out of touch with the common man.
Not his finest moment, nor was it the lone defining one for Romney. What we’ve seen of him over many years — from business success to running a state to impeccable personal and family attributes — convinces this newspaper that the time is right for someone with his broad skill set.
Obama himself once said that if he didn’t repair the economy “in three years, this would be a one-term proposition.” The facts show it’s time for a principled, pragmatic leader who can get Washington working again.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Neither the President nor the Vice President can count to four
Original Post: ABC News
by Mary Bruce and Jake Tapper
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — After bashing Mitt Romney’s “bad math” tax plan all day, it looks like President Obama is also having some trouble adding things up.
It’s a standard part of the president’s stump speech to tout his plan to create jobs by rewarding companies that make goods “stamped with three proud words: Made in America.” Rallying supporters in Kissimmee, Fla., Saturday, however, the president said this: “We can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years, because we’re selling goods around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA.” For those counting, that’s more than just three words.
The president repeated the flub again today in Melbourne, Fla., once again rallying supporters to back his plan to “change our tax code so we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”
“Let’s reward them for investing in new plants and equipment here in the U.S., and training new workers here in the U.S. … creating jobs right here in the U.S., making products that we sell around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA. That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the future we want,” he said as the crowd chanted three proud letters, “U-S-A!”
And you'll all remember this one.
Dan Quayle was ridiculed for years for using an archaic albiet correct spelling of potato. Let's recap the things the president doesn't know.
How many states are in America.
How long he's allowed to serve as president.
How big the deficit is.
And finally how to count to four. Truly amazing.
by Mary Bruce and Jake Tapper
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — After bashing Mitt Romney’s “bad math” tax plan all day, it looks like President Obama is also having some trouble adding things up.
It’s a standard part of the president’s stump speech to tout his plan to create jobs by rewarding companies that make goods “stamped with three proud words: Made in America.” Rallying supporters in Kissimmee, Fla., Saturday, however, the president said this: “We can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years, because we’re selling goods around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA.” For those counting, that’s more than just three words.
The president repeated the flub again today in Melbourne, Fla., once again rallying supporters to back his plan to “change our tax code so we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”
“Let’s reward them for investing in new plants and equipment here in the U.S., and training new workers here in the U.S. … creating jobs right here in the U.S., making products that we sell around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA. That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the future we want,” he said as the crowd chanted three proud letters, “U-S-A!”
And you'll all remember this one.
Dan Quayle was ridiculed for years for using an archaic albiet correct spelling of potato. Let's recap the things the president doesn't know.
How many states are in America.
How long he's allowed to serve as president.
How big the deficit is.
And finally how to count to four. Truly amazing.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Obama administration repeats same jobs line—for the 30th month
Original Post: Yahoo
By Chris Moody
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.
Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009. See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:
June 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)
January 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)
December 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)
November 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)
October 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)
September 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)
August 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)
January 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)
December 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)
November 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)
October 2010: "Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)
September 2010: "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)
July 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)
November 2009: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)
By Chris Moody
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.
Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009. See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:
June 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)
January 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)
December 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)
November 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)
October 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)
September 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)
August 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)
January 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)
December 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)
November 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)
October 2010: "Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)
September 2010: "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)
July 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)
November 2009: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)
Thursday, February 16, 2012
drones in American skies, civil liberties in jeopardy
Original Post: Digital Journal
Washington - A bill passed last week allocating more than $63 billion to the Federal Aviation Administration would increase the existence of drones in civilian airspace across America and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
As America’s drone war begins a new surge in Pakistan, the U.S. House and Senate have both approved the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act bill, a bill which would pressure the FAA to weaken rules currently in place on domestic drone authority, and allow American skies to be filled with tens of thousands of drones.
If the new bill becomes law, up to 30,000 drones could by flying in U.S. airspace by decade’s end. The Senate passed the bill by a 75-20 margin. Civil liberties groups have spoken out on the measure, stating the new legislation offers no restrictions on drone surveillance operations by police and federal agencies and could put us on track toward a “surveillance society.”
As drone technology rapidly advances, America’s law enforcement community is eager to use these robotic machines in their daily operations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.
Details in the new drone bill are extensive. Among them, the bill would require the FAA to expedite and simplify its drone operation permission process to government agencies, to be completed within 90 days. The FAA is currently considering a proposed set of regulations alleviating drone rules, set to be released this spring. The operation of any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less would require the FAA’s approval to “a government public safety agency,” as long as certain parameters are heeded (sight lines, daytime operation, operation below 400 feet in altitude, and operated only in safe airspace.)
Also included in the new measure is a requirement the FAA produce a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system,” Common Dreams reports.
In this instance, “civil” drones applies to those operated in the private sector, but as things currently stand, permission to operate a drone is all but impossible for a non-government entity, save for hobbyists. Drone industry groups, along with their congressional backers, consider this as a potential source of income. The bill requires the FAA’s plan allow the integration of drones into U.S. airspace “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.
The FAA has been given nine months to produce the plan. Additionally, it must develop a five-year “roadmap for the introduction” of these civil drones in national airspace. The bill would also require the FAA’s final ruling, within 18 month of the comprehensive plan’s submission, “that will allow” civil operation of drones weighing under 55 pounds in U.S. airspace along with a proposed ruling for conducting the plan. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, has brought a lawsuit against the federal government requesting the FAA release records on agencies, almost 300 of them, carrying authorization for domestic drone operations.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with EFF told Talking Points Memo the new drone bill increases the importance of the lawsuit. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” she noted. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue."
As drone technology rapidly advances, America’s law enforcement community is eager to use these robotic machines in their daily operations, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes Unfortunately, nothing in the bill would address the very serious privacy issues raised by drone aircraft. This bill would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era of aerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected.
Details in the new drone bill are extensive. Among them, the bill would require the FAA to expedite and simplify its drone operation permission process to government agencies, to be completed within 90 days. The FAA is currently considering a proposed set of regulations alleviating drone rules, set to be released this spring. The operation of any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less would require the FAA’s approval to “a government public safety agency,” as long as certain parameters are heeded (sight lines, daytime operation, operation below 400 feet in altitude, and operated only in safe airspace.)
Also included in the new measure is a requirement the FAA produce a comprehensive plan “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system,” Common Dreams reports.
In this instance, “civil” drones applies to those operated in the private sector, but as things currently stand, permission to operate a drone is all but impossible for a non-government entity, save for hobbyists. Drone industry groups, along with their congressional backers, consider this as a potential source of income. The bill requires the FAA’s plan allow the integration of drones into U.S. airspace “as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.
The FAA has been given nine months to produce the plan. Additionally, it must develop a five-year “roadmap for the introduction” of these civil drones in national airspace. The bill would also require the FAA’s final ruling, within 18 month of the comprehensive plan’s submission, “that will allow” civil operation of drones weighing under 55 pounds in U.S. airspace along with a proposed ruling for conducting the plan. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, has brought a lawsuit against the federal government requesting the FAA release records on agencies, almost 300 of them, carrying authorization for domestic drone operations.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with EFF told Talking Points Memo the new drone bill increases the importance of the lawsuit. “I think the fact that Congress is pressuring the FAA to expand its UAS program through the FAA Reauthorization Act only reinforces the need for these records,” she noted. “It’s important that we learn more about how the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies are already using UASs before we expand their use further. The privacy concerns posed by the use of drones for domestic surveillance are too great to excuse the FAA’s lack of transparency on this issue."
Lincoln Republican abolishes slavery, Obama Democrat brings it back
Original Post: ABC News
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., shot down the Obama administration’s compromise on contraception Sunday, discounting the plan that requires insurance companies, instead of religious hospitals or universities, provide access to free birth control under the new health care law as nothing more than an “accounting trick.” “This thing is a distinction without a difference,” Ryan told me Sunday on “This Week.” “It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise...”
There are so many things wrong with Obama here.
1)I thought Congress already wrote the bill. How can he now offer a compromise? How can the president change the terms of this bill at a whim? I thought we had a separation of powers.
2)Forcing Catholics to provide contraception is against their doctrine and clearly violates the 1st amendment.
3)The Church put out a letter coming out against this change. Obama ordered the Chaplains in the army not to read this letter. A second violation of the first amendment.
4)Obama's "compromise" requires the insurance companies to produce this product for free. What is it called when you force someone to work and you don't pay them? It's slavery. We fought a war over it.
Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and Democrat Barack Obama re-instituted it.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Obama allows military to detain American citizens on American soil indefinably with out a trial
Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial
Original Post: GuardianBarack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.
The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."
There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.
The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".
Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.
"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."
Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.
But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".
"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."
Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.
The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.
But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.
Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.
Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.
"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."
In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.
The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.
"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.
Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".
Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.
Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
President decides to ignore Congress and do whatever he wants...again
Original Post: Daily Caller
President Barack Obama told an audience in Nevada on Monday that he will be regularly announcing “executive actions” his administration will take to “heal the economy” without the “dysfunctional” Congress.
“I’m here to say to all of you and to say to the people of Nevada and the people of Las Vegas, we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” Obama said.
“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis,” the president said.
Obama then explained the home mortgage refinancing plan that his administration announced on Monday.
“The barrier will be lifted that prohibits responsible homeowners from refinancing if their home values have fallen so low that what they owe on their mortgage is 25 percent higher than the current value of their home,” he said. “And this is critically important for a place like Las Vegas, where home values have fallen by more than 50 percent over the past five years.”
“If you’ve got a $250,000 mortgage at six percent interest rates, but the value of your home has fallen below $200,000, right now you can’t refinance,” Obama explained. “You’re ineligible. But that’s going to change. If you meet certain requirements, you will have the chance to refinance at lower rates, which could save you hundreds of dollars a month, and thousands of dollars a year on mortgage payments.”
Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran told TheDC last Thursday that he would like to see the Obama administration refinance every home mortgage to three and a half to four percent without congressional approval.
“The banks aren’t doing it, but the federal government can borrow money at three-and-a-half percent today,” Moran said. “It would reset the economy, and I think it’s the one thing that would most quickly get this economy back on its feet.”
Moran’s recommendation foreshadowed the president’s statements on Monday.
“Where we don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own, and we’re going to keep on putting pressure on Congress to do the right thing for families all across the country,” Obama said.
“And I am confident that the American people want to see action,” he said. “We know what to do. Question is whether we’re going to have the political will to do it.”
Obama says he’ll be taking ‘executive actions’ without Congress on ‘regular basis’ to ‘heal the economy’
President Barack Obama told an audience in Nevada on Monday that he will be regularly announcing “executive actions” his administration will take to “heal the economy” without the “dysfunctional” Congress.
“I’m here to say to all of you and to say to the people of Nevada and the people of Las Vegas, we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” Obama said.
“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis,” the president said.
Obama then explained the home mortgage refinancing plan that his administration announced on Monday.
“The barrier will be lifted that prohibits responsible homeowners from refinancing if their home values have fallen so low that what they owe on their mortgage is 25 percent higher than the current value of their home,” he said. “And this is critically important for a place like Las Vegas, where home values have fallen by more than 50 percent over the past five years.”
“If you’ve got a $250,000 mortgage at six percent interest rates, but the value of your home has fallen below $200,000, right now you can’t refinance,” Obama explained. “You’re ineligible. But that’s going to change. If you meet certain requirements, you will have the chance to refinance at lower rates, which could save you hundreds of dollars a month, and thousands of dollars a year on mortgage payments.”
Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran told TheDC last Thursday that he would like to see the Obama administration refinance every home mortgage to three and a half to four percent without congressional approval.
“The banks aren’t doing it, but the federal government can borrow money at three-and-a-half percent today,” Moran said. “It would reset the economy, and I think it’s the one thing that would most quickly get this economy back on its feet.”
Moran’s recommendation foreshadowed the president’s statements on Monday.
“Where we don’t have to wait for Congress, we’re just going to go ahead and act on our own, and we’re going to keep on putting pressure on Congress to do the right thing for families all across the country,” Obama said.
“And I am confident that the American people want to see action,” he said. “We know what to do. Question is whether we’re going to have the political will to do it.”
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Neither our VP nor our President can count
You may remember this.
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." - Barack Obama
And this one.
“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,” the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens." - Vice President Joe Biden
Here we go again. Proving this administration can't count up to double digits. But the media will still claim that Sarah Palin is the dumb one for what someone lampooning her on SNL said.
Original Post: .Human Events
An interview with George Stephanopoulos. by John Hayward 10/04/2011
ABC News has posted a full transcript of President Obama’s October 3rd interview with George Stephanopoulos. It’s the one where he says Solyndra was “a good bet.” That incredible comment doesn’t sound any better in the context of the full interview.
Much of the interview is the same old tedious nonsense that has made Barack Obama one of the most boring speakers in public life. I wonder how many of his girlish pants-crease devotees thought he’d be ridiculed as a human-sized dose of Valium before his term was done. He just says the same things, over and over again, no matter how absurd or thoroughly debunked they’ve been. Evidently, he thinks repetition produces hypnotic effects.
Thus, we have yet more whining about what a tough job Obama consented to accept, when the American people persuaded him to take the Oval Office in 2008. Told by Stephanopoulos that many people “simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago,” the President responds:
Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis-- before this extraordinary recession we're going through. I think that-- what we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy.
It’s not his fault, he just got here, and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and get to work! What on Earth does the Lehman’s collapse have to do with passing a job-killing health care bill, imposing a job-killing moratorium on offshore drilling, sending the National Labor Relations Board to kill jobs in South Carolina, and handing billions to Obama cronies so they can produce 3500 “green jobs” at a cost of $4.8 million apiece?
Naturally, Obama follows this forget-my-record appeal with a fresh demand to pass his silly jobs bill, which currently cannot attract any Democrat sponsors in the House, thanks to their mortal terror of being associated with job-smashing tax increases. The man who skated through the entire debt-ceiling crisis without any concrete proposals takes to whining that he’s the only one with a plan, after Stephanopoulos tells him House GOP leader Eric Cantor thinks Obama’s “all or nothing approach” on his jobs bill is “unreasonable”:
Now if he's got other ideas, we're happy to look at those other ideas. But what-- what I think the American people cannot abide by is us doing nothing. We can't sit here and pretend that somehow-- you know, Washington just cutting spending, in and of itself, is going to be putting people back to work.
Well, heck, I can agree with the President there. Let’s not “pretend” that cutting spending will put people back to work. Let’s do it, right now, and see what happens. We’ll repeal the President’s job-killing health care disaster, defund job-devouring agencies like the EPA, pass some pro-growth tax cuts, and see how employment looks. That’s the one thing we never actually do: cut government spending. We’ve never tried it.
We know Obama’s policies are disastrous, but we’ve never tried the alternative of turning off the money and regulatory spigots in Washington, and giving economic liberty a chance to bloom. Everyone who suggests that simple approach is dismissed as unserious by default. Where’s Eric Cantor’s trillion dollar tax hike, $450 billion spending plan, and $200 billion infrastructure bank? He doesn’t have one? Why, he doesn’t have a “plan” at all!
As is his tiresome custom, Obama demanded more money for “infrastructure,” and appeared to catch himself during a clumsy attempt to refer back to his expensive photo-op at the Brent Spence Bridge in Ohio, which even the local papers were quick to point out would not be affected in any way by the President’s new “stimulus” bill:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, for example, you talk to Republican governors, Republican mayors, and they'll tell you that the need for them to rebuild roads and bridges, including some-- you know, that-- I visited in-- in-- in Virginia, but also-- some that I've visited-- between Kentucky and Ohio, where-- both-- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell hail from-- those are projects that need to happen anyway. Why not do them now at a time when we've got construction workers out of work, contractors-- are able to come in under budget, on time. This is the time to do it.
Thanks for reminding us that you blew a couple million dollars of taxpayer money, and snarled local traffic for hours, to pull a stupid political stunt at a bridge chosen entirely because two specific politicians hail from the states on either end of it, Mr. President. How do we get you to stop burning through our money again? Oh, that’s right, we vote you out of office next year.
Comedy gold was struck during this exchange, which would become an immortal moment in political history, casually referenced in popular entertainment years from now, if a Republican had said it:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We actually got a great question on Twitter about 2008. It's from Gale Glover, and he asks, "If hope and change define the 2008 campaign, what two words are going to make-- are going to define 2012?"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I-- you know, I haven't quite boiled it down to a bumper sticker yet. But I think what'll-- define 2012 is-- you know, our vision for the future. That's three words. Four.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's five, actually.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...Vision for the future. Four. There is-- going to be a contest of values and-- and vision in 2012.
After stammering his way through an uncomfortable question about the undeniable divisiveness of his new class warfare re-election campaign, Barack the Mad resurfaced, with the kind of delusion that makes you wonder how far off the deep end a President can go before questions must be asked about his mental fitness for office:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: --the-- well, the-- you know, the way it's going to change is because the American people are gonna have the say about where we want to go, you know? They're going to have a decision to make. And they're going to say to themselves, "You know what? President Obama wanted to reduce the deficit by not only cutting spending, as he's already done, but also by making sure that-- the most fortunate in our society are paying their fair share. That we're closing corporate loopholes that small businesses don't get. The Republicans have said no to that." Well, that's a contrast in approaches. And-- you know, when you tick down which approach the American people generally prefer, they'll say mine.
Federal spending 2008: $2.9 trillion. Federal spending 2011: $3.8 trillion. How do you like those wonderful Obama “spending cuts?” And the public agrees with the Obama approach so much that they’ve given him rock-bottom approval ratings.
Surprisingly, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about the “Durbin tax,” the regressive tax Democrats slapped on the poor by using raw government power to distort the financial system on behalf of retail industry lobbyists. Obama disintegrated into the kind of incoherent stammering that characterizes most of his off-teleprompter speeches these days:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- what we did was we put a stop through-- The Financial Reform Act of them charging fees-- for credit cards.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And the banks are saying--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so-- Well-- what-- what the banks are saying is-- that "Rather than take a little bit less of a profit. Rather than paying multimillion dollar bonuses. Let's treat our customers right." And this is exactly why we need this consumer finance-- protection bureau that we set up that is ready to go.
When Stephanopoulos asked if these bank surcharges could be “stopped,” Obama displayed the stunning appreciation for American economic liberty that has made him such a remarkable leader:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you can stop it because it-- if you-- if you say to the banks, "You don't have some inherent right just to-- you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers-- are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently." And-- and my hope is is that you're going to see a bunch of-- the banks, who say to themselves, "You know what? This is actually not good business practice."
Banks can make money. They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it. By lending to small businesses. By lending to consumers. By making sure that-- you know, we are building the economy together. But-- you know, without the kinds of protections that we're starting to see the Republicans try to roll back-- we're going to continue to have these kinds of problems. And this is exactly-- the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by. This, by the way, is an example of the-- the contrasting visions that we have. If-- if-- if-- the Republican Party believes that we should do nothing to curb abuses on Wall Street and roll back regulations put in place to prevent the next big financial crisis, well, I've got a big difference with them. And I think the American people are going to be on my side on that. No, the Financial Reform Act had nothing to do with preventing banks from charging fees for credit cards or debit cards. It capped the fees banks can charge retailers, which is why many Americans suddenly found themselves paying surcharges for debit card usage and checking over the past few weeks.
Obama’s solution, of course, is bigger government. “You don’t have some inherent right to, you know, get a certain amount of profit?” He’s always been an absurd joke as a “constitutional scholar,” but now I’m starting to wonder if we’ve just been misinformed about which national Constitution he supposedly studied.
You’ll get the same answer out of his successors if we don’t repeal ObamaCare, and it destroys the private insurance industry. The only solution to that government-mandated disaster will be a huge increase in the size of government, as the health industry is nationalized. Obama’s right that Americans face a stark choice in 2012. Choosing Obama means choosing a death spiral of Big Government failure, followed by urgent demands to accept Titanic Government as our savior.
Anyone foolish enough to have believed Obama when he said he was opposed to gay marriage will be shocked to know his position is “evolving” into whatever will get him the most votes in 2012:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you've said your position is evolving. You said you're struggling with it. What more do you need to know?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- you know-- I probably won't-- make news right now, George. But I-- I think that there's no doubt that-- as I see-- friends, families-- children of gay couples-- who are thriving-- you know, that-- that has an impact on how I think about these issues. It's also one of the reasons that I made the decision for us not to defend-- The Defense of Marriage Act, which-- I believe violated the Constitution. And, you know, is going to be-- decided in the courts probably-- in the next-- next few terms.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you'll change your mind before the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know-- I-- I'm-- I'm-- still working on it.
The President made the horse-laugh claim that he’s the “underdog” in the upcoming election, as if the incumbent President of the United States somehow has fewer electoral advantages than his as-yet-undetermined opponent. On the other hand, I wouldn’t envy anyone who has to run on the Obama record. The history he keeps insisting Americans should forget casts a long shadow.
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." - Barack Obama
And this one.
“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,” the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens." - Vice President Joe Biden
Here we go again. Proving this administration can't count up to double digits. But the media will still claim that Sarah Palin is the dumb one for what someone lampooning her on SNL said.
Obama’s Three Words To Define The Future
Original Post: .Human Events
An interview with George Stephanopoulos. by John Hayward 10/04/2011
ABC News has posted a full transcript of President Obama’s October 3rd interview with George Stephanopoulos. It’s the one where he says Solyndra was “a good bet.” That incredible comment doesn’t sound any better in the context of the full interview.
Much of the interview is the same old tedious nonsense that has made Barack Obama one of the most boring speakers in public life. I wonder how many of his girlish pants-crease devotees thought he’d be ridiculed as a human-sized dose of Valium before his term was done. He just says the same things, over and over again, no matter how absurd or thoroughly debunked they’ve been. Evidently, he thinks repetition produces hypnotic effects.
Thus, we have yet more whining about what a tough job Obama consented to accept, when the American people persuaded him to take the Oval Office in 2008. Told by Stephanopoulos that many people “simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago,” the President responds:
Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis-- before this extraordinary recession we're going through. I think that-- what we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy.
It’s not his fault, he just got here, and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and get to work! What on Earth does the Lehman’s collapse have to do with passing a job-killing health care bill, imposing a job-killing moratorium on offshore drilling, sending the National Labor Relations Board to kill jobs in South Carolina, and handing billions to Obama cronies so they can produce 3500 “green jobs” at a cost of $4.8 million apiece?
Naturally, Obama follows this forget-my-record appeal with a fresh demand to pass his silly jobs bill, which currently cannot attract any Democrat sponsors in the House, thanks to their mortal terror of being associated with job-smashing tax increases. The man who skated through the entire debt-ceiling crisis without any concrete proposals takes to whining that he’s the only one with a plan, after Stephanopoulos tells him House GOP leader Eric Cantor thinks Obama’s “all or nothing approach” on his jobs bill is “unreasonable”:
Now if he's got other ideas, we're happy to look at those other ideas. But what-- what I think the American people cannot abide by is us doing nothing. We can't sit here and pretend that somehow-- you know, Washington just cutting spending, in and of itself, is going to be putting people back to work.
Well, heck, I can agree with the President there. Let’s not “pretend” that cutting spending will put people back to work. Let’s do it, right now, and see what happens. We’ll repeal the President’s job-killing health care disaster, defund job-devouring agencies like the EPA, pass some pro-growth tax cuts, and see how employment looks. That’s the one thing we never actually do: cut government spending. We’ve never tried it.
We know Obama’s policies are disastrous, but we’ve never tried the alternative of turning off the money and regulatory spigots in Washington, and giving economic liberty a chance to bloom. Everyone who suggests that simple approach is dismissed as unserious by default. Where’s Eric Cantor’s trillion dollar tax hike, $450 billion spending plan, and $200 billion infrastructure bank? He doesn’t have one? Why, he doesn’t have a “plan” at all!
As is his tiresome custom, Obama demanded more money for “infrastructure,” and appeared to catch himself during a clumsy attempt to refer back to his expensive photo-op at the Brent Spence Bridge in Ohio, which even the local papers were quick to point out would not be affected in any way by the President’s new “stimulus” bill:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, for example, you talk to Republican governors, Republican mayors, and they'll tell you that the need for them to rebuild roads and bridges, including some-- you know, that-- I visited in-- in-- in Virginia, but also-- some that I've visited-- between Kentucky and Ohio, where-- both-- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell hail from-- those are projects that need to happen anyway. Why not do them now at a time when we've got construction workers out of work, contractors-- are able to come in under budget, on time. This is the time to do it.
Thanks for reminding us that you blew a couple million dollars of taxpayer money, and snarled local traffic for hours, to pull a stupid political stunt at a bridge chosen entirely because two specific politicians hail from the states on either end of it, Mr. President. How do we get you to stop burning through our money again? Oh, that’s right, we vote you out of office next year.
Comedy gold was struck during this exchange, which would become an immortal moment in political history, casually referenced in popular entertainment years from now, if a Republican had said it:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We actually got a great question on Twitter about 2008. It's from Gale Glover, and he asks, "If hope and change define the 2008 campaign, what two words are going to make-- are going to define 2012?"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I-- you know, I haven't quite boiled it down to a bumper sticker yet. But I think what'll-- define 2012 is-- you know, our vision for the future. That's three words. Four.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's five, actually.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...Vision for the future. Four. There is-- going to be a contest of values and-- and vision in 2012.
After stammering his way through an uncomfortable question about the undeniable divisiveness of his new class warfare re-election campaign, Barack the Mad resurfaced, with the kind of delusion that makes you wonder how far off the deep end a President can go before questions must be asked about his mental fitness for office:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: --the-- well, the-- you know, the way it's going to change is because the American people are gonna have the say about where we want to go, you know? They're going to have a decision to make. And they're going to say to themselves, "You know what? President Obama wanted to reduce the deficit by not only cutting spending, as he's already done, but also by making sure that-- the most fortunate in our society are paying their fair share. That we're closing corporate loopholes that small businesses don't get. The Republicans have said no to that." Well, that's a contrast in approaches. And-- you know, when you tick down which approach the American people generally prefer, they'll say mine.
Federal spending 2008: $2.9 trillion. Federal spending 2011: $3.8 trillion. How do you like those wonderful Obama “spending cuts?” And the public agrees with the Obama approach so much that they’ve given him rock-bottom approval ratings.
Surprisingly, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about the “Durbin tax,” the regressive tax Democrats slapped on the poor by using raw government power to distort the financial system on behalf of retail industry lobbyists. Obama disintegrated into the kind of incoherent stammering that characterizes most of his off-teleprompter speeches these days:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- what we did was we put a stop through-- The Financial Reform Act of them charging fees-- for credit cards.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And the banks are saying--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so-- Well-- what-- what the banks are saying is-- that "Rather than take a little bit less of a profit. Rather than paying multimillion dollar bonuses. Let's treat our customers right." And this is exactly why we need this consumer finance-- protection bureau that we set up that is ready to go.
When Stephanopoulos asked if these bank surcharges could be “stopped,” Obama displayed the stunning appreciation for American economic liberty that has made him such a remarkable leader:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you can stop it because it-- if you-- if you say to the banks, "You don't have some inherent right just to-- you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers-- are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently." And-- and my hope is is that you're going to see a bunch of-- the banks, who say to themselves, "You know what? This is actually not good business practice."
Banks can make money. They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it. By lending to small businesses. By lending to consumers. By making sure that-- you know, we are building the economy together. But-- you know, without the kinds of protections that we're starting to see the Republicans try to roll back-- we're going to continue to have these kinds of problems. And this is exactly-- the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by. This, by the way, is an example of the-- the contrasting visions that we have. If-- if-- if-- the Republican Party believes that we should do nothing to curb abuses on Wall Street and roll back regulations put in place to prevent the next big financial crisis, well, I've got a big difference with them. And I think the American people are going to be on my side on that. No, the Financial Reform Act had nothing to do with preventing banks from charging fees for credit cards or debit cards. It capped the fees banks can charge retailers, which is why many Americans suddenly found themselves paying surcharges for debit card usage and checking over the past few weeks.
Obama’s solution, of course, is bigger government. “You don’t have some inherent right to, you know, get a certain amount of profit?” He’s always been an absurd joke as a “constitutional scholar,” but now I’m starting to wonder if we’ve just been misinformed about which national Constitution he supposedly studied.
You’ll get the same answer out of his successors if we don’t repeal ObamaCare, and it destroys the private insurance industry. The only solution to that government-mandated disaster will be a huge increase in the size of government, as the health industry is nationalized. Obama’s right that Americans face a stark choice in 2012. Choosing Obama means choosing a death spiral of Big Government failure, followed by urgent demands to accept Titanic Government as our savior.
Anyone foolish enough to have believed Obama when he said he was opposed to gay marriage will be shocked to know his position is “evolving” into whatever will get him the most votes in 2012:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you've said your position is evolving. You said you're struggling with it. What more do you need to know?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- you know-- I probably won't-- make news right now, George. But I-- I think that there's no doubt that-- as I see-- friends, families-- children of gay couples-- who are thriving-- you know, that-- that has an impact on how I think about these issues. It's also one of the reasons that I made the decision for us not to defend-- The Defense of Marriage Act, which-- I believe violated the Constitution. And, you know, is going to be-- decided in the courts probably-- in the next-- next few terms.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you'll change your mind before the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know-- I-- I'm-- I'm-- still working on it.
The President made the horse-laugh claim that he’s the “underdog” in the upcoming election, as if the incumbent President of the United States somehow has fewer electoral advantages than his as-yet-undetermined opponent. On the other hand, I wouldn’t envy anyone who has to run on the Obama record. The history he keeps insisting Americans should forget casts a long shadow.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Obama admitts he's a shitty president
Original Post: Yahoo
BY RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Calling himself an "underdog," President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012. Well, who's fault is that?.
"Absolutely," he said in response to a question from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy. "I'm used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"
The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.
"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century.
Obama said his proposed American Jobs Act will put construction workers, teachers and veterans to work and give "more consumers more confidence."
Foreign affairs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and social issues like gay marriage will all be fodder on the campaign trail, but with the first caucus and primaries less than 100 days away, no issue looms larger for 2012 than the economy and jobs.
The latest unemployment figures for the month of September will be released Friday, but the jobless rate is not expected to significantly improve. And next year, leading up to the fall elections, the unemployment rate is expected to climb to its highest level since 1940.
Obama's job approval rate is hovering at around 40 percent.
Obama would not handicap the 2012 election, but objected to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's comments that he divided people more than united them. Republicans, he said, have stood in the way of working with him time and again to fix the economy.
"At every step of way, I have tried to get the Republican Party to work with me on the biggest crisis of our lifetime. And each time we've gotten 'No,'" he said.
Obama called the 2012 race a "contest of values and vision" and a referendum on whether Americans believed the government should invest now in long-term improvements in education and infrastructure.
The president has tried, often unsuccessfully, to tread a line between bolstering the financial institutions that underpin the economy and protecting consumers and working people. He has been unable to push a tax hike for wealthy Americans through Congress and unwilling to call for greater regulation on Wall Street.
Responding to a question about Bank of America's recent decision to charge users a $5 fee for using a debit card, Obama said government should get involved and that he had worked to stop banks from charging hidden credit card fees.
Obama, who was praised this weekend in the gay community, said his position on gay marriage was "evolving," but refused to say whether he would support gay marriage by Election Day 2012.
"I'm still working on it," he said of whether he would move from supporting civil unions for same-sex couples to supporting gay marriage.
Days after ordering the killing of U.S. citizen and al Qaeda terror chief Anwar Al-Awlaki, President Obama said the terror network was weakened.
"Given the nature of our open society we're always open to the possibility of terror attack," he said. "But a big project with a lot of financing is very difficult for them now."
"They're still dangerous, they're still our No 1. enemy," Obama said.
The questions featured in Monday's online interview, the first under a new alliance between ABC News and Yahoo! News, were generated by Internet users. More than 40,000 questions, including one from Republican presidential contender former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, were submitted online.
Asked which sites he visits to get the news, Obama noted that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave him and iPad to surf the Web.
"You know I'm pretty eclectic," the president said. "I read a lot of news that I used to read in print, I read on the Web now. I go to ABCNews.com, of course, and also Yahoo! Typically, I read on the web what I read in hard copy."
President Obama: America 'Not Better Off' Today than Four Years Ago
BY RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Calling himself an "underdog," President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012. Well, who's fault is that?.
"Absolutely," he said in response to a question from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy. "I'm used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"
The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.
"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century.
Obama said his proposed American Jobs Act will put construction workers, teachers and veterans to work and give "more consumers more confidence."
Foreign affairs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and social issues like gay marriage will all be fodder on the campaign trail, but with the first caucus and primaries less than 100 days away, no issue looms larger for 2012 than the economy and jobs.
The latest unemployment figures for the month of September will be released Friday, but the jobless rate is not expected to significantly improve. And next year, leading up to the fall elections, the unemployment rate is expected to climb to its highest level since 1940.
Obama's job approval rate is hovering at around 40 percent.
Obama would not handicap the 2012 election, but objected to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's comments that he divided people more than united them. Republicans, he said, have stood in the way of working with him time and again to fix the economy.
"At every step of way, I have tried to get the Republican Party to work with me on the biggest crisis of our lifetime. And each time we've gotten 'No,'" he said.
Obama called the 2012 race a "contest of values and vision" and a referendum on whether Americans believed the government should invest now in long-term improvements in education and infrastructure.
The president has tried, often unsuccessfully, to tread a line between bolstering the financial institutions that underpin the economy and protecting consumers and working people. He has been unable to push a tax hike for wealthy Americans through Congress and unwilling to call for greater regulation on Wall Street.
Responding to a question about Bank of America's recent decision to charge users a $5 fee for using a debit card, Obama said government should get involved and that he had worked to stop banks from charging hidden credit card fees.
Obama, who was praised this weekend in the gay community, said his position on gay marriage was "evolving," but refused to say whether he would support gay marriage by Election Day 2012.
"I'm still working on it," he said of whether he would move from supporting civil unions for same-sex couples to supporting gay marriage.
Days after ordering the killing of U.S. citizen and al Qaeda terror chief Anwar Al-Awlaki, President Obama said the terror network was weakened.
"Given the nature of our open society we're always open to the possibility of terror attack," he said. "But a big project with a lot of financing is very difficult for them now."
"They're still dangerous, they're still our No 1. enemy," Obama said.
The questions featured in Monday's online interview, the first under a new alliance between ABC News and Yahoo! News, were generated by Internet users. More than 40,000 questions, including one from Republican presidential contender former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, were submitted online.
Asked which sites he visits to get the news, Obama noted that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave him and iPad to surf the Web.
"You know I'm pretty eclectic," the president said. "I read a lot of news that I used to read in print, I read on the Web now. I go to ABCNews.com, of course, and also Yahoo! Typically, I read on the web what I read in hard copy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)