Moe Lane of Redstate brings us this gem, which once again highlights the Obama administrations ineptitude when dealing with the media, including the media that put Obama in the White House:

Executive summary: David Axelrod conference-called lefty bloggers to beg for their help in the November elections (because they’ve been ever so useful so far in the 2010 election cycle); and apparently the lefty bloggers are feeling quite aggrieved and put-upon for being called upon to do as they’re bid. One even went so far to as to categorize the entire interaction between the Democratic establishment and the netroots in furtive, sexually shameful terms (one hopes that this… no, that’s too vicious a comment to make); apparently, this is something that happens often enough that it has the name of ‘hippie

The point the bloggers were making is how the White House publicly criticizes liberal bloggers from Robert Gibbs’ White House briefing room pulpit, but then quietly asks them to support the President and Democrats up for reelection this fall.

Things got ugly on the call between Axelrod and liberal bloggers when blogger Susan Madrak, apparently frustrated with Robert Gibbs recent accusations of liberal bloggers being too critical of the White House, shouted out “you want us to help you, the first thing I would suggest is enough of the hippie punching,” Madrak added. “We’re the girl you’ll take under the bleachers but you won’t be seen with in the light of day.”

In typical Chicago tough guy fashion, Axelrod proceeded to mix it up with Madrak, and when Axelrod attempted to minimize her concerns she stated, “Don’t make our jobs harder”, to which Axelrod replied “Right back at’cha. Right back at’cha.”

This type of exchange, and more importantly treatment of the very people that helped perpetrate the fraud that was “Hope and Change” on the American people, is all too common coming from the members of Obama’s inner circle.   They believe that they are so skillful that the “close of the moment” given today, will overcome the “bash of the moment” they handed out yesterday or last week.

The Obama administration has gotten away with it up to this point, because Obama is THEIR guy.  The liberal blogoshpere and media put him in the White House, foregoing the duty of reporting the truth, in order to get a far-left, liberal President in the White House.  Now, they find themselves with the dilemma of continuing to blindly support the man they elevated to President, or report the truth regarding his broken promises and failed policies.

Axelrod, Gibbs and company clearly believe that when push comes to shove, or hippie punching as we now know it, that the liberal blogosphere and MSM will continue blindly support President Obama’s agenda.  All they have to do is command their servants in the media to promote the party Obama line.

To quote Sarah, “How’s that hopey changey thing working out for you?”

Share/Bookmark

Our friends at the Gateway Pundit bring us this story of how far the President’s star has fallen:

Over at the left-wing Daily Beast, Gail Sheehy has a story that should make every Obamaite tremble in fear of November 2. As Sheehy reports it, in New York President Obama couldn’t even fill a room that holds 650 even though they slashed the ticket prices from $500 to $100 a person to get in.

On the 22nd Obama appeared in New York for a fundraiser but organizers found that attendees were harder to come by than ever. As Sheehy points out, this is six weeks before the elections. Less than two months and Democrats can’t garner enough enthusiasm to sell 650 tickets to see the president up close and personal.

Sheehy goes on to say that even after cutting the ticket price to $100 and sending out repeated email blasts begging Obama supporters to show up, the organizers only managed to get 450 people to show up in a room setup to hold 650 people.  Of the 450, a number of them were there to protest President Obama.

In addition, poor attendance resulted in the fund-raising dinner with President Obama later that evening to be slashed to the bargain price of $15,000 a plate, which is far less than the $30,000 a plate fund-raising dinner that he held not that long ago.

At last week’s CNBC Town Hall, an Obama supporter told the President that she and others were tired and worn out from defending him, and asked when they would see the change he promised.  This week the President only manages to fill 2/3 of a 650 person room in New York City.

The question isn’t how far has the President’s star fallen, it’s how much farther will it fall.

Share/Bookmark

We all know that every time we purchase a new car, or new home appliances, that the new ones are more energy efficient than the old ones.  The only problem is that the cost savings often don’t justify the cash we have to lay out to get the new energy efficient models.  The same is true with businesses.

In many cases, when a businesses makes capital investments to upgrade a plant to make it more productive, a by product of that is replacing old, energy sucking, environment-polluting equipment with newer, more efficient, greener varieties.  However, like the consumer, it can be difficult to justify the capital outlay.

Christopher Horner of Big Government explains how President Obama’s plan to allow businesses to accelerate their deductions for capital expenditures will not only help the economy, but also help his green agenda:

The logic is simple and the Dutch actually showed (again, accidentally) how this works to reduce emissions: business do not replace capital equipment as early or often as they might like because the tax code disincentivizes it, with depreciation schedules instead of treating it like other business expenses. They therefore postpone purchasing newer, more efficient (and typically more energy efficient) equipment.

Change that, and they will pull through new technology into use.

In a way that is moving investments forward, a la cash for clunkers. But in other ways it is just smart and the right thing to do.

Here’s the downside: yes, you get emission reductions and not by harming economic growth, but actually encouraging it. However, the political class do not get to reward their constituencies with cap-n-trade wealth transfers from you and me to them, don’t increase the cost of energy, and obtain no new control over our lives.

And as many of you know, that is the whole point behind the scheme urgently needed to combat “climate change” (why not continental drift?) that actually would have no detectable impact, according to anyone, on climate.

It will be interesting to see if the President promotes this as helping America move to a greener economy, or if instead shies away from that type of statement.  While if he was true to his convictions about reducing carbon emissions and having a greener economy, he would embrace this type of change without mandate, the tax credits have two major flaws when viewed by his liberal base:  first, they will be seen as pro-business by his base who believe corporations should pay more tax, not less.  Second, it fails to redistribute wealth, which is one of the main goals of cap and trade, or cap and tax as many call it.

Share/Bookmark

The recent bump in the unemployment rate to 9.6%, when we were supposed to see economic recovery during the summer of recovery, lends some credence to Morris’ concerns:

Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression.

• The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly in the upper income ranges which spend a third of America’s consumption.

• The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s health care legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector which accounts for 16% of GDP.

• The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.

• The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (e.g. India and China).

• The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6% of their income, up from 1% in the past, sapping consumer spending.

• The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

President Obama is so focused on remaking America in the mold of Western Europe, that he appears blinded to the damage that he’s doing.  While his election was clearly a vote against Republicans following unhappiness with some of the Bush policies, President Obama and his administration viewed the election as a mandate for their liberal agenda.   This belief in a far-left mandate has allowed him to ignore the clear will of the people as reflected in polls, Town Hall meetings, and other events and just plow ahead with his far-left, liberal agenda — regardless of the cost to America.

Share/Bookmark

It's good to be the King

Here’s some more commentary on President Obama’s continued spending orgy.

While millions of Americans can’t find a job, millions more have given up looking, and millions more are struggling to keep their homes out of foreclosure, President Obama is living the high life.  Sending his wife to vacation in Spain at the tax payer’s expense, taking family vacations in Florida and Cape Cod, choosing golf over visits to the Gulf oil disaster, and taking Michelle to New York for ‘date night’, all while telling us we need to be more frugal.

Apparently, it’s good to be the King.

We now know that the summer of recovery actually was a description of his multiple family vacations and many rounds of golf with his fat cat buddies  Now that President Obama has ‘recovered’, he’s ready to spend more of your hard earned dollars.  Even though roughly a third of the $800+ billion of his first failed stimulus bill is still unspent, President Obama is pushing for a new $50 billion spending spree.  Doctor Zero details it:

President Obama “unveiled” his new “stimulus” plan in Wisconsin today.  It was a lot like watching an alcoholic unveil his new plan to get sober by switching to lite beer:

We’re going to “fire up sluggish economic growth” by plowing another fifty billion deficit dollars into roads, rail, and airports?  It’s hard to believe even the American media would be lazy enough to write such a headline with a straight face.

Does anyone seriously think our economy is just waiting for another fifty billion dollars’ worth of roads to come roaring back to life?  I guess business owners have all sorts of property staked out for new factories and shops.  They’re just waiting for someone to build roads leading to them.  Does all of this Administration’s economic knowledge come from playing “Sim City” computer games?

…

The Administration assures us its little espresso shot of new stimulus spending will be revenue neutral, paid for by “ending tax breaks for oil and gas companies.”  Oh, that’s just wonderful. Those tax hikes on oil and gas will be passed directly along to the consumer, in addition to hindering investment in the development of new energy resources.  The last thing a fragile, recessionary economy needs is an increase in energy costs.  I’m all in favor of tax simplification, but it has to be across the board.  Adding another few thousand pages to our ridiculous tax laws, to target unpopular companies for cash to fund more pork spending, plays up the worst aspects of a dysfunctional system.

The Obama plan:  Increase spending and debt until the point it is declared unsustainable, and then claim the only option is to raise taxes on corporations and the rich.

The result, businesses are not expanding due to concerns of looming tax increases, which means they also aren’t hiring.  No growth in hiring, means no growth in spending, which results in a floundering economy as confirmed by the recent falling GDP numbers.

Now, with hundreds of billions of unspent stimulus dollars, President Obama wants to spend another $50 billion in infrastructure spending which accomplishes two things, neither of which is economic growth:  first, it provides an excuse to raise taxes on energy companies; second, it let’s them put up more pretty signs around the country advertising how the Dem spending orgy is helping YOU, which they hope will overshadow 20 months of bungled administration policies and avoid a Democratic blood bath in November.

Does anyone really believe that after President Obama promised unemployment would stay below 8% if his first stimulus bill was passed (the one written in large part by union special interest groups), and after he promised the summer of recovery would turn the economy around, that now his latest spending bill will “fire up sluggish economic growth” as he claims?

So, is this really change you can believe in?

Share/Bookmark

The only problem is that the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.  Unfortunately for America, President Obama hasn’t reach the stage of accepting he has a spending problem.   So, the Democratic spending orgy is set to continue.

Ed Morrisey of Hot Air nicely sums up the latest round of spending the President is pushing:

What happens when over a hundred billion dollars in borrowed cash gets plunged into infrastructure spending and it fails to kick-start the economy?  According to this administration, spend another $50 billion on the same failed policy.  Barack Obama will unveil his new economic stimulus plan in Wisconsin today, while Russ Feingold looks for a place to hide:

US President Barack Obama unveils plans Monday to spend at least 50 billion dollars to expand and renew US roads, railways and airports, in a fresh bid to fire up sluggish economic growth.

Obama, under intense pressure over November’s mid-term congressional elections in which his Democrats fear heavy losses, was set to make the announcement in a speech in Wisconsin, an official said. …

A White House official said that the “bold” infrastructure plan will be front loaded and make significant investments in the first year, in a bid to stimulate the sagging economy and boost jobs growth.

While some don’t think another stimulus can pass before the mid-term elections, Morrisey isn’t so sure.  He points out that stimulus bills like this are a way for Congressmen to get pork for their states and districts, and “showing the pork” might be the only thing that can get some Democrats re-elected this fall.

The fact that $100 billion has already been spent on infrastructure as part of the Democrat’s massive $800+ billion stimulus bill last year and that it did nothing to create sustained job or economic growth doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the President’s decision to spend some more of your money — to create more debt for your children and grand children.

It’s important to see this for what it is, an attempt to win votes for Democrats in the fall.  Even Vice President Biden admitted that they had structured the first massive spending stimulus bill to spend the most money and create the most jobs in the first half of this year — well over a year after it was passed.  It was to be part of their now infamous recovery summer, which would so enthrall the masses that they would line up at the polling stations in November and vote to re-elect the Democrats that created this economic nightmare we are suffering through.

Unfortunately, as has been the case time and time again, the Obama administration underestimates the intelligence of the American people.   All indications are that come November he will find out just how badly he has underestimated their intelligence.

Share/Bookmark

However, while President Obama’s recovery summer was a complete and utter failure, it seems that he and Michelle Obama enjoyed their multiple vacations ranging from Spain to Florida to Cape Cod.  Of course, that didn’t fill the entire summer, so he had to fill in the gaps with some relaxing golf.   What was it that the President said about tightening belts?  ”When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you’re trying to pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save on college. You prioritize, you make tough choices.”

It would seem that “it’s good to be the King” applies here, since that allows President Obama to use the old “do as I say, not as I do” approach leading our nation – to send his wife on a European vacation with tax payer’s money, followed by ‘family vacations’ in Florida and on Cape Cod, while millions of Americans are struggling to pay their mortgage and put food on the table.

Like so many other American’s, while the President was playing golf with his fat cat buddies, and he and his family were traveling the globe for their summer vacations, I was working and NOT taking a vacation.  The only vacation I was able to take this summer was a vacation from Liberal Whoppers.  With a busy summer and quite a bit of traveling for my day job that pays the bills, I had to take a brief hiatus from Liberal Whoppers.

As Labor Day signals the unofficial end of summer for most people, my vacation from Liberal Whoppers has now come to an end.  With less than 60 days to what will be one of the most important elections in recent history, Liberal Whoppers is back on the air and will be providing news and commentary leading up to the mid-term elections.

God Bless America

Share/Bookmark

The age of changing the way Washington works and the most transparent White House ever, appear to be as fictitious as the claims that no one earning under $250,000 will see one dime of a tax increase, the health care debate will be televised on CSPAN, and that there would be no lobbyists hired by the Obama administration.   How Fleetwood Mac put it?  Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…

Ultra liberal Helen Thomas has railed against President Obama’s attempt to control the press saying that even “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try… I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

There is no better example than the way Robert Gibbs has not only refused for months to answer questions about the alleged Sestak bribe, but has also mocked the media that has asked him to explain Sestak’s claim that he was offered a job to drop out of the Senate race.  It’s the same level of arrogance displayed up and down the Obama administration, from Gibbs, to Axelrod, to Emanuel, to the President.

Dick Morris says that the Administrations arrogance and disregard for the law could be in for a rude awakening through something called universal jurisdiction:

The Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett — who is the Republican nominee for Governor this year — has ample jurisdiction to convene a grand jury to get to the bottom of the scandal and answer the key questions:

1. Who offered a job to Sestak?
2. What job was proffered?
3. And did the president know of the offer?

Corbett’s jurisdiction stems from the concept of universal jurisdiction, now accepted virtually everywhere…  This principle gives jurisdiction to law enforcement in the place wherever any act occurred that may have resulted in a crime.

Thus, if Cong. Sestak was in one of his homes, in PA or VA, when he received a telephone call offering him a job if he withdrew from the PA Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, law enforcement authorities in PA and VA — both of which have Republican state Attorneys General — can subpoena Cong. Sestak to testify before a state grand jury and compel him to answer the who, what, when, and where that everyone has a right to know.

The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly.  They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge.

After months of stonewalling, Robert Gibbs said on Sunday that “nothing inappropriate” took place.  If that was the case, then why did the White House refuse for months to answer questions about Sestak’s claim?  Why has the Obama controlled justice department failed to open an investigation and prove that nothing inappropriate took place?  Guilt? Arrogance? Contempt for the law?  Take your pick, but the end result is the same.  An allegation of serious misconduct has been made and the White House has ignored all requests to explain what took place with Joe Sestak.

It remains to be seen whether or not Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett chooses to investigate the alleged attempt to influence an election by bribery, because the Obama justice department has refused to do their job.

Either way, this story is likely not going away any time soon, and the arrogance that Robert Gibbs and the rest of the Obama administration has shown on this matter likely isn’t helping stop Obama’s free-fall in the polls.

Update: Shortly after posting this, I read on Hot Air that there are allegations that the White House offered other candidates jobs to drop out of races.  Specifically, that Andrew Romanoff was offered a job to drop out of the Colorado Senate race against Michael Bennett:

The White House denied it at the time, natch, but the Post cited “several top Colorado Democrats” for corroboration. Just wondering: How many of these strangely similar allegations, any or all of which could conceivably violate federal law, are needed before Eric Holder decides it’s worth taking a closer look? That’s not to say anything will come of it — Michael Mukasey, Bush’s AG, explained to Dave Weigel today how easy it is to phrase these offers in a way that makes them hard to prosecute — but surely it’s worth finding out what, precisely, was said. In fact, Mukasey himself called for a special prosecutor. How about it, champ?

It would appear that small bump is gone and he has began his downward spiral again.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll has recorded the worst Presidential Approval Index yet recorded for President Obama.  The Rasmussen approval index is the difference between those likely voters that strongly approve of the President and those that strongly disapprove.  The new poll shows only 23% of voters strongly approve of the President, while 45% strongly disapprove (that’s more than the combination of those that strongly or somewhat approve of the President, which is only 43%).

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president (see trends).

Enthusiasm for the president among Democrats, which bounced following passage of the health care law, has faded again. Just 48% of those in the president’s party now Strongly Approve of Obama’s performance. That’s down from 65% earlier.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says that as bad as Obama’s overall approval rating is, his approval on key issues has to have the White House worried:

The internals for perceptions of Obama are looking very shaky indeed.  Only 39% approve of his performance on the economy; only 44% approve of his overall leadership.  Just 37% approve of his energy policies.  A microscopic 26% trust Obama in an economic crisis, and only 35% believe his ethics to be good or excellent.

Keep an eye on the numbers after Obama’s presser on Thursday.  He may get a bump just for showing up; if he does, expect him to start hitting the campaign trail ASAP.  If he doesn’t, don’t expect to see Obama much at all.

As bad as these numbers are, they are still bolstered by the largely glowing press coverage that President Obama is receiving from the mainstream TV and print media.   We are just starting to see key liberals in the media, and in some cases Congress, start to question President Obama on issues from his handling of the BP gulf oil spill, to the alleged Joe Sestak bribe, to his refusal to take questions from the press except when it is a one-on-one interview with a friendly reporter.

As the the national debt rises, the border situation escalates and the realities of the bait and switch Obamacare come to light, it’s becoming clear that more and more people have had enough of “hope and change.”

Share/Bookmark

The last month has been no different, when he attacked Arizona’s attempt to curb the out of control illegal immigration that is bankrupting that state, along with focusing on attacking BP as yet another greedy business who will be kept in check by the President’s foot on their throat.  He’s repeatedly attacked corporate America and large financial institutions, and acts surprised when the stock market remains skittish and on the verge of another crash.

President Obama, time and again, tries to ride the populous wave, attacking whatever group he thinks will play best with American voters, regardless of whether their are any grounds for his attacks, or whether he has even read a short 16 page bill that he keeps mischaracterizing.

Dick Morris explains how President Obama is seeing a backlash in his approval numbers as a result of focusing more on populist politics than solving the serious problems America is facing:

The oil spill, the Arizona law, and the fallout from the Greek crisis are a trifecta of issues that are driving Obama’s job approval ratings to an all time low. After four months of hovering between a low of 46% and a high of 49% in the daily Rasmussen polls, Obama has dropped precipitously to only a 42% approval rating.

The three issues that are depressing his ratings have a great deal in common. In each case, the president originally seized on the issue to make populist political hay. Then, when the problem wouldn’t go away, voters began to realize that Obama is, in fact, the president and, logically enough, blamed him for the three ills that beset them.

When oil started to spill into the Gulf, President Obama saw a partisan opportunity to blame Republicans who had chanted “Drill, Baby, Drill” all during the summer of 2008 as high gasoline prices gave the McCain candidacy new steam. Even though he had, with lamentable timing, conceded and allowed expanded drilling a few weeks before the rig exploded, the impetus for drilling was clearly seen as Republican and the disaster hurt Republican ratings. Obama couldn’t resist also piling populist scorn on British Petroleum, lambasting big oil for the spill.

But then the oil did not stop flowing. Now the American people are tired of hearing about BP’s faults and are demanding presidential action to stop the spill. As the oil seeps onto the beaches of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, it also seeps into Obama’s poll numbers and drags them down.

A week after the spill, at which point the Obama administration had done basically nothing to evaluate or mitigate the damages from the oil spewing into the gulf, Obama’s solution was to snap at a staff members, “plug the damn hole.”   A month later, with little more having come out of the White House than those four ridiculous words, the oils is still gushing into the gulf.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air talks about Obama’s brilliant solution, and about the press finally beginning to turn on Obama:

If Bush had uttered something as mindlessly self-evident as “plug the damn hole” during crisis management, there’d already be t-shirts on sale on lefty blogs with that phrase emblazoned over a picture of him looking like a baboon. What’s doubly bad for The One right now, of course, is that spill anxiety is reaching a crescendo just as the story of the White House trying to bribe Sestak to drop out of the race is taking off again. The left’s grudgingly turning on him over that too, first with Tim Kaine admitting over the weekend that, yeah, maybe the White House should come clean and today with Dick Durbin(!) piling on

A couple days ago we reported on the fact that while Obama administration officials are making the Sunday talk show rounds reiterating how they will keep the boot on BP’s neck and shove them out of the way if they don’t get the job done, the Louisiana marsh lands are awash in oil, because President Obama sat on the sidelines or stood on the stump  making sure he didn’t let this “crisis go to a waste”, rather than giving Louisiana permission to dredge up sand to create a barrier to protect the delicate marshlands.

The only real question is what the next phase of the White House plan to not let America’s blackened beaches and dieing coastal ecosystem be a crisis that they let go to waste.  Expect President Obama to try and exploit this tragedy in at least three areas:

1. Use this as an excuse to apply some type of windfall profits tax on oil companies, possibly in the guise of a clean up fund for future spills.
2. Announce a reversal of his largely worthless decision to open up new areas to off shore drilling.
3. Use this to hard sell green energy and his cap and trade bill.

President Obama will use the gulf oil spill, the Arizona illegal immigration crisis and any other crisis that strikes America for his own political gain.  He has shown that clearly in his first sixteen months in office and there is no indication that he plans to stop campaigning and start governing any time soon.

Share/Bookmark

First and foremost, before the massive oil spill could become Obama’s “Katrina” the liberal mainstream media would have to stop worshiping at the Altar of Obama and provide some unbiased reporting.  This type of reporting has been few and far between.

Allahpundit of Hot Air sums up the hypocrisy of the media:

Well, look on the bright side: If nothing else good comes from this disaster, at least now we have a roughly quantifiable sense of how long it takes for media outrage to build towards Obama versus towards Bush. Figure Dubya would have been under fire for dragging his feet on the spill after, what — maybe three days? It’s now 34 days since BP’s rig exploded and only yesterday did frustration really start bubbling on the Sunday chat shows.

Beyond the MSM mostly producing puff pieces or apologies for any of President Obama’s mistakes, there is the simple question of “did he do anything wrong?”

Initially, I looked at the “Obama’s Katrina” statements as nothing more than politics as usual.  An attempt by the right to return the favor for the blame that President Bush received due to the ineptitude of the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans.  I am not a proponent of unfairly criticizing President Obazma, only because the press and left unfairly criticized President Bush.

However, now that we are over a month in, President Obama is clearly handling this massive disaster in a disastrous way.  Not only is he attempting to gain populous, political points by attacking BP and big business, which is Obama as usual, but more importantly he isn’t do anything to address the problem.  As an example, Louisiana has been waiting to get approval from the Corp of Engineers to use dredging ships to create a sand barrier around the Louisiana barrier islands.  Doing this would protect the delicate marshlands, but the Corp of Engineers refuses to approve the dredging, claiming they have to determine what impact it will have on the area first.

What “impact”?  Could it possibly have more impact than millions of gallons of oil flooding the marshlands, killing plant and animal life?

Rather than getting his hands dirty and helping solve the problem by picking up the phone and giving Louisiana permission to dredge and build the sand barrier islands, Obama is simply trying to make political hay by attacking BP and big business.  Talking about how he will keep his foot on the neck of BP and make them clean up their mess.

It’s time for the President to realize the American people don’t care about where his foot is, they care about their coastline.  He needs to get off the political stump and get to work solving the problem.  Start working with the Gulf Coast Governors to come up with solutions. Get them the oil booms, ships and skimming equipment they need.  There will be plenty of time for Obama to exploit the disaster for his political gain ‘after’ the spill is under control and the cleanup is done.

Is it Obama’s Katrina?  No, it’s far worse than that.

Share/Bookmark

Now comes round two.  The Climate Change bill The Cap and Trade bill The American Power act is an attempt by Obama and the Democrats in Congress to emulate what they see as a model green economy, Spain.  Prior to the election, President Obama admitted that his view of a green economy would include massive cap and trade taxes applied to energy, which would make electricity (and other energy) sky rocket.  In his view, this is a good thing, as the increased cost to the American public will create the pressure needed to spur on the development renewable energy.

The fallacy with Obama’s approach is that every place that renewable and green energy production has been forced, energy costs have skyrocketed (one of the main factors in Los Angeles being on the verge of bankruptcy) and have caused massive economic burdens.

Pajamas Media has received a leaked report that documents the massive failure of Spain’s green economy.

But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.

Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.

The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.

The document itself, which is actually a slide presentation, doesn’t go into a lot of detail (presumably, an oral presentation accompanied it), but it does show large increases in green energy and renewable energy costs, which resulted in large increases in energy costs being passed on to the end consumers (industry and individuals).  This also appears consistent with California’s complete failure when it legislated renewable energy be used in the state and completely underestimate the cost burden that would be put on the state, and cities such as Los Angeles.

Despite these dismal failures in California and Spain, President Obama continues to promote his cap and trade agenda, which will put a massive financial burden on an already reeling American economy with the imposition of large energy tax increases to industry and consumers.

Combine the massive cap and trade taxes (estimated to be between $1,000 – $3,500+ per family) with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the expected increase in the death tax next year (which doesn’t just hit the rich, but also family businesses like farms that are passed on to children), all the Obamacare fees and taxes that will be passed on to consumers, and the looming VAT tax.

That’s a massive new tax burden on American citizens.  Not just the rich, but ALL Americans, or at least all Americans that are working and paying taxes.

If we thought the economy was in bad shape the last 18 months, just wait until all those new taxes start piling up.

Share/Bookmark

Call it a continuation of the Obama global apology tour.  Call it a continuation of the administrations attacks on America and long standing American allies, while bowing to and hugging the dictators of the world.  You can call it a lot of things, but unfortunately you can’t call it good diplomacy or common sense.

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

…

QUESTION: Was there any areas in which China sort of turned the tables and raised its own complaints or concerns about U.S. practices around the globe or at home? Can you give some examples there -

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Sure. You know, I think – again, this goes back to Ambassador Huntsman’s comment. Part of a mature relationship is that you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy’s problems, but you raise your own, and you have a discussion about it. We did plenty of that. We had experts from the U.S. side, for example, yesterday, talking about treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context. We had a discussion of racial discrimination. We had a back-and-forth about how each of our societies are dealing with those sorts of questions. …

QUESTION: Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society. [emphasis added]

As usual, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air sums it up nicely:

In other words, China didn’t even mention it — the Obama administration did.  They managed to apologize for a law that, technically and practically speaking, the Department of Justice hasn’t even yet reviewed.  Eric Holder hasn’t read the sixteen-page bill after a month of criticizing it, and it seems highly doubtful that Posner has even “glanced” at it.  Besides, the same law has existed in California for years — and the White House hasn’t so much as breathed a word about California’s penal code.

It doesn’t make the Obama administration sound “mature” to call Arizona racist for tasking its law enforcement agencies with enforcing the law.  It makes them look illiterate, closed-minded, and weak.  Maybe Posner should focus on China’s long record of oppression, slave labor, political executions, and heavy-handed censorship — and join Arizona in demanding that the federal government start enforcing the laws that have existed for decades on immigration.

This is an ongoing theme with this administration.  Whitewash the wrongs done by countries like China, Iran, Venezuela, etc., while at the same time demonizing America and apologizing for our sins.

It would be bad enough if the sins were real, but more often than not, like with the Obama administrations constant politically-motivated mischaracterization of the Arizona law, the apologies aren’t for real sins, but instead are simply anti-American statements meant to gain the favor of the leaders of China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the Muslim community.

Obama’s foreign policy appears to be a twisted variation of Field of Dreams “build it and they will come.”

Obama’s Field of Dreams approach is “tear down and demonize America and the rest of the world will open their arms and embrace us.”

Share/Bookmark

Prior to Napolitano’s admission — yes, that Janet Napalitano, the one that is responsible for the security of our borders and our ‘homeland’ — Eric Holder spent weeks criticizing the Arizona law, implying the law was discriminatory and racist, while later admitting in a Congressional hearing that he hadn’t read the 16 page bill he had been criticizing every time he stepped in front of a camera or was approached by a reporter.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air tells us about Napolitano’s admission that she hasn’t read Arizona’s highly criticized law:

First Holder, now this. Second verse, same as the first: It would take 20 minutes to read through the statute and less than two to read the key provisions that have raised concerns about racial profiling. But if you read it then you’re responsible for what you say about it, and we can’t have that with the midterms less than six months away. So here’s the deputy border-enforcer-in-chief admitting that she hasn’t found the time yet to review “in detail” an immigration law that’s been the talk of the country politically for about a month now.

Two top ranking Obama Administration officials, one our nation’s top attorney and the other in charge of our homeland security, have both failed to read a 16 page law, yet of have paraded in front of the media for weeks claiming the Arizona law is racist, discriminatory and unconstitutional.  Since those assertions clearly weren’t based in fact, and neither top official could be bothered to take a couple minutes to read a law they have been criticizing for weeks, we have to ask ourselves what other assertions of ‘fact’ these two have made over the last 16 months have been nothing more than biased political propaganda.

Share/Bookmark

Hillary is an interesting prospect, because as a former Senator, tradition indicates that Republicans in the Senate won’t filibuster the vote on her confirmation.  After spending over a year fighting to pass the hugely unpopular Obamacare, there is speculation that President Obama does not want the Senate tied up for months fighting over a High Court nomination, which will be the result if Obama nominates someone from far-left.  While Hillary is certainly liberal, as a former Senator her nomination will likely move to an up or down vote much quicker than almost anyone else that Obama might nominate.

It would seem that Orrin Hatch broke this story, but it is unclear where he heard it:

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of the top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I even heard the name Hillary Clinton today, and that would be an interesting person in the mix,” Hatch said on NBC’s “Today Show.”

The senator said he would not pre-judge whether any potential nominee would be an appropriate candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, but he had general praise for the secretary of state.

“I happen to like Hillary Clinton, I think she’s done a good job for the Democrats — Secretary of State’s position,” Hatch said, “and I have high respect for her, and think a great deal of her.”

At the same time, putting her on the Supreme Court would eliminate another major problem that Obama sees looming.  While as an incumbent, traditional thinking would be that Barack Obama will walk through the Democratic primary, the fact is that his approval rating continues to fall.  He has passed a hugely unpopular health insurance bill, has massively increased the national debt, put through the largest tax increase in US history and appears headed towards a broad-based tax increase to pay for his massive increase in social programs.

Hillary Clinton might be the only candidate that could give Obama a real challenge in the Democratic primary, and putting her on the Supreme Court almost assures him of smooth sailing to the Democratic nomination in 2012.

Ed Morrissey discusses some of the benefits Obama would gain from putting Clinton on the High Court:

Politically, Obama gets a win by putting another woman on the court.  Unlike with at least one of the apparent short-listers (Elana Kagan), no one will doubt Hillary’s liberal bona fides.  But best of all, Obama would be dispatching the one Democrat who could conceivably win a primary race against him in 2012 if his numbers continue to fall.  Once on the Supreme Court, Hillary would not step down to run for President, and Bill Clinton would be effectively neutralized as well.

Morrissey goes on to discuss some possible negatives of a Clinton nomination. First, at 63, she is older than liberals would like, since she might only be on the court for 20 years.  Second, nominating her replacement for Secretary of State could lead to a contentious vote.  It would give the Republicans an opportunity to highlight the many diplomatic and foreign policy blunders by the Obama administration.

When it’s all said and done, I do not think that Hillary will be nominated.  All indications are that President Obama is ignoring his falling approval and the continued decline in support for Obamacare, and instead is emblazoned by the passage of Obamacare.  Just as he did following his election, he mistakenly sees the passage of Obamacare as a re-affirmation of a mandate to push his far-left agenda.  Look for Obama to nominate a far-left candidate that will put progressive ideology over adherence to the Constitution.

Share/Bookmark

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone but the most naive amongst us.  Even before he was elected, many detailed the path that Barack Obama would lead us down if he was elected.

First, massively increase the deficit through a rapid expansion of government and huge increase in entitlement programs.

Second, declare that if the deficit spending is not gotten under control, the US will face bankruptcy.

Third, claim raising taxes is the only option to prevent the out of control deficit and the doom predicted in step two.

We have seen nearly a trillion dollars spent under the guise of stimulating the economy, even though most of the spending had little to do with jobs or infrastructure, and more to do with expanding social programs and funneling money into Democratic districts.

The Democrats rammed through Obamacare, which will likely have a true ten year cost of a trillion dollars or more.

Now, with Obama running up the deficit annually almost as much as President Bush did in eight years, a White House advisor slipped and publicly stated what many of us knew was coming down the road.  However, Obama wanted this to come from his “blue ribbon” deficit reduction panel, rather than having one of his advisers let it slip.

Allahpundit of Hot Air reports on how White House adviser Paul Volcker let the cat out of the bag:

We all know it’s coming, but I’m reasonably sure Volcker missed a memo instructing advisors not, repeat not, to mention this publicly until, oh, say, the day after Election Day 2012.

As it is, look for Gibbsy’s spin tomorrow to be, “B-b-but he was Reagan’s Fed chairman!”

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

While this isn’t a definitive declaration from the White House that Obama will push for a VAT tax,  the fact is that the Democrats spending spree is unsustainable, and there are only two choices.  Stop spending, or pass a broad-based tax increase.  Clearly, Obama and company have no intention of curtailing their spending, so that means it’s only a matter of time until they push for an across the board tax increase, most likely in the form of a VAT tax.

To quote the former Governor of Alaska, “how’s that hopey, changey thing working out for ya?”

Share/Bookmark

On Friday, President Obama made a much publicized trip to an advanced battery technology manufacturer and among other things touted how his economic program had halted a two year slide with 160,000 jobs having been added in March.  After explaining how great his policies have been for America, President Obama took questions.

One woman asked if it was wise to add more taxes with the Health care law, since as she put it, “we are over-taxed as it is.”

President Obama showed initial irritation with the question, and quickly took the offensive with:

Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have.

Obama went on to spend over 17 minutes on his 2,500+ word answer.  President Obama wandered all over the place, from talking about the disinformation about Obamacare to how the US was (before his bill was passed) the only advanced country that allows citizens to have no health insurance (note he said 15 million, vs. the 30+ million he has used in the past when referring to the uninsured.

In the end, he wandered all over the place for 17 minutes, rarely addressing the actual question, which is about whether it’s smart to add more taxes when people are already over taxed.  About three minutes into the 17 minute filibuster, he said “and the final point is that” and continued to talk for over 14 minutes longer.

Here is the first 6 minutes of the answer from the DrudgeReportUSA YouTube channel:

Here’s the full transcript of that one question and answer:

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  We’re honored to have you here today.  I’m Doris Ravis (sp) from Lake Wylie, South Carolina.  I work at Celgard.  We have wonderful CEOs that take care of us and have really helped the company grow.  My question is, though, in the economy times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care?  Because it — we are over-taxed as it is.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have.  Here’s the bottom line:  Number one is that we are the only — we have been up until last week the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance, and the vast majority of those folks work.  It’s just that they don’t happen to work for a company that is either big enough or generous enough to provide them any coverage.

So that’s point number one.  There is a moral imperative that is important.  Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation.  See, those of us who have health care right now ask ourselves, well, is this something that should be a priority right now, but anybody here who lost their job and then COBRA ran out, or COBRA wasn’t subsidized the way the Recovery Act made sure COBRA paid 65 percent of the cost of COBRA — and if you had somebody at home who was sick, or you had a child who got sick, you’d suddenly say to yourself, well, now I see the need.

And so part of what we have to do is always say to ourselves, there but for the grace of God go I — and have a basic safety net.  So that’s point number two.

Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it.  Or when you get sick they try to find what they consider to be a preexisting condition that would justify them canceling your policy.  Or there’s some fine print in there where you’ve got a lifetime limit, and it turns out you thought you had coverage, but it turns out the coverage only goes up to a certain point and then afterwards you have to start paying out of pocket.  And even after paying all those premiums, you’re now in the hole for $100,000 or $200,000, and you’re going bankrupt and you’re losing your house.

And the final point is that the costs of health care — setting aside anything we did in reform, I mean, if we just allowed the current trajectory to go on — is out of control.  I haven’t talked to Bob about what his costs are looking like for Celgard employees, but I can tell you that health care costs have gone up, the price of health care has gone up three times faster than wages.  So either the company is having to swallow those costs, which means that’s less money that they could use for hiring new workers or investing in new plants and equipment, or they’re passing on those costs to their employees in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-payments.

And what’s happening federally is, because the costs are so out of control, all the programs that we already have — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program — all those things are completely out of control.  So if you’re concerned about the deficit, what you’re really concerned about is the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs that are already in place.

So here’s what we did.  What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage.  And the way we’re going to do that is to say that most people individually shouldn’t buy health insurance on their own because they have no leverage and the insurance companies take advantage of it.  Instead what we’re going to do is we’re going to set up a big pool, a marketplace, that allows everybody to buy into this pool — that members of Congress, by the way, will be a part of so you know it’s going to be a good deal — because members of Congress, they’ve got to look out for their own families; they wouldn’t vote for it if it wasn’t going to be a good deal.  And just like Walmart is able to leverage a really good price from its suppliers for everything because they’re such a big purchaser, well, this pool will be a big purchaser and it will be able to get a better deal from insurance companies.

So that’s point number one.  That will drive down the prices for people who are participating and it will allow everybody to get a decent deal on insurance.  And what we do is we provide tax credits to people who still can’t afford it so that they can afford it.  That’s point number one.

Point number two is we’ve got the strongest insurance reforms in history.  So all those things I told you about — you not being able to get insurance because of a preexisting condition; you finding yourself getting dropped even though you’ve been paying premiums for 15 years and suddenly they just decide, sorry, we don’t want you because you’re getting sick — those policies will be over.  And so you will be protected as a consumer to make sure you’ve got security and protection if you’ve got insurance already.  That’s the second thing we do.

The third thing we do is we actually put in place a whole bunch of mechanisms to start reducing the actual cost of health care.  So, for example, one of the things that we do is to say we’re going to start encouraging paying doctors not based on how many tests they take, but based on the quality of the outcome — does somebody end up healthy.

And it turns out that a lot of times if you go to the doctor you get one test.  Then you go — referred to a specialist, you get another test.  Then maybe you go to a third person, the surgeon, you get a third test — it’s all the same test but you’re paying three times.

So what we’re trying to say is, we’ll pay you for the first test and then e-mail the test to everybody.  Right?  (Applause.)  Or have all three doctors in the room when the test is being taken.

But that’s an example of the kinds of things that save money and will start reducing costs over the long term.  So what we’ve done is we’ve embedded in how Medicare reimburses, how Medicaid reimburses, all these ideas to actually reduce the costs of care.

So our hope is that over time, over the next three, four, five, six years, because of all these changes, that we’ve actually saved money from this, even though more people are covered.

And so now you’ll hear the critics and the Republicans say, now, that just defies common sense.  If you’re adding 30 million more people, then it’s got to cost more money.  And you can’t pretend like somehow that’s going to help us on the deficit.  I’ve heard this criticism, I understand it.

But let me give you an example.  If you’ve got a house and you’ve got a big hole in your roof, and it’s raining and snowing through that roof and there are some people who are inside the rooms where the roof is okay and they’re nice and warm, and then you got a few — your family members in that room where there’s a big hole in the roof and they’re shivering, and they’re cold — if you repair the roof, that’s going to cost some money.  But if all the water damage from your floors and all the heat that’s going out of the roof, you count all those savings, over time it may turn out that it actually is saving you money and, by the way, all those family members now are warm, too.  You’re not the only one who’s warm, right?  That’s essentially what we’re trying to set up.

Now, last point I want to make.  All those savings that we’re anticipating, we don’t even count those when it comes to making sure that this is deficit-neutral.  Here are the two ways that we’re paying for this thing:  Number one, we are eliminating a whole bunch of waste, fraud, and insurance subsidies that were being paid out under Medicare that aren’t making our seniors any healthier.  I mean, you’ve got a pretty sweet deal for insurance companies right now in a program called Medicare Advantage where they get $18 billion a year paid to them to manage a Medicare program that about 80 percent of seniors are getting directly from the government, and it’s working just fine.  It’s just a subsidy to them that doesn’t make anybody healthier.  So what we’re saying is, well, let’s eliminate the subsidy.  So that’s about how we pay for half of this thing.

The other half of it, it is true that we have identified some additional taxes that we think are fair.  And let me describe, just to give you an example — I don’t think this will affect you, but I don’t know — I don’t know your family’s circumstances.  Right now, if you’re on salary, you get your salary from Celgard or any of the companies around here, you’re paying your Medicare tax on all of that, right?  You see it on your — it’s part of your FICA.  But if you’re Warren Buffett and you get most of your money from dividends and capital gains, you don’t pay Medicare tax on that.  You’re eligible for it.  You’re going to get the same Medicare benefits as anybody else.  But because your source of income is what’s called unearned income — capital gains and dividends — you don’t have to pay this.

Well, I’m thinking to myself how is it that the guy who is cleaning up the office is paying the Medicare tax and the guy who is making capital gains isn’t?  So what we said was, look, if you make more than $200,000, $250,000 a year, then that money that you make over $200,000, $250,000 a year that’s unearned — that’s from capital gains and dividends — you should have to pitch in to Medicare just like everybody else, because you’re going to be using it like everybody else.  So it’s a concept of fairness.  (Applause.)

Now, what the Congressional Budget Office has said — I’m sorry, by the way, these questions sometimes are — or these answers are long, but I want to make sure you guys — that I’m really answering your question.  I hope you feel like I really want to respect the importance of your question.  What the Congressional Budget Office has said is that as a consequence of the savings from the waste and fraud, combined with the new revenue sources I just mentioned, that this thing is going to actually reduce our deficit by over a trillion dollars — over a trillion dollars.  We’re actually saving money for the government — because we closed the roof, the house is now insulated, it’s warm.  And by the way, in the meantime we’ve got a whole bunch of people who were left out in the cold who are now being taken care of.

That’s the concept.  But I know that for a lot of people, they’ve got a legitimate concern about, gosh, it just seems like government spending is out of control.  I understand that.  I feel that.  But understand what happened:  When I walked in, we already had a $1.3 trillion deficit.  That’s an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion.  That’s — the day I got sworn in, before I did a thing, we had $8 trillion in accumulated debt from the war in Iraq — not paid for; the prescription drug plan, Medicare Part D — not paid for; Bush tax cuts — not paid for.

So we already had all this debt that had just been piled up, but nobody had noticed because things were going kind of good.  Just like a lot of folks didn’t notice their credit card was going up or that their home equity loans were going up because when things are going good you tend not to notice.

So all that debt had already accumulated.  We then had to spend $787 billion on the Recovery Act to do all the things — unemployment insurance; COBRA; what’s called FMAP, which is essentially helping states to keep their budgets afloat so that they didn’t have to lay off teachers and cops and firefighters — all of which if that had happened would have further depressed the economy and we would have recovered a lot later; the investments we’re making in clean energy and things like Celgard to help spur economic growth.

So we had to spend that, but that’s only a fraction of what our debt was.  And in addition what happens is when the economy goes south, there are fewer tax revenues.  And so you’re putting more money out to help people with unemployment insurance and things like that, but you’re getting less money in because folks are out of work and businesses aren’t making money.

Bottom line is, we now have a significant debt that has to be paid down.  That’s why I’m freezing government spending.  That’s why we reinstated what’s called pay-as-you-go.  You can’t start a program without paying for it.  Our health care program is paid for.

But the big thing, if you’re really worried about leaving debt to the next generation, which I know you are, the most important thing we’re going to have to tackle is our health care costs, because Medicare is by far — Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest things that are looming in the horizon in terms of what our debt is going to be.  Nothing else comes close.

If this health care bill never existed, if I didn’t do anything about it, we’d actually be a trillion dollars worse off over the long term.  But even with the saving we’re getting from health care, we’re still going to have to do more.  And if you don’t believe that, go on our Web site — www.whitehouse.gov — and you can look at how the federal budget works.

A lot of people think if you just eliminated foreign aid we could balance the budget, or if you just eliminated earmarks you could balance the budget.  Earmarks — pork projects, what everybody calls pork — those account for about 1 percent of the budget, less than 1 percent.  Foreign aid accounts for about 1.5 to 2 percent of the budget.

Most of the budget is Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, defense spending, and interest on the national debt.  That accounts for about 70 percent of the budget.  And so all this other stuff that sometimes we argue about, that’s not the big stuff.  We’re going to have to tackle the big stuff if we’re going to get our budget under control.

Boy, that was a long answer.  I’m sorry.  (Laughter.)  But I hope everybody — but I hope I answered your question.  (Applause.)  All right, I’m going to — I’ve got to make this the last question.  I’m going to ask this young man right here.

Share/Bookmark

This characterization has been evident for a while, but since Obamacare passed, it has become clear that attacking the Tea Party is at the center of the Democrats plan for the mid-term elections.

The fact that the Democrats, including the White House and liberal press, are attacking the Tea Party movement this aggressively shows just how much the left fears the Tea Party and the impact its members will have in November.

If the result of the Winston Group poll that The Hill reported today are accurate, Obama’s aggressive attack strategy may backfire come November:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

“It’s a good sample size,” said David Winston, the polling firm’s director. “It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”

In addition. the poll found:

• 61% believe infrastructure spending creates jobs
• 63% believe reducing unemployment is more important than fixing the deficit
• 71% view the GOP favorably
• 75% view the Democratic party unfavorable
• 95% believe that “Democrats are taxing, spending, and borrowing too much”
• 80% disapprove of the job President Obama is doing
• 82% disapprove of Obamacare

In addition to the Winston Group poll, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air details the demographics of the Tea Party that a Gallup poll found:

Is the Tea Party as racist as the media and leading Democrats have portrayed?  Gallup’s demos of the Tea Party look very close to that of the overall American demos on ethnicity.  Whites make up 79% of the Tea Party and 75% of the population; blacks, 6% of the Tea Party and 11% of the population; and “other” in the Tea Party exactly matches the general population at 15%.

Numbers like that from a group where 40% are Democrats and Independents, and that is being continuously attacked by the White House, Congressional Democrats and the main stream media, appears to be another indication of how bloody November may be for the Democrats.

The Scott Brown victory in January was due to Independents and moderate Democrats voting against the Democratic candidate in large part to send a message to the Democrats in Washington.  While it was a local election, it became a national campaign.  As the Democrats clearly did not get the message from the Brown election in Massachusetts, don’t be surprised if a great number of Independents and moderate Democrats opt to resend that message in November.

Share/Bookmark

President Obama’s demands on Israel seem to have done nothing more than damage US/Israel relations and give the Palestinians an excuse to refuse to hold legitimate peace talks.

Dick Morris poses two questions that President Obama should be asking himself:

Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

Morris goes on to explain the cycle where by the Palestinians continue to demand more from Israel, while using US aid and land that Israel conceded to stage attacks on Israel.

Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al Qaeda.

As President Obama continues to verbally chastise Israel, embarrasses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by treating him worse than a third world dictator and sends US aid to the Palestinians, it’s hard to figure out what his end game will be.  Unless the President’s goal is destroying US/Israel relations, in order to garner support from those that wish to see Israel destroyed, it’s hard to understand the actions of the Obama administration.

Share/Bookmark

Last year President Obama’s arrogance resulted in French President Sarkozy reportedly calling President Obama Naive and grossly egotistical in regards to Obama’s response and handling of Iran’s nuclear program.  A response that to date appears to be a complete failure.

Now, President Obama showed a complete lack of respect to a visiting head of state, when after negotiations did not go to his liking, he simply walked out on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

…

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

Prior to humiliating the Prime Minister by walking out rather than having dinner, Obama refused to allow press or photographers access to his meeting with Netanyahu.  Obama failed to hold a joint press conference, or even issue a press statement, both of which are expected when hosting a visiting head of state.

Apparently, President Obama decided to play hard ball and insult Netanyahu as retribution for what he saw as Israel showing disrespect to Vice President Joe Biden.  ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air explains:

In a nutshell, the right-wing part of Netanyahu’s government announced the building of new settlements in east Jerusalem on the day Biden came to visit, which allegedly sent The One into a snit over what he considered to be an insult. Never mind that Netanyahu himself apparently didn’t know about the timing of the announcement and that building in east Jerusalem, which would almost certainly remain Israeli in any peace deal, was routine. Obama wants to make a show of standing up to the Zionist entity for our Islamic “partners in peace” in the naive belief that that’ll help bring about the ever elusive solution to the crisis.

Some have said that he treated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu like a third world dictator, but the fact is we have seen President Obama bend over backwards time after time to the dictators he thinks he can convince to become US allies simply by showing them the ‘softer’ side of the United States, while time and again he shows a lack of respect to our long-time allies.

Share/Bookmark

Not only have all the legal/legislative experts that I have seen claimed that an Executive Order will not trump the Senate bill once it becomes law, but in addition I would have some question about the specifics about the language of the Executive Order.

It states that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act…” shall be used to cover abortions.  The question is what “appropriated” means in the context of the Senate health care bill.  The accounting trick that the HHS Secretary and House Senate Democrats applauded following the passage of the Senate bill, was that by not using any federal funds (tax dollars), but instead mandating that insurance policies must cover abortion, and that ALL people paying premiums for those policies would be required to pay an additional $1 a month (or the actual prorated cost of providing abortion coverage, whichever is higher), which would be held in a separate pot (separate from any federal funding) to cover abortion services.

NRO via the Patriot Room has provided this draft of President Obama’s Executive Order on abortion funding.

1. The Executive Order directs that the Hyde language found in sections 507 and 508 of the Labor HHH Appropriations Bill shall apply to the HR 3590.

SEC. 507.

(a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term ??health benefits coverage?? means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

SEC. 508.

(a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion ?

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State?s or locality?s contribution to Medicaid matching funds.)

(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State?s or locality?s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.)

2. Under this Act, Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds under section 10503 of the Community Health Centers.

SEC. 10503. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS FUND. Pages 2355-2357 of H.R. 3590.

3. Under this Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the section 1303 of the HR 3590.

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES. Pages 2069-2079 of H.R. 3590.

4. Under this Act, the Accommodation of Conscious is recognized.

(a) NONDISCRIMINATION.?A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not?

(1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or

(2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination,

on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) DEFINITION.?In this section, the term ??healthcare entity?? includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

(c) ADMINISTRATION.?The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

5. Addition Conscious Provisions

?(1) Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection, provided the plan is at least actuarially equivalent to a qualified health plan that covers the essential health benefits.

?(2) If a health plan is permitted not to cover items or services under paragraph (1), then the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser shall not be required to include such items or services in such plan as a condition of (A) being eligible for a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, or (B) avoiding any assessable payment or any other tax, assessment or penalty under this Act.

?(3) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, from contracting with an individual or institutional health care provider that declines to provide, participate in, or refer for an item or service to which the provider has a moral or religious objection.

?(4) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to deny, alter, or modify any right or duty any person may have under state or local law, or under federal laws other than this Act.?

?(5) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to authorize a health plan to deny coverage for all medical care, or for life-preserving care, to an individual based on a view that treats extending the life or preserving the health of the individual as of lower value than extending the life or preserving the health of others because of the individual?s disability or other characteristic.?

Share/Bookmark

When President Bush left office, 43% of people strongly disapproved of his job performance.  This was after years of fighting two unpopular wars, and a presidential campaign that saw Obama, Clinton and other Democrats sole strategy being to demonize President Bush and claim any Republican elected would simply be four more years of George Bush.

It is amazing, that after the years of war, near collapse of the economic system, and two plus years of Democratic Presidential candidates demonizing Bush, that Obama has equaled his strongly disapprove numbers in just a little over a year.

Today, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air reports on today’s Rasmussen Reports poll:

Today’s Rasmussen numbers from their daily presidential poll puts Barack Obama into an unusual position.  In just 14 months, he has made himself more unpopular than his predecessor, at least by the measure of strong disapproval.  Obama’s approval index has tied its lowest mark yet at -21:

Rasmussen describes the new low for President Obama:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

And from the “do they really not get it” category, Rasmussen explains what we have seen repeatedly over the last year, which is the more Obama pushes Obamacare on the American public, the lower his approval rating goes:

Each time the President leads a big push for his health care plan, his job approval ratings suffer. For Members of Congress, the impact may be more tangible. Just 34% say they’re more likely to vote for someone who supports this legislation. Fifty-percent (50%) are less likely to vote for a Member of Congress who supports the health care reform plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. …

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

It is simply amazing that a President that had an approval ratings in the high 60′s or 70′s (depending on the poll) when he took office, now only has a 45% approval rating.  Even more stunning is he is approaching the point where half of America ‘strongly’ disapprove of the job he is doing.

Share/Bookmark

There are likely no areas where President Obama has equaled President Bush.  Bush didn’t do everything right, but he shot straight with the American public and he let the cards fall where they may.  A stark contrast to President Obama who routinely misstates the truth, attacks the former administration and outright lies about his mythical bi-partisan efforts.

The President’s approval rating has been on a steady decline.  Specifically there has been a steady and severe increase not only in the number of people that disapprove of him, but those people moving from the ‘somewhat’ disapprove category to the ‘strongly’ disapprove category.

Rasmussen reports, via The Volokh Conspiracy, has released new poll numbers that show after only a little over a year, the number of people that strongly disapprove of President Obama is equal to President Bush’s numbers when he left office:

When George Bush left office he was deeply unpopular: in Bush’s last month, according to Rasmussen 43% strongly disapproved of the job Bush was doing, while only 13% strongly approved, for a staggering negative rating of –30%. Rasmussen’s Thursday release shows that after 14 months in office President Barack Obama has achieved Bush’s 43% of the people strongly disapproving of his performance, but Obama is still 10% ahead of Bush in those who strongly approve (23% v. 13% for Bush).

I suspect that the main difference in their overall approval ratings is among African-Americans, not whites.

Imagine how unpopular Obama would be if the press and the late night comedians (who are at least as important as the press) treated Obama as they treated Bush.

It’s important to understand that when President Bush left office, not only had we been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, but we just finished the longest Presidential campaign ever (Senator Obama started his campaign years before the election), with the Democrats main platform being the demonization of George Bush and the claims that any Republican elected would be four more years of George Bush.

Share/Bookmark

He promised that no families making less than $250,000 would receive a tax increase.  I suppose technically, forcing them to pay more for insurance coverage isn’t raising their taxes, but that doesn’t mean that it will be any easier on middle class families.

While Obamacare will add a 3.9% Medicare tax to investment income for the first time on families making over $250,000, the hardest hit families will likely be those having combined incomes around $100,000.

These folks will be too “rich” to qualify for ObamaCare’s subsidies, but probably too poor to easily afford the pricey insurance that the president’s plan forces them to buy.

Many of these $100K families will be obliged to buy a policy costing an average of $14,700 for the mid-level, “silver” health plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. After income taxes, they’ll be spending almost a quarter of their net income for health insurance.

During the health care summit, President Obama stated as fact, a completely inaccurate statement.  He claimed that if Obamacare passed, insurance premiums would go down.  However, at that time, the CBO had already stated that while there would be a very minor decrease in premiums for large corporate plans, there would be a 10-13% increase in premiums for individuals purchasing insurance on their own.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they’d reach without the legislation.

As always, it is very difficult to know whether the President simply doesn’t know what is contained in the health care bills he is forcing on the American public, or if he is being intentionally deceitful.

Share/Bookmark

In his interview with Bret Baier, the President stated that all ‘special deals’ were being removed from the Senate bill, except those provisions that would apply to all states.  He used the Louisiana provision as an example of one that has been incorrectly characterized as a special deal for Louisiana, when in fact it applies to all states.

Unless the Louisiana purchase has been rewritten in the reconciliation bill, then either President Obama intentionally lied or clearly doesn’t know what is in the Senate bill, which coincidentally House Democrats are terrified of voting on.

In his interview with Bret Baier, the President stated:

Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.

That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.

Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those. So, at the end of the day, what people are going to be able to say is that this legislation is going to be providing help to small businesses and individuals, across the board, in an even handed way, and providing people relief from a status quo that’s just not working.

Now lets look at the Language of the Senate Bill:

8 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery

9 FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of

10 the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at

11 any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President

12 has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the

13 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist

14 ance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that

15 every county or parish in the State warrant individual and

16 public assistance or public assistance from the Federal

17 Government under such Act and for which—

There is only one state, that in the preceding seven fiscal years, would qualify under the senate language.  Hawaii and their mythical earthquake would of course not qualify.

So, unless the reconciliation bill removes the “preceding seven fiscal years” and changes this to an ongoing relief for states where disasters are declared in every county following a natural disaster, it can and does only apply to Louisiana.

That then leaves us with two options.  Either the President intentionally lied to Bret Baier and the American public or contrary to his claims, he doesn’t know what the Senate language contains.

I think Cassy Fiano of Hot Air sums it up well:

This moment, from Bret Baier’s interview on Fox News with Obama, might just be one of the biggest “WTF?!” moments from Obama’s presidency yet. Obama is either completely making things up, living in an alternate reality, or really, really confused.

Share/Bookmark

A survey by the New England Journal of Medicine cites fears of increased patient loads and decreased pay, along with already having large debt loads, as reasons why they would not recommend the medical profession to others and would consider leaving if Obamacare passes.   Nearly 50% of primary care physicians are considering leaving or feel they will be forced out of their medical practices if Obamacare is passed.

CNS News reports on the New England Journal of Medicine Survey:

More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent.

The medical journal published the results in its March and April edition, saying: “While a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform.”

Kevin Perpetua, managing partner for the Medicus Firm, reported that a reform bill could be “the final straw” in an already financially precarious industry.

“Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases,” Perpetua said in the study. “The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.”

“With an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible,” Perpetua said. “Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down.”

The survey shows that many doctors already find their situations difficult:

– 36 percent said that they would not recommend medicine as a profession to others, regardless of whether health-care reform passes;
– another 27 percent would still recommend medicine as a career, but not if the current reform proposal passes.

In total, 63 percent of doctors would not recommend the profession after health-care reform passes. Just 12 percent do not recommend becoming a physician now but think they would if current reform proposals pass.

Primary-care physicians, those who work in the critical fields of family and internal medicine, not only feel that they would want to quit but that they might be cast out of medicine. 46.3 percent of those physicians said that they would either want to leave medicine or that they would be “forced out” by the changes to the system.

Share/Bookmark

Last week, during one of President Obama’s Obamacare pep rallies, he claimed that his bill would save money and reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over the next decade.  Even with the double counting of the cuts to medicare, and without counting the ‘doc fix’ bill, the best CBO score that they were able to get is about $140 trillion deficit reduction over the next decade.  Of course, independent analysis of the bill from organizations like the Wall Street Journal state it will actually add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.  Yet, the President states that it will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.

Even in light of the Teleprompter, one might assume that was a ‘mistake’.  Yet, he made the same statement again, a few days alter.  It appears that President Obama has reached the stage where the truth is irrelevant and he believes the means justify the ends, even if it includes lying to the American public.

Yesterday in Ohio, President Obama claimed that his health care reform would reduce health care premiums by 3,000 percent:

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said  that ObamaCare will reduce health insurance premiums by “3,000 percent.” Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.

President Obama has tried to create a wave of anger towards insurance companies in order to get support for Obamacare.  He routinely tells the American public that insurance companies are to blame for the high cost of health care.  Yet, as is often the case with this White House, the truth is far different than the rhetoric:

Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama’s plan evades health care’s major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It’s a big new spending program when government hasn’t paid for the spending programs it already has.

Mr. President, the campaign is over.  It’s time to stop making campaignesque lies, and start shooting straight with the American public.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year’s record for the full year.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.

The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year’s $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country three straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.

AllahPundit of Hot Air puts this massive deficit in perspective:

All I can do is try to contextualize this for you: According to CBO, based on an analysis of the deeply deceitful numbers presented to it by Reid and Obama, the national panacea of health-care reform will save us $132 billion over the next 10 years. Which means the feds blew through our big decade-long ObamaCare refund in about … 17 days last month. (Savings from 2020 to 2029 are estimated to be $1 trillion, but follow the “deeply deceitful” link for insight into that. Even CBO scoffs at trying to predict any numbers that far out.)

This follows a day after the CBO said that it projected the deficit over the next 10 years to be $1.2 trillion higher than the Obama administration has estimated.  The CBO projects the deficit to be $9.7 trillion vs the $8.5 trillion the White House has estimated for the next decade.  That would put the national debt in 2020 well over $22 trillion, which is a number that many people consider unsustainable.

That $22 trillion national debt doesn’t even take into account the real costs of the health care bill if it is passed.  Through manipulation of the CBO scoring, the gang of three (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) were able to get a CBO score showing a deficit reduction over the next decade of $130 billion or so.  Independent analysis of the health care bill put the real cost at about $1 trillion over the next decade, which would raise the 10 year deficit to close to $11 trillion and the national debt in 2020 to over $23 trillion.

Share/Bookmark

President Barack Obama, defending his economic stimulus plan on its first anniversary, is dispatching his Cabinet across the country to try to calm an anxious public as Democrats head into potentially devastating midterm elections.

A weeklong push to highlight the stimulus program’s first year was starting with a Tuesday trip by Vice President Joe Biden to hard-hit Saginaw, Mich., to tour a small business, a jobs training program and a solar factory that all received Recovery Act dollars.

Obama’s fellow Democrats planned to tout programs putting people back to work under the $787 billion spending bill. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was touring a medical center in Atlanta on Tuesday; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was promoting stimulus projects in Virginia and Texas the same day.

In all, senior administration officials are scheduled to visit 35 communities before Friday to counter Republican claims the massive deficit-spending program has failed. Obama plans to surround himself at the White House on Wednesday with people who have jobs because of the stimulus plan, then travel to Colorado and Nevada.

This is simply a continuation of the strategy that President Obama described following the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts.  It is centered on Obama’s belief that the American people don’t “get it”.  He has tried to make the case that he spent so much time creating and passing policy last year that he forgot to stop and clearly explain to the American voters exactly what he was doing.  He indicated that he assumed incorrectly that the American people would be smart enough for them to “get it”, if he simply kept working hard.  This from a President that has done more interviews, Town Hall meetings and prime-time TV appearances in his first year than any other recent President.

In keeping with his belief that if he just explains his unpopular policies, he will somehow make them popular, the White House is now blowing more tax dollars on a stimulus promotional tour.

While watching the press coverage of these promotional events, here are a couple things you probably won’t see his minions talk about.

First, since the stimulus money has trickled out, with only about 1/3 of it spent after the first year, and only 10% or so spent in the first six months, why was it necessary to pass it in an overnight rush, where nobody had a chance to read the bill before it was voted on?

Second, with Obama and the Democrats calling the GOP the party of no and claiming the Republicans are the reason there is no bipartisanship in Washington, will they give Obama credit for getting the ball rolling.  It was a year ago when in response to Republican leaders complaining to the President about being excluded from the stimulus discussions and raising objections to some parts of the $750+ $850+ billion stimulus bill, that the President responded to the Republican leadership by simply laughing and stating “I won” and therefore he would get to choose who was allowed to give input on bills.

Instead of being the great uniter as he promised, President Obama’s policies and personal arrogance has not only further divided Washington, but the entire country.  His Cabinet members making three dozen photo ops this week is not going to undo the damage that President Obama has done in his first year in office.

Share/Bookmark

The woman that poses as Barack Obama on all his social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter is connected to the far-left organization MoveOn.org.

For those scratching their heads, the President in theory is a member of these websites. However, he obviously isn’t responsible for typing in the little messages that are going out to his followers almost 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal revealed the identity of the current Twitterer as Mia Cambronero.

Sheppard goes on to explain that Cambronero is a senior fellow at the New Organizing Institute, which is a radical branch of MoveOn.org.

Some might argue that it is no big deal if a woman that types messages on Twitter and Facebook for President Obama was previously a part of a political group like MoveOn.org.   Maybe that’s true, maybe not.  However, the important thing that this discovery reinforces once again, is how much President Obama has surrounded himself with far-left liberals and extremists.

Share/Bookmark

Responding to Biden’s apparent attempt to take credit for the positive results of the surge and other decisions that Senators Obama and Biden had opposed, Cheney had this to say about Iraq:

“If they’re going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they’ve done while they’re there,” Cheney said Sunday. “But it ought to go with a healthy dose of ‘thank you, George Bush’ up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, were just dead wrong.”

…

Asked about Biden’s comments, former Vice President Cheney said, “If they had had their way, if we’d followed the policies they’d pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.”

Senator Barack Obama campaigned on his opposition not only of the Iraq war, but that he would fight President Bush’s decision to increase troop levels in Iraq (the surge) and later claimed that the surge was making things worse in Iraq:

Senator Obama January 2007:  “I am going to actively oppose the president’s proposal. I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Senator Obama November 2007: “Not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening.”

Senator Obama May 2008: “We don’t need more spin about the surge that was supposed to get the Iraqis to step up. We don’t need more leaders who just see what they want to see in Iraq. It’s time to recognize where we are in Iraq.”

Share/Bookmark

The invitations have gone out to leadership in both parties to attend Barack Obama’s ostensibly bipartisan summit on health care.  Is this the event of the social season, a political debate, or Kabuki theater?  Depending on who answers, it seems that no one is quite sure what to expect from any of the participants, assuming the debate takes place at all.

Many Republicans fear that this summit will be nothing more than political theater aimed at helping provide cover for the President and Democrats in Congress as they continue to work behind closed doors to come up with a plan to pass Obamacare via budget reconciliation.

The format that the White House has laid out has done little to alleviate Republican fears.  After opening remarks by President Obama, followed by a Republican and a Democrat, President Obama will moderate a discussion among the 37 law makers invited to the meeting.  Considering what the President has invested in the Democratic bill, along with the deals he has cut with union leaders, Pharma and the insurance industry, many don’t feel he can be an impartial moderator.

Making matters worse is the fact that the White House and Congressional Democrats have not been able to keep quiet the fact they continue to work on a compromise bill between House and Senate Democrats, along with trying to win the support of 51 Senators, which is needed to ram Obamacare through via reconciliation.

In fact, on the same day that President Obama sent out his summit invitations, a Democratic member of the Senate said the decision has been made to proceed with reconciliation:

“I think a decision has just been made — we’re just going to go ahead” with a reconciliation bill, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters on Friday.

All indications are that the Democrat’s strategy is to have their compromise bill, along with a reconciliation plan, ready to go prior to the Health-Care Summit on February 25th.

Then on the 25th, President Obama will hold his summit, which will have been carefully orchestrated to showcase the revised health care bill that the White House, Congressional Democrats and special interest groups have been working on behind closed doors for nearly two months.   Once the summit is over, they will be able to say, “we had the meeting, we tried to get Republican support, but they still want to do nothing but obstruct health care reform.  We have no choice but to pass health care reform by using reconciliation.”

This is all political theater, because if the White House and Democratic leaders were truly interested in coming up with a bipartisan solution, they wouldn’t be continuing to work on their partisan bill behind closed doors, and they wouldn’t have already made the decision to proceed with reconciliation.

Scott Brown ran in Massachusetts by saying, “I will be the 41st vote to stop the Senate health care bill.”  That promise resulted in nearly two thirds of the independents in the bluest of blue states voting for a Republican.  Add to that, poll after poll shows that the American public is not happy with the Democrat’s health care bills.

There can be no doubt left that the majority of Americans don’t want the Democrat’s health care bill, which they continue to work on in the back rooms of the White House and Congress.

Democrats are betting on the fact that voters have very short memories, as the mid-term elections are less than nine months away.

Share/Bookmark

President Obama ran on the promise that he would not raise taxes on any individual making less than $200,000 and any family making less than $250,000.  It was a promise he made repeatedly on the campaign trail and continued to make after being sworn in.

As many conservatives expected would happen, President Obama is laying the groundwork for an across the board tax increase.   The President now says he is ‘agnostic’ on tax increases on the middle class and open to any solutions to get the deficit under control.

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.

President Obama went on to say that the problem was not the spending increase last year, but simply that there is a ‘mismatch’ between the amount of money coming in and going out, and “that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

It isn’t very hard to read between those lines.  He’s agnostic on a tax increase on middle class families.  He doesn’t feel the spending Orgy that Reid and Pelosi have conducted and he has encouraged and signed into law, is the problem.  But, because there is a mismatch between the spending and revenue, tough choices must be made.  In other words, taxes will be raised on the middle class to pay for his $4 trillion budget and $1.6 trillion deficit.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air gives his take on Obama’s reversal on a middle class tax increase:

What changed? Obama’s economic policies have had the effect that we predicted they would during the campaign. The White House sees trillion-plus budget deficits for most of the next ten years, thanks to massively expanding federal budgets and the drag they put on economic growth. Either Obama has to drastically reduce federal spending and the intrusion it creates in American lives, or he has to hike taxes in a broad manner to generate enough income to offset the spending. Taxing just the upper 5% isn’t an option.

What Obama is signaling was predicted by conservative strategists and blogs since before candidate Barack Obama was elected.  It was always expected to happen in the order we are seeing it.  First, Obama would ratchet up spending in massive way.  Then, they would use the historic deficits to justify a broad-based tax increase.

It’s unclear in what form the tax increases will come, but they almost certainly will appear in some form or fashion.  It’s possible that we could see a national sales tax or VAT tax.  It could come in the form of increased gas and energy taxes.  However, the most likely scenario is simply an across the board increase in income taxes.

Common sense would say that the Democrats in Congress afraid of losing their majority in the November elections would probably not be willing to vote in a tax increase before the election.  That would mean they would have to pass a tax increase after the elections, but before the new Congress is sworn in.  That might be easier said than done, especially if Reid loses his reelection bid.

Instead, if the Democrats are not able to pass the tax increase they want, they can accomplish it by simply doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year.  Then, when the Republicans attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, the Democrats will simply block any attempts to extend the tax cuts, which they will be able to do whether or not they still control both Houses of Congress next year.

The first President Bush felt the wrath of  American voters when he broke his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge.  Time will tell if President Obama feels that same wrath.

Share/Bookmark

A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows the President’s continued decline:

Mr. Obama’s job approval rating stands at 46 percent, matching his previous low from early January. As many as 45 percent of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing – his highest disapproval rating to date. More than anything, Americans are critical of how Mr. Obama is handling domestic issues like the economy.

Still, the president is more often viewed as representing and understanding Americans’ interests more than either Congress or Republicans are.

Most Americans, 57 percent, say Mr. Obama is more interested in serving the American people rather than interest groups, while 35 percent say the opposite is true. By contrast, just 13 percent of Americans think Congress is more interested in serving the people they represent over special interests.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has highlighted some of the specific areas where Obama’s approval has taken a big hit:

There is a lot more in the poll breakout, but here are a few highlights:

• Economy – down 10, 42/52
• Health care – down 20, 35/55
• Deficits – down 27, 31/58
• More people feel angry or dissatisfied (51%) at the Obama administration than enthusiastic or satisfied (47%)
• 56% think he has no clear plan to create jobs

Be sure to visit Hot Air to read the rest of Ed’s breakdown of the latest poll results.

President Obama has stated that the American voters just don’t ‘get it’.  He claimed that the backlash witnessed in Massachusetts was due to the fact that he was so busy creating and passing his policies, that he didn’t take enough time out to explain to the common people voters exactly how good for America his policies would be.

Fast forward a month, and President Obama has been on TV almost daily ‘explaining’ to the voters what his policies mean.  The fact is that the more President Obama ‘explains’ his policies, the lower his poll numbers go.

Here’s a free tip, Mr. President:  It isn’t that American voters don’t understand your policies, it’s that they don’t agree with those policies or the Chicago-style politics you are using to attempt to implement them.

Share/Bookmark

Today, President Obama made a surprise appearance in the briefing room and took questions for a little over 30 minutes.

Video of Obama’s question and answer session are embedded below in four parts.

Share/Bookmark

Earlier today, I was preparing a post questioning why the President hadn’t taken questions from the White House press corpses corps since July of last year.  Prior to today’s surprise press conference, the last press conference the President held, where he took questions from White House correspondents, was the now infamous blunder where he stated that the Cambridge police department acted stupidly and strongly insinuated they did so in a racist manner:

“I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that he Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,” Obama said in response to a question from the Chicago Sun-Times’s Lynn Sweet.

Gates, Obama allowed, “is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts.”

However Gates, he continued, “jimmied his way to get into [his own] house.”

“There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place – so far so good,” Obama said, reflecting that he’d hope the police were called if he were seen breaking into his own house, then pausing.

“I guess this is my house now,” he remarked of the White House. “Here I’d get shot.”

Since that time, President Obama has made a great many appearances on TV, but almost always in highly controlled one-on-one interviews or staged town hall events, where the President is able to focus on the one or two points that are part of the message he wants to promote, rather than responding to the questions that the White House correspondents want answers to.

In President Obama’s first year, he only had question and answer sessions with White House correspondents 47 times vs. 147 times for President George W. Bush and 252 time for President Bill Clinton.  However, most of Obama’s Q & A sessions with the press corps came before August, with only 16 brief sessions since the President’s blunder that led to the now famous Beer Summit.

In contrast, Fox News reports that “Obama has granted 161 interviews, compared to 50 for Bush and 53 for Clinton.” It should be noted that only a few of those interviews have been granted to Fox News.

Helen Thomas, who had been a big supporter of the President and his agenda during his campaign and early in his Presidency, began to publicly grumble in July when she accused Robert Gibbs and the White House of controlling the press.  Stating that even President Nixon’s White House didn’t control the press like Obama’s administration does:

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

On Monday, Chip Reid of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC and Helen Thomas again complained about President Obama’s refusal to take questions from White House correspondents:

“It’s a source of great frustration here,” says Chip Reid, CBS’s White House correspondent. “It’s important for us to hold the president’s feet to the fire.”

NBC White House reporter Chuck Todd calls the situation a “shame,” saying the administration is trying to control the message rather than allowing Obama to be seen “unscripted.”

Hearst columnist Helen Thomas said the president has “gone an obscenely long time, not holding one.”

Apparently succumbing to the growing outcry from the White House press corps and the media in general, President Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and took questions from the press corps for over a half hour today.

If you missed the press conference, we will have video of today’s Q & A session online shortly.

UPDATED:  You can watch a video of the press conference here.

Share/Bookmark

This morning on Fox and Friends, during a live shot from the White House that was interrupted by a backhoe moving behind Goler and trucks beeping, Wendell Goler explained that the White House is moving a full grown tree.  It appears that they don’t want to cut down the tree, so they have a crew of people and equipment lined up to ‘save’ the tree.

Anyone want to calculate what kind of carbon deficit this little operation will create? How much energy and carbon emissions will it take to move this tree vs. the CO2 that tree will remove in its life?

I wonder if they have a tree surgeon on standby and an Arborist emergency room prepped, just in case the tree suffers a trauma during this delicate operation.

Share/Bookmark

In yet another highly controlled, one-on-one interview, President Obama told Katie Couric that he has not ruled out trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, even though New York officials and Congressmen are saying that they don’t want the trial in Manhattan.

However, the thing that stood out in that part of the interview was that President Obama stated that 190 terrorists had been successfully convicted in federal courts:

He also defended his decision, noting again that the administration of former President George W. Bush had handled terror suspects arrested in the United States in the same way.

“They prosecuted 190 folks in these Article III courts, got convictions and those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes,” Obama said. “And it is a virtue of our system we should be proud of.”

Just last week Eric Holder stated that 300 terrorists had been tried and convicted in federal courts.  It’s important to note that Attorney General Holder told a Senate panel in November that he would produce a list of the 300 terrorists convicted in federal courts, including what the actual charges were, and to date he has failed to live up to that promise.

As is often the case with the Obama administration, the ‘message’ changes based on who is speaking and who they are speaking to.  A few weeks ago, when Axelrod, Jarret and Gibbs made the rounds of Sunday talk shows, their ‘claims’ of jobs ‘saved or created’ ranged from thousands to two million.

In the case of these terrorist convictions, we have heard hundreds, 200, 300 and now 190, but the White House has continued to promise, but not deliver, a list of these convicted terrorists.

Share/Bookmark

Michelle Malkin has more on the unprecedented spending on this years census:

The U.S. Census Bureau will squander $2.5 million on a half-minute Super Bowl ad starring D-list celebrity Ed Begley, Jr., plus two pre-game blurbs and 12-second “vignettes” featuring Super Bowl anchor James Brown. It’s a drop in the Census boondoggle bucket (otherwise known as the tax-subsidized National Democrat Future Voter Outreach Drive). The Obama White House has allocated a total of $340 million on an “unprecedented” promotional blitz for the 2010 Census. That’s on top of $1 billion in stimulus money siphoned off for increased Census “public outreach” and staffing. In all, the Census will triple its total budget from 2000 to $15 billion.

While the spend without limits Democratic Congress and White House is causing Americans to become so desensitized to spending in the trillions, that $15 billion seems like chump change.  The fact is that it isn’t chump change.  It’s just another example of wasteful spending that is adding to our ever growing national debt.   Last year President Obama told Americans that just as the American public needs to start living within their means, so does the federal government.  Clearly, that was yet another hollow promise. Simply more campaign-style rhetoric from a President that doesn’t seem capable of transitioning from campaign mode to governing mode.  Democrats in Congress just gave the federal government a credit limit increase, when they voted to increase the US debt ceiling by another $1.9 trillion.  The fact that Paul Kirk, the interim Senator from Massachusetts, was the 60th vote, when legally he shouldn’t even have had the right to cast a vote, is the subject of another post.

The point is that the US government is having to borrow the money to pay for that Super Bowl ad.  It’s having to borrow the $340 million for advertising and promoting the census.  It’s having to borrow the $10 trillion extra when they decided to triple the census budget.

Every time you read that the federal government is spending $300 million on this, or $15 billion on that, just remember that is money we are having to borrow from the Chinese and other foreign countries in order to pay for the Obama spending orgy.

Speaking of Orgies, Malkin also reports on the Census Bureau road show that will be driving 13 buses and vans around the country attending big parties like Mardi Gras and the Super Bowl, as well as blowing our tax dollars in Las Vegas, which President Obama just told us was a no-no for private companies and hard working families:

“When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” President Obana lectured us. “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas.” Coincidentally, the Census Road Tour junketeers just wrapped up a visit in Vegas. Next stop? You guessed it: The Super Bowl in Miami. Taxpayers should start crying foul.

Apparently President Obama’s advice only applies to the private sector, not to the government agencies he controls.

Share/Bookmark

In early November, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in federal court in New York City.  While Holder did not make a claim of 200 or 300 terrorists convicted in court at that time, the liberal media and blogs defended his decision with the figure of 200 terrorists convicted in criminal courts since 2001. In his announcement, Holder indicated a far lower number by saying “federal prosecutors have successfully met these challenges and have convicted a number of terrorists who are now serving lengthy sentences in our prisons.”

The following week, when addressing a Senate panel, Holder stated that 300 terrorists had been successfully convicted in civilian courts.  At that time, on November 18th, Holder was asked for a list of the 300 to which he responded, ““I will supply you with those 300 names and what they were convicted of,” Holder said. “I’ll be glad to do that.”

To date, Holder has refused to produce the list he promised the Senate nearly three months ago.  This week Eric Holder repeated his claim that 300 terrorists have been tried and convicted in federal courts:

“Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the practice of the U.S. government, followed by prior and current Administrations without a single exception, has been to arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist suspects who are apprehended inside the United States,” Holder writes in the letter. “In keeping with this policy, the Bush Administration used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges. “

While Holder has refused to produce the list, it appears the White House is trying to redefine what the term ‘convicted terrorist’ means, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explains:

As Byron York points out, they have also attempted to alter the meaning of “terrorism” as a fallback position. The men in Gitmo weren’t captured because they had a “history of” or “nexus to” terrorism, neither of which alone would cause a federal judge to throw a defendant in prison.  We captured them in the acts of terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism, and furthermore, we captured them abroad with military and intelligence assets, not with policemen.  “History” and “nexus” should be construed to mean, We didn’t convict them of terrorism but of other crimes instead.

This type of liberal slight of hand and distortion of the truth is the very reason Liberal Whoppers was started.  The liberal mantra is that “if we keep repeating something and claim it is a fact, regardless of having no supporting evidence or even contradictory evidence, then before long our statements that it ‘is a fact’ will become the evidence that it is a fact”.

I know that is a convoluted explanation, but that’s the beauty of their strategy — throw up a cloud of dust and nobody will be able to separate the truth from the lies.  They repeat something over and over, distribute their talking points to the Democratic strategists and liberal bloggers, so that their ‘fact’ gets repeated over and over on TV, in print and on blogs, to the point where for many people, it really does sound like a ‘fact’.

Whether it’s nearly a decade of hearing “the debate is over on global warming” or now hearing that “300 terrorists have been convicted and are being held in federal prisons”, or any of the other multitude of Liberal Whoppers the left tells, you will find that they simply keep repeating their whoppers until one day their ‘facts’ stands on their own.

Share/Bookmark

After the gang of three (Pelosi, Obama and Reid) was unable to ram Obamacare through while holding massive, filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress, Obama now says he wants to hear Republican ideas:

He said Thursday he wants to go through the legislation in detail with Republicans to examine their ideas and Democratic ideas to see whether there are better ways to improve the nation’s health care system than have already been proposed.

Where was President Obama’s bipartisan spirit when he had Democrats and union leaders at the White House working on a health care ‘compromise’?  Where was his bipartisan spirit when he went behind closed Senate doors with Senate Democrats or invited them to the White House to urge them to pass Obamacare?

Only now, after a year of Democrats holding complete control of Congress and the White House, but failing to pass his very unpopular Obamacare with NO attempt to involve Republicans, does the President offer to elevate Republicans to the same level he holds union leaders, and allow Republicans to participate in negotiations on the health care bill.

Share/Bookmark

The Daily Caller reports on the tax hike on charitable giving:

The Obama administration’s fiscal 2011 budget proposes cutting the tax deduction for charitable donations, alarming both philanthropists and non-profits across the country.

The White House is expecting to collect an additional $291 billion over the next decade by reducing the write-off for families earning over $250,000 despite the fact Congress roundly rejected such a measure last year. While the administration is portraying this as a populist move, experts have said the end result will be a significant blow to charities and non-profits already reeling in the midst of the recession.

Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center said the rule change would make it about 10 percent more expensive for individuals affected to donate to charity. He estimated that would correspond to a $10 billion drop in donations out of the $300 billion Americans give annually.

Last year the Obama administration defended the move, claiming that the $100 million included in the Recovery Act for charities and non-profits would help cover the gap, along with the natural rise in donations following the economic recovery. Those arguments will be even tougher to make this year with the country still mired in double-digit unemployment and no second stimulus for charities in the works.

Slublog posting on Hot Air shares his personal experience:

I once worked for a not-for-profit healthcare organization that relied upon such donations to survive and provide services to clients. Grants provided some of the funds, but members of the community played a very large role in allowing the organization to continue its work. Most who gave did so because they believed in our mission, but I’m sure the ability to write off donations helped. I would go so far as to say without those donations, the organization would not survive.

This move by the White House isn’t surprising.  First, it continues the populist trend of attacking Wall Street and the rich.  Class warfare has been a foundation of Democratic politics for a very long time.  Second, it moves charitable giving from the individual to the federal government.

Share/Bookmark

Rasmussen Reports shows that most Americans simply don’t believe the President’s claims:

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

…

As for the claim about two million jobs, 46% of Democrats say it’s true, while 77% of Republicans say it’s not. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 24% say it’s true, and 59% say it’s false.

The last part is a killer for the President and helps explain what happened in Massachusetts.  Nearly 60% of independent voters don’t believe the President’s claim about putting 2 million people to work.  Not even 50% of Democrats believe the President.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has more analysis on voters not believing the President:

The “saved or created” Porkulus fable gets some interesting results in the internals.  Rasmussen mentions that only a plurality of Democrats believe that, and black voters by an even more anemic 38%, with 47% unsure.  The only demographic that has a majority belief in that claim is self-professed liberals, 58% to 18% disbelief.  In every age and income demographic, a majority or plurality reject that claim, including those who make less than $20K a year — where many of the potential hires for new jobs would come.

The numbers get worse for Obama on whether he accomplished what he set out to do in his first year.  An overwhelming majority of 70% say no, including a plurality of Democrats (49%) and liberals (56%).

Many people felt that President Obama would make a turn to the center in his State of the Union address.  Instead, the President simply recycled old campaign promises, and patted himself on the back for accomplishments that most American voters simply don’t believe he has actually accomplished.

As one voter said, President Obama is the greatest recycler on the planet, because he keeps recycling the same campaign promises over and over again.

Share/Bookmark

It’s big news when the AP publishes a story like this about President Obama, as the AP was firmly in the Barack Obama’s corner during the election and during the first year of his term.

The Associated Press reports on the growing discontent that Democratic Congressmen have with Obama:

The list of White House failures is growing: It hasn’t galvanized the legions of 2008 Obama backers in three major statewide losses. It hasn’t prevented primary challenges for at least two vulnerable Senate Democrats even though Obama endorsed them. And it hasn’t recruited strong candidates for Senate seats once held by Vice President Joe Biden and the president himself.

“I get the sense that it’s all about them … and that if they do get involved, it should be magic. But, in my experience, it hasn’t been,” said Democratic Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas.

Based on roughly two dozen interviews with lawmakers, party leaders and political operatives nationwide, it’s clear that many Democrats feel Obama hasn’t fully embraced his role as party chief. It has them questioning the strength of his political muscle and faulting his advisers for paying too little attention to the fast-approaching 2010 midterm contests.

Some of these Democrats complained on the record. Others asked for anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his team. Altogether, they described an ineffective political operation. They suggested Obama’s team is overly focused on his likely 2012 re-election bid. And they blamed the White House for a muddled message about what he’s trying and accomplishing as president.

Share/Bookmark

Now that the fact checking has begun, even the MSM can’t ignore the whoppers that President Obama told last night during the State of the Union.

The Associated Press lists Obama’s top whoppers from last night’s State of the Union address.  Here’s a couple of them:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,” he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s.

…

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” He also said it’s time to “require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they’re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air expands on one of Obama’s Whoppers:

Let me add at least one other whopper that the AP doesn’t mention.  Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class.  Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats.  In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years.  And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

It was clear to anyone that watched the State of the Union speech last night that President Obama has yet to start ‘listening’ to the American people and has learned nothing from Scott Browns victory in Massachusetts.  He is still focused on blaming the previous administration; using moral equivalency as a defense for his back room deals and broken promises; and, continues to try and convince America that his ONLY mistake was not taking time from the grueling task of creating and passing policy to actually explain it to the American public, because he thought we would ‘get it’ without him having to explain it to us.

This from the prime-time president who is rumored to have been offered Leno’s 9 PM time slot, and a slot on ABC after Lost, so they can give him the air time he craves without continuing to juggle their schedule to accommodate the President of the United States.

The absurdly high number of national addresses, speeches, town hall meetings and press conferences have been documented ad nausea, so I won’t regurgitate those totals.  However, the point is that it is ludicrous for the prime-time President to attempt to make the case that he failed to take the time to ‘explain’ his policies to America.

Newsflash:  No matter how many times you explain them, Mr. President, America simply doesn’t like your policies…

Share/Bookmark

At times, it was an indictment of the previous administration.

At times, it was a self congratulatory, pat on the President’s back.

At times, it was a very small laundry list of give aways apparently aimed at  quelling the ‘anger’ Americans feel.

At times, it was an indictment of the Supreme Court — at minimum a serious breach of decorum, or at worse an attempt to intimidate another branch of government.

In the end, it simply felt like yet another campaign speech, like we heard for three years leading up to the 2008 election.  I guess the 2012 election has begun.

Big Government lists seven things that stood out:

First, at no point did Barack Obama acknowledge that the promises that he made in campaigning for the so-called stimulus bill have gone unredeemed and that unemployment has continued to grow in a fashion that, he told us, it would not.

Second, much of the speech consisted in self-praise that, in the grim circumstances that we now face, seemed out of place.

Third, despite what the Climategate scandal has revealed concerning the dishonesty of those who have shilled for bills like the cap-and-trade measure passed by the House of Representatives, the President insists on our basing American public policy on discredited science.

Fourth, our President is still telling the same old lies concerning the healthcare reform measures passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives…

Visit Big Government to read the rest of their list.

Share/Bookmark

Vice President Biden (who heads up the task force) and Tim Geitner met with about a dozen members of the White House middle class task force that President Obama setup about a year ago.  They were to review the work the task force has been doing.

President Obama stopped in at the end of the meeting to chat with the dozen members of the task force and just for fun, brought his teleprompter.

You can visit Flopping Aces to also see a video of his ‘address’ to his tiny task force.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explains that unlike the other ‘teleprompter moments’ this one is far worse, because it was not a press conference, but instead a committee meeting:

This isn’t a press conference, a speech, or even a White House briefing. It’s a committee meeting. As Rich said, people used to poke fun at Reagan’s notecards. Either he needs this much help to get through opening remarks in a normal business meeting, or he’s become a little to attached to the TOTUS … and neither option makes him look very professional.

What is even more amazing than the fact that the President of the United States needs to use a teleprompter to speak to his own task force or to update the press on his visit to a sixth grade classroom, is the fact that the White House believes publishing pictures and video of the President having to rely on a teleprompter to address his own task force is a ‘positive’ image.

Share/Bookmark

Foxnews has more on the report that will be released today:

A bipartisan, independent commission on stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction says that the Obama administration has failed in its first year in office to do enough to prevent a germ weapons attack on America or to respond quickly and effectively should such an attack occur.

In a 19-page “report card” being published today, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, chaired by former Senators Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida, and Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, gives the new administration the grade of “F” for failing to take key steps the commission outlined just over a year ago in its initial report.

Specifically, the commission concludes that the Obama administration, like the three administrations before it, has failed to pay “consistent and urgent attention” to increasing the nation’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to a germ attack that would inflict massive casualties on the nation.

The commission repeated its warning that unless nations acted decisively and urgently, it was “more likely than not that a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013,” and that the terrorists’ weapon of choice would be biological, rather than nuclear.

The administration’s delayed response to the H1N1 virus, the report concludes, demonstrated that the United States was “woefully behind in its ability to rapidly produce rapidly vaccines and therapeutics, essential steps for adequately responding to a biological threat, whether natural or man-made.”

Even with time to prepare, the report noted, the epidemic peaked “before most Americans had access to vaccine.”

And a bioattack, it warned, would have “no such warning.”

Go to Foxnews to read the full story.

Share/Bookmark

In the movie Top Gun, there was an oft-repeated quote of “son, your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash.”  In this case, President Obama is writing checks his Congressional disciples can’t cash.

Today, Marion Berry (D-AR) announced his retirement and says that the health-care story is a rerun of ’94.

“I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,” said Arkansas’ 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996… “I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air has this analysis:

Berry came to Congress in 1997. The representative he replaced? Blanche Lincoln, another Arkansan poisoned by her support for The One, who’s reportedly now being pressured by the Democratic leadership to make her act of political seppuku official by retiring herself. I’ve got a ton of poll news in the pipeline illustrating just how ironic Obama’s comment to Berry has become, but there’s no way I’m going to dump it at the end here. It’s simply too sweet. To tide you over until the next post, enjoy this new Pew survey asking voters what their most urgent policy priorities are. Health care finishes … eighth.

When asked if the President actually made those remarks, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded:

“I have not talked to the president about that,” Gibbs said, employing one of his favorite dodges.

Gibbs seemed to suggest that he shared that view, whether or not President Obama said it.

“I hope it’s not newsworthy to think that the president hopes and expects to be an effective campaigner in the midterm elections,” Gibbs said.

This is the very arrogance that is turning more and more Americans against the President and his policies.  This is the arrogance that resulted in French President Sarkozy reportedly calling President Obama Naive and grossly egotistical in regards to Obama’s response and handling of Iran’s nuclear program.

The President is ordering his legion to fall on their swords for him and his response is “you’ve got me.”

Share/Bookmark

Now, in the President’s defense, it appears he ‘winged it’ when talking to the sixth graders, but while he joked with reporters about them looking funny sitting in the student’s desks in the room the White House press  corp was assembled, he proceeded to step up to a full blown podium/teleprompter setup to use to address the press.

Share/Bookmark

Yet, the President appears to be continuing to make one blunder after another.  On Wednesday, President Obama told ABC that the only mistake he made was that he forgot to take the time to talk directly to the people, as he instead focused his time on creating policy, because he just assumed the American public would ‘get it’ without him explaining it to him.  The fact that the American people do ‘get it’ apparently is lost on President Obama, because he still doesn’t realize the problem isn’t that he didn’t spin his actions well enough, but instead the American public doesn’t like the actions he’s taken.

Paul Rahe of Big Government tells us what advice he believes Bill Clinton would give Obama:

I have no doubt what advice Clinton would give Barack Obama if the latter were to make that call. He would tell him to jettison Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod; to hire a David Gergen, and a Dick Morris; to leave Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their minions twisting in the wind; and to announce in his State of the Union Address that the era of big government is once again at an end.

Clinton would instruct him to drop healthcare reform, fall silent on the global warming scam, abandon cap-and-trade, and forget about closing Guantanamo and trying terrorists in civil courts. He would advise him to cut a deal with the Republicans and with endangered Democrats from swing states and swing districts and join with them in passing tort reform, in trimming domestic spending, and in making permanent the tax cuts first introduced by the younger Bush.

With an eye to encouraging employers to rehire those laid off, Clinton would urge Obama to join with that coalition to institute a temporary cut in the payroll taxes businesses pay the Social Security administration; and, if the economy did not quickly turn around, he would urge him to team up with John McCain, sing, “Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran!” — and take out the nuclear program of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Share/Bookmark

Here’s what he said:

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country.   The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.   People are angry, and they’re frustrated.  Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Axelrod says the Massachusetts win isn’t about health care, but is about the bad economy that Obama inherited:

So I wouldn’t make — I mean, there are messages here. We hear those messages, but there is a tendency in this town — not that you guys would do it — but to overblow things, even beyond their importance. And I don’t think it’s about that one particular issue. I think there’s a general sense of discontent about the economy and there’s a general sense of discontent about this town. That’s why we were elected. We are committed to doing something about it.

These quotes from Axelrod and Obama today, are consistent with the White House message of the last few days, which is that if Brown was to win in Massachusetts, it would not be an indication of Americans being unhappy with President Obama or Health Care, but instead that they are angry about the eight years of Bush and Cheney, but that Coakley didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that fact to the voters.

With logic like that, is it any wonder that President Obama couldn’t get a health care bill passed in a year when holding a huge majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?

In his press briefing yesterday, Robert Gibbs used the words ‘anger’ or ‘angry’ 15 times when referring to the American people.  Gibbs, like Obama and Axelrod, was trying to make the case that Brown only won because Americans are angry, not over what has happened in the last year, but what happened in the eight years prior to Obama getting elected.

Another theme that President Obama stated in his ABC interview, and was a Democratic talking point for days leading up to the election, was that the only failure of the White House and Democrats in Congress in regard to the health care bill has been a failure to fully explain it in a way the American public could understand.  They are trying to make the case that they were so focused on trying to pass the health care bill that they failed to properly explain it to America and if they had, then the American public would be fully supporting the bill.

It’s hard to imagine that Obama or the Democrats in Congress really believe that the Brown loss is a backlash from anger at George Bush.  It’s hard to imagine that they believe that the discontent with Obamacare is because the Democrats haven’t explained it well enough, rather than people being angry about the partisan approach and specials deals that are being cut behind closed doors.

Even though Obama has been on prime time TV so often that ABC has considered giving him a permanent time slot after Ugly Betty, he says that he underestimated the American public realize how good a job he was doing and just assumed we would ‘get it’:

“That I do think is a mistake of mine,” Obama said. “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air responds to President Obama’s assertion:

Ask yourselves this: was Obama’s big problem in 2009 getting too involved in legislative efforts and not spending enough time in front of the cameras talking about himself?  On his signature domestic-agenda issue, Democrats in Congress repeatedly complained that Obama wasn’t involved at all.

Just for the record: according to Mark Knoller at CBS, in 2009 Obama gave 42 news conferences (most of them joint “availabilities” with foreign leaders), 52 addresses or statements specifically about health care, with a total of 411 speeches, comments, or remarks.  In addition, Obama did 158 interviews in his first year in office.  He also held 23 town hall meetings, including two out of the country.  It’s not for lack of opportunity that Obama didn’t get to explain himself.

It’s hard to imagine that President Obama really doesn’t get it.  The more likely scenario is that he simply falls back to what he said in regard to passing the pork filled stimulus bill, “I won”, which he believes is all that matters.

Share/Bookmark

Mr. Blair, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, revealed a previously undisclosed disagreement among the Obama administration’s top officials over the handling of the Nigerian who is accused of attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

The intelligence chief said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been questioned by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG, a special panel established by President Obama.

“We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people. And, you know … that’s what we will do now. And so we need to make those decisions more carefully,” Mr. Blair told Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

The HIG was mandated in August to question terrorism suspects apprehended overseas in counterterrorism operations. It was a result of an executive order Mr. Obama issued in January 2009 that compelled all interrogations to adhere to the practices enumerated in the Army Field Manual.

Blair later said in a written statement that the HIG was not yet fully functional.  It is unclear what is more disturbing.  The fact that one year after Obama’s executive order the high value interrogation group (HIG) was still not fully functional.  Or, the fact that the Director of National Intelligence didn’t know that the HIG wasn’t fully functional and had to clarify that fact later.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air discusses Blair’s testimony:

You’ll be glad to know that Blair later amended his statement to say that the HIG couldn’t have interrogated Abdulmutallab because, um, it’s not fully operational yet. Evidently he didn’t know that either during his testimony. All of which sounds really bad, until you remember that the guy who could have made an executive decision here was so absurdly unprepared for his own Senate grilling on this subject a few months ago that he couldn’t answer a basic question from Lindsey Graham about whether we’d have to read Bin Laden his Miranda rights if we captured him.

Share/Bookmark

This reaction from the White House is exactly the arrogance and refusal to listen to the American people that just caused a revolt in Massachusetts.  Where a Republican won a Senate seat in the bluest of blue seats.

Fox and Friends this morning reported on a NY Post story running today.  The Post laid out five lessons the President must learn from the Massachusetts’ race.

1.  Don’t negotiate health care in secret and pack it with sweetheart deals
2.  Responding aloofly to an attempted terror attack doesn’t inspire confidence
3.  Slow down the runaway spending, get a grip on the deficit and focus on Job creation
4.  Understand that the era of big government really is over
5.  Lose the arrogance, Mr. President

The President will be doing an interview today, on the one year anniversary of his inauguration, and we will begin to see whether a night of sleeping on the massive defeat in Massachusetts has finally gotten through to the President.  Whether he will begin to honor his campaign promises about transparency and changing the way Washington works, or if he will go back to ignoring the will of the American people and instead cutting backroom deals with union leaders and health industry lobbyists in order to ram through his liberal agenda.

Scott Brown ran a campaign that was in direct opposition to the President’s liberal agenda.  He promised to be the 41st vote against Obamacare and stop its passage. He said that we needed to not spend our money on lawyers for terrorists and enemy combatants, but instead buy guns to stop them.  He opposes giving constituional rights to these terrorists and enemy combatants.  He is in favor of cutting taxes, not raising them.  In every key area, his platform was completely opposite to what the President is doing in Washington and Brown not only had a decisive win in Massachusetts, but also created a nation groundswell of support for his campaign.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air describes the voters rejection of Obama’s agenda:

In the bluest of blue states, where the entire Congressional delegation consisted of Democrats until 10 pm ET last night, voters have rejected the Obama agenda.  Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts voters say that health care was the most important factor in their voting decision, and Brown got at least 52% of the vote by campaigning on his explicit promise to block ObamaCare.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Two months ago, we saw the same exact dynamic in Virginia and especially New Jersey.  Democrats lost big in both states, but pundits were reluctant to draw conclusions from it.  Virginia, it was said, was always a center-right state that merely came home after a poor candidate (Creigh Deeds) ran for Governor.  In New Jersey, that argument didn’t fly as well, as the Garden State elects Republicans to statewide office only slightly more often than Massachusetts.  Barack Obama campaigned there as well, and delivered almost the same result as Coakley got in Massachusetts — a solid loss to a Republican who had not won a statewide office before Election Day.

Mary Anne Marsh, Democratic Political Strategist, explains what the President faces the morning after the Brown victory, “the key now is to acknowledge what happened here, because to lead, people have to follow.  While voters still like him he is going to walk back into White House today, look at Capital Hill and I’m sure there is going to be at best panic across Capital Hill and the question is whether they will continue to follow President Obama. That is the question.”

President Obama has an a decision to make.  He can continue to ignore the will of the people and do what the White House said yesterday, which is that he will pass Obamacare not matter what it takes. Or, he can take a step back and during the State of The Union tell the American people that he has heard their message loud and clear and that he would tell Congress to go back to the drawing board and come back to him with a bi-partisan health care reform bill that the American public will accept.  A bill that doesn’t require Harry Reid to buy votes.  A bill that doesn’t include back room deals cut with union leaders and health industry lobbyists.

Mr. President, the ball is in your court.  Will you honor your pledge of reaching across the aisle, having the most transparent administration ever and changing the way Washington works.  Or, will you continue to say, “I won” and use Chicago style politics to impose your will on the American people?

Share/Bookmark

Jack Cafferty of the Cafferty File on CNN ripped President Obama for his “lies” and says that he hopes voters will remember “some of this crap” when the mid term election role around in November:

Share/Bookmark

In the first six months of President Obama’s first term, the SEIU president, Andy Stern and Richard Trumpka of the AFL-CIO visited the White House at least 30 times.  In fact, Andy Stern of SEIU visited the White House in the first six months more than any other visitor based on the visitor logs the administration released.

Earlier in the week the administration declared they were close to reaching a ‘compromise’ with union leaders that would allow the health care bill to pass.  Clearly, if President Obama had to negotiate with unions in order to pass Obamacare (something he hasn’t even done with Republicans in Congress), it must mean that unions are now the third House of Congress with equal standing to the House and Senate.

ABC is reporting that after a week of non-stop negotiations with unions, the White House and union leaders have reached a deal that will allow Obamacare to move forward to passage:

The White House, congressional Democrats, and labor leaders announced an agreement on a key sticking point in health care reform negotiations: how to handle a new excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans.

“The president is pleased with this agreement,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call with reporters.

…

The new deal raises the threshold for plans considered “Cadillac” plans to $24,000 for families and $8,900 for individuals.

Significantly, it exempts insurance plans that were part of state and local collective bargaining agreements – union members – until January 1, 2018. They call this a “transition period” in which unions and re-adjust the way they’ve negotiated wages and health insurance in agreements with employers.

In addition, there will be three exemptions allowing adjustments in the threshold:

• one for “unexpected” rises in health care costs beyond what is predicted between 2010 and 2013;
• for various age and gender issues;
• for high risk retirees and those in high-cost states.

In addition, insurance coverage for vision and dental are not taxable.

These changes to the Cadillac tax would end up shaving $60 billion off the $150 billion in revenue expected to be generated under the original proposal, meaning it would raise $90 billion.

Just to make sure this is clear.  While the White House refuses to negotiate with Republican leaders over health care compromises, President Obama has spent the last week meeting behind closed doors (not on C-SPAN) with union leaders to reach a ‘compromise’ so that the health care bill can be passed.  Again, President Obama spent a week working on a compromise with union leaders so that a bill that will impact 1/6 of the nations economy can be passed.

The deal give unions an 8 year pass on tax increases that the rest of America will have to pay on high priced insurance plans, along with creating other exemptions so that they can write ‘clever’ collective bargaining agreements in the future to insure union members never have to pay the taxes that other Americans will have to pay.

Is there any wonder that President Obama refuses to honor his promise of televising health care negotiations on C-SPAN?

Share/Bookmark

The president then turned to the accomplishments of the Democratic Congress, heaping praise on Democrats for their response to the financial crisis and recession, and the passage of a job-creation bill.  Mr. Obama then focused on health care, taking aim at Republican criticisms.

“I know everybody in the media is all in a tizzy [saying], ‘Oh, what is this [health care legislation] going to mean politically?’  Well, let me tell you something,” said President obama. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we have done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.  If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument.”

After a lengthy meeting at the White House the previous day, House and Senate Democratic leaders signaled they had made significant progress toward resolving key issues on health care.

I know it was a long week at the White House, with non-stop negotiations with unions in an attempt to reach a health care bill compromise (yes, in the Obama administration unions make up the third House of Congress), followed by partisan meetings with Democrats to sell whatever deals were cut with the unions earlier in the week, so it is understandable that President Obama has forgotten that he is the one that has cut deals with big Pharma and the insurance industry as part of his Obamacare debacle.  The back room deals he cut, but didn’t show on C-SPAN, despite promising to do so eight times on the campaign trail.

Hot Air gives some thoughts on how Obama’s obsession could lead to a landslide for the GOP in November:

A vignette from today’s Democratic policy meeting, in which a guy whose obsession with universal health care has so destroyed his party that a Republican’s on the brink of taking Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat decides to double down for the midterms. Fun facts: Support for ObamaCare is down to 34/54 in today’s Quinnipiac poll and Republican “insiders” tell Hotline on average that they expect the GOP will gain 33 seats next year.

Be sure to head over to Hot Air and watch the video of Obama going after the GOP on Obamacare.

Share/Bookmark

While former President Bill Clinton is already in Massachusetts campaigning for Coakley, Obama has been pumping Coakley via email and Twitter and many expect him to make a trip Massachusetts if the race remains too close to call.

According to Brown, Obama may be heading to Massachusetts:

To counter Brown’s skyrocketing momentum – Brown’s campaign has raised more than $1.3 million in the past 24 hours, most of it from small donors – the president has jumped into the race behind the scenes. Obama blasted his massive campaign e-mail list with a letter praising Coakley and seeking support. Also, his Twitter feed urged supporters to make phone calls promoting Coakley’s candidacy.

So far the president has shied away from campaign directly on Coakley’s behalf in Massachusetts. But Brown says that may be about to change.

“I understand that he may be coming this weekend,” Brown told Fox News host Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. “President Clinton is here. Everybody who is part of the political establishment in Massachusetts is rallying around her … she’ll be a Washington insider and be part of the political establishment down there, be the 60th vote, shut off debate, ram things through.”

In his appearance on Fox, Brown painted himself as a determined underdog fighting the Massachusetts Democratic establishment, and openly pleaded for support.

“If people want to help, I need their help, nationally, locally – to fight the machine,” he said.

That Democrats are pulling out all the stops to win a race in dark blue Massachusetts is a shocker. Several polls now show the race is now too close to call.

With President Obama’s approval rating in the low-to-mid 40′s, and support for his Obamacare barely above 30%, it’s unclear how beneficial Obama’s campaigning will be.  In the last four months, President Obama is 0-2 in personal appearances meant to ‘close a deal’.  First, President Obama took the unprecedented step of flying to Copenhagen to make a personal plea to the Olympic committee to award Chicago the 2016 Olympics, which would have brought great financial reward to Obama supporters and friends in Chicago.  The Olympic committee opted for crime-ridden Rio de Janeiro over Obama’s home town.  Then, last month, he again traveled to Copenhagen.  This time his presence was supposed to create an international consensus on how to address climate change.  Instead, his speech and approach was uniformly criticized by the international community.

Next week we might get to see if President Obama has enough political pull left to actually get a Democrat elected in a solidly blue state.

Share/Bookmark

Foxnews has more on the President’s Congressional trip:

Striving to reach a deal on health care, President Barack Obama planned a trip to Congress on Thursday to urge rank-and-file House Democrats to yield on key issues still standing in the way of a historic legislative achievement.

Obama’s late afternoon visit comes amid intense White House negotiations with Democratic leaders aimed at settling core differences between bills passed by the House of Representatives and Senate that must be resolved before the sweeping overhaul legislation can pass.

Reforming health care is Obama’s top domestic priority.

After having key Democrats and unions negotiating at the White House this week, President Obama now will go to Capital Hill to try and heal the divide forming between House and Senate members over differences in their health care bills.

However, he continues to fail to honor his campaign pledges.  He promised at least eight times to televise health care negotiations on C-SPAN to prevent back door deals, which he has failed to do, instead opting for closed door meetings on Capital Hill and at the White House, where deals with unions have been cut and buy offs of Senators have taken place.

Candidate Barack Obama also promised to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans on key legislation, but days after taking office he declared “I won” when locking the Republicans out of the stimulus bill negotiations.  “I won” now appears to be President Obama’s mantra as he continues to lock Republicans out of health care negotiations, while he chooses to work to cut a deal with Democrats, unions and health industry lobbyists to pass Obamacare.

Share/Bookmark

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so. …

But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama’s policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.

As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says, they can’t blame this one on Rasmussen.  The stunning aspect of this poll isn’t just that Obama is trailing a potential opponent, but that he trails a ‘generic’ opponent by double digits.

These results are doubly bad.  Obviously, having half the country say they’d vote for a generic opponent isn’t good, but the sample type is the most Democrat-friendly a pollster can use.  “Adults” generate more left-leaning results than registered voters, and especially with likely voters.  If Obama can’t do better than 39% among adults, he is in deep trouble — and so are Democrats running in this year’s midterms.

It appears more and more that President Obama believes one of two things.

First, that passing his liberal agenda is worth the cost of being a one term President and that he accepts that forcing his unpopular policies on America is a suicide mission.

Second, that he believes that no matter how unpopular his liberal policies are that given enough time, he can ‘convince’ Americans that he went against their wishes for their own good, and that in the end they will thank him and reward him with a second term.

I believe that it is the second  option.  President Obama has shown time and time again that he uses a ‘close of the moment’ approach to campaigning and governing.  Saying whatever he believes his audience wants to hear, while having no intention keep any of the promises he made.  Believing, that down the road, he can ‘sell’ his audience again, based on his sheer star power and oratory skill.

The first indications of whether or not President Obama is right or wrong will come in the mid-term elections.  While he is not on any ballot, he will be campaigning heavily for the Democratic Congressmen.  If he is not able to sway voters to re-elect Democrats in tough battles, it will go a long way to sending the message that he won’t be able to convince Americans that going against their wishes was done for their own good.

Share/Bookmark

Obama told reporters that the new report is stunning, as he trumpeted the success of the stimulus bill.

President Barack Obama is trumpeting a new White House estimate that his top economist calls “stunning”: His stimulus plan has already created or saved up to 2 million jobs.

The analysis is part of the administration’s quarterly report to Congress on the controversial $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts he signed weeks after taking office.

Obama planned to highlight the report Wednesday during a visit to a Lanham, Md., training center for union electricians that specializes in “green” technology.

Republicans have denounced the stimulus plan as an expensive flop, pointing to a national unemployment rate stuck at 10 percent and December figures showing the economy shed 85,000 more jobs.

But the report from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers said the economy is a lot better off than it would have been without the stimulus. Citing its own analysis plus a range of private sector summaries, the council estimated the annual growth rate last year would have been roughly 2 percentage points lower, and there would have been 1.5 million to 2 million fewer jobs.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has some more on the White House’s latest attempt at spinning the success of the stimulus bill:

Why, I thought the White House had abandoned the “saved or created” mythology!  Apparently, they’ve only abandoned having to account for how they get the numbers.  The Washington Post reports that despite having their earlier number of 640,000 torn to shreds by the Associated Press and media outlets around the nation, the Obama administration has now tripled down on jobs saved or created.

What we do know is that President Obama told us that if the bill wasn’t passed, unemployment would reach double digits.  As we have seen, even with the passage of the pork-laden stimulus bill, unemployment reached 10%.  In fact, some estimates have the real unemployment rate between 15-22%, if you were to take into account the number of people that have fallen off the unemployment roles or who have been classified as no longer looking for jobs.

We also have seen story after story of companies that have been the recipient of stimulus funds (often as part of Congressional earmarks), where jobs were classified as ‘saved’, when in fact the number of jobs didn’t change and wouldn’t have changed whether or not the company had received stimulus funds.

So, while it is very difficult to know exactly how accurate or inaccurate this new report is, for most Americans it simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Share/Bookmark

The newest CBS news poll finally shows an approval rating that other polls have shown for months.

President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.

That rating is Mr. Obama’s lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance as president.

In last month’s CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans approved of how the president was handling his job, while thirty-nine percent disapproved.

Mr. Obama still receives strong support from Democrats (eight in ten approve of his performance), but his approval rating among Republicans is only 13 percent. More importantly, Mr. Obama’s approval rating among independents has declined 10 points in recent months – and it now stands at just 42 percent.

Domestic issues – and not his response to terrorist threats – appear to be driving the president’s approval rating downward.

Just 41 percent now approve of his handling of the economy, which Americans say is the nation’s most pressing issue. Forty-seven percent disapprove. The president’s marks on handling health care, with reforms still under debate in Congress, are even lower – just 36 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove. Both of these approval ratings are the lowest of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Hot Air has this commentary on the new CBS news poll:

Approval among indies? A robust 42 percent, which may help explain why he’s not headed to Massachusetts this week. The easy explanation here is that this is a backlash from watching him play golf after the Flight 253 attack, but tain’t so: 57 percent approve of how the administration handled that. What I think we’re looking at is steady erosion over unemployment plus the horrifying realization that the Democrats really, truly are going to pass this giant crap sandwich. In fact, aside from a couple of Harris Internet polls, his approval on health care has never been as low as 36 percent in any poll dating back to the beginning of the year. Amazing.

Share/Bookmark

Now, the White House has stated that it was a ‘different’ Bertha Lewis, but declined to give any details or information on the new Miss Lewis so that it could be confirmed that the visitor in question wasn’t the CEO of ACORN.

However, it isn’t just that the White House had a visitor with the same name as the ACORN CEO, but who happens to be a ‘different’ person.  The White House visitor logs also have visitors with the names of Malik Shabazz, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.  However, again, a White House spokesperson claims that these are ‘different’ people than their infamous counterparts.

Andrew Breitbart of BigGoverment.com has this on the phantom visitors:

Since we have no information on how to hunt down the “other” Bertha Lewis — Ms. Psaki wouldn’t reveal who she is, citing “privacy concerns” — Big Government will err on the side of prudence and grant the White House its side of the story. I did ask Smith to find out biographical details on the other Wright, Ayers and Shabazz, but apparently privacy concerns apply to them, as well.

I end with this question: What is the point of the White House issuing visitor logs if those named can’t be identified and verified?  “Transparency” would seem to call for nothing less, especially when those innocent people could easily be confused with the head of an organization recently defunded by Congress, a controversial preacher who shouted “God Damn America,” and an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

So, while there certainly are lots of people in this country with the same name, we have to ask what the odds of having four people visit the White House that just happen to have the same names as four very controversial people that Barack Obama has had previous tight ties to?

Share/Bookmark

President Obama pointed out that Yemen is grappling with crushing poverty, but left out the fact that the Nigerian terrorist came from a rich family that was only crushed by mint juleps and country club tea times.

What does Yemen’s poverty have to do with a rich kid from Nigeria trying to blow up a US airliner?

It’s time to stop making excuses for Muslim terrorists and start protecting this country, Mr. President.

Share/Bookmark

While I think their are many “amateur moments” that could have won the Obamateurism of the year award, I have no qualms with their choice of his public response to the Fort Hood shooting.  Like with the failed attempt to blow up the Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas day, when he made his initial public comments about the Fort Hood shooting, he appeared both disinterested and as if he was trying to down play the terrorist action.

President Obama gave a speech that could have be translated as “oh, by the way there was a little incident at Fort Hood today.  We are still getting details, but a decorated Major in the Army, who happens to be a devout Muslim and I applaud him for that, allegedly, and I want to emphasize allegedly, shot and I might add again, allegedly, killed 13 soldiers on the base.  While the details we have are still fuzzy, what we do know is that the civilian police officer who shot and paralyzed Major Hassan acted stupidly.  I had hoped after my teachable moment when I stated on national TV that Detective Crowley and the Cambridge police department acted stupidly for doing their jobs, that white police officers would be much slower to take action against minorities committing crimes.  While I’m sure she meant well, I think Sergeant Munley should be ashamed of herself for paralyzing a true Muslim hero, in Major Nadal.”

Ok, clearly I took some editorial liberties with my translation, but the point is that with President Obama, his friends and terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, EVEN when they have confessed to breaking the law, but the American men and women protecting this country as soldiers or police officers are presumed guilty, until proven innocent.

What’s wrong with this picture?

I guess that’s why Hot Air has plenty of material for their Obamateurism of the day.

On to the quote of the year. Hot Air nominated these quotes for their quote of the year:

• “You lie!”
• “Let me be clear”
• “I hope he fails”
• “The system worked”
• “Hide the decline”
• “B+”
• “I won”

While I believe that Representative Joe Wilson’s “You Lie” outburst during the state of the union will win, it is not what I would vote for in that poll.  While I think Wilson was wrong for how he called the President out, I believe he was accurate in his assessment.  Unfortunately, this President does lie to get what he wants.  Whether it is the fear mongering he does with his misstatements about doctors amputating feet for a quick $50 thousand dollars, or that parents should be afraid that their child’s pediatrician will cut out their kids tonsils for a quick buck, rather than giving them an antibiotic or sending them for an allergy test, he has consistently lied or told half truths in order to try and further his liberal agenda.  In the case of the State of the Union, the lies were in regard to illegals and abortions being covered by Obamacare.

However, while I think that quote was a big story this year, I think the four little letters that spell “I won” are the winners of the quote of the year.  Senator Barack Obama campaigned on changing how Washington works, and touted his long record of reaching across the aisle.  He told us how he would heal the deep divide between the left and the right, and that he would work closely with Republicans in Congress on key legislation.

Well, in the words of Joe Wilson, “you lie” Mr. President.

Just days after he took office, when he and the Democrats were saying we must pass an emergency stimulus bill or the economy would collapse.  The Republicans were completely cut out of the negotiations  that ultimately led to a $700+ billion stimulus package that also incidentally had 5,000+ earmarks.  Joe, let’s hear it again, “you lie,” since the President said he was serious about earmark reform and would go line by line through every bill put on his desk to make sure no bill loaded with earmarks was passed.

Back to the quote of the year.  When House and Senate Republicans went to the White House to voice concerns about the amount of spending and earmarks in the Stimulus bill, Obama’s reply was to simply state matter of factly, “I won.”

Those two small words, four little letters, set the tone for Obama’s first year in office.  He has not been the great uniter he promised.  He has not changed how Washington works (unless you count bringing Chicago style politics and intimidation to the White House as ‘change’).   Instead, the gang of three (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) are running Washington in a completely partisan fashion.  Literally and figuratively locking Republicans out from having any involvement or input on key legislation as the gang of three tick off items on their liberal wish list.

So, I believe that “I won” wins hands down, because while their might have been concerns that President Obama would lead a far left, partisan takeover of Washington, until he said “I won” we didn’t know for sure.

Share/Bookmark

The disapproval for President Obama’s actions and decisions continues to grow, seemingly on a daily basis.

The newest Rasmussen Reports poll shows a clear disconnect between the American voters and Obama and the liberal elites.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.

…

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

Unlike the President and Pelosi and her gang of liberals outraged by the use of ‘advanced interogation’ techniques, the majority of Americans believe the government should use agressive interogation techniques on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and attempt to stop future terrorist attacks from killing American citizens.  The citizens of this country want the government to use all means to stop a future 9/11, which Obama and Janet Napolitano would simply call another ‘man-made natural disaster’.

Further, the poll shows a reaction consistant with the outrage over Obama’s decision to try the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in NYC, with an overwhelming majority of voters believing that the failed Christmas day terrorist attack should be investigated by the military and not civilian authorities.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air provides a further break down of the poll numbers:

Let’s look inside the numbers, where the responses get very, very interesting.  Rasmussen’s analysis says men are more likely than women to break out the waterboard, but a majority of women (54%) favor its use on Abdulmutallab, too.  Older voters may be less likely to approve of its use, but it still wins a plurality among 50-64 year olds (49%) and senior citizens (48%), outstripping opposition by double digits in both cases.  Democrats give waterboarding a thin plurality (43/41), while 60% of independents favor its use.  A majority of self-described moderates (51%) favor it as well.

So far, the response to using the criminal system is almost uniformly negative, with 71% saying that the military should be handling the issue.  Women are more likely than men (75/66) to have that reaction.  Among age demographics, the lowest percentage agreeing was 67% among the 50-64 demo.  Sixty percent of Democrats want it handled by the military, with only 30% agreeing with the Obama administration.  Even 50% of self-described liberals want the military handling Abdulmutallab, not the FBI.  Only among the political class does Obama gain majority support, 60/33 in favor of civilian handling of the terrorist.

The more time passes, the more it is clear that President Obama and his merry gang of liberals in his cabinet and in Congress simply are out of touch with what the American people want and believe in.  Or, a more likely scenario is that they fully understand what the American voters want, but simply don’t care, believing their liberal ‘dream’ for America is worth destroying the America we now know and love.

Share/Bookmark

The President has alluded to being ‘tired’ in recent interviews, and his friends and advisers have talked about the same.  Stating that he is sleeping less than President Bush (it always seems to come back to the former administration in some way) and is often making due on less sleep than he needs.

Part of that comes with the job.  As the leader of the free world, the stress and fatigue a United States President faces is apparent to all.  Every US President can be seen to visibly age quicker and beyond their four to eight years in office.  However, part of the problem lays with Obama himself.  He has chosen to routinely travel the globe having made ten trips overseas.  Early on, he made multiple trips on his worldwide apology tour, where he continued to decry American policies and apologize to the world for what he believes are America’s mistakes.

Add to the apology tour his two failed trips to Copenhagen.  First, the unprecedented step of trying to sell the International Olympic Committee on the idea of having the Olympics in Chicago, which would have greatly benefited friends and supporters of Obama’s from his hometown of Chicago.  Then, earlier this month he went to Copenhagen for the climate change conference, where he received universal criticism from the international community for the speech he gave.  Sandwiched in between was his trip to Oslo to receiver his Nobel Peace prize, which still has most of the world scratching their head and wondering what the selection committee was thinking.

So, the President is tired.

The question remains, what kind of signal does his initial silence and continued vacation and seeming disinterest send to the American public?  A public that were struggling to come to grips with the news that a terrorist smuggled a bomb on a plane and only due to a malfunctioning  detonator, or incompetent terrorist, did hundreds of Americans survive that flight. A public that witnessed their Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tell them that the ‘system worked’ when being asked on the Sunday talk shows about the failed terrorist bombing.  A public that has read that the terrorist bomber confessed to being trained by Al Qaeda and stated that he was the first of many plane bombers. A public that knows the bomber was on a US watch list and who’s father reported him to the US embassy, because of his radical views against America.  Yet, we have been told that the ‘system worked’ as designed.

But, the President is tired.

The President that has spent more time in front of the camera and had more prime-time national press conferences than any President before him, took three days to speak to America following the bombing attempt. When he finally did speak, even though the American public already had details of the type and size of the bomb and knew details of the confession, Obama’s brief exit from the golf course resulted in a few carefully chosen words about the ‘subject’ and ‘allegedly’ trying to blow up a plane, as if there was some other reason for the 80 grams of high-explosive PETN and detonator hidden in his underwear.

Michelle Malkin is among those that are less than impressed with President Obama’s handling of the attempted terrorist attack:

Five days after the Christmas Day bomber tried to blow up NWA Flight 253 over Detroit, President Obama is still on vacation in Hawaii. He has delivered two hasty, tie-less statements on homeland security from a makeshift podium in Honolulu whose underwhelming sum impact has been the equivalent of voting “present” (Obama’s career m.o.) By his own admission and in direct contradiction to his hapless DHS Secretary, the president acknowledged yesterday that “systemic failure” led to the breach.

Obama is not scheduled to return to Washington until Sunday. That’s four more full days of reinforcing his image as detached, aloof, and too damned tired to tackle the jihadi epidemic with the once-hyped energy and passion of a 48-year-old Super-Agent of Hope and Change.

Poll after poll shows that President Obama is losing the American public.  The fact that Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, insinuated that this attack was President Bush’s fault, will not change the growing public sentiment that unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration is soft on terrorism.  President Obama has routinely apologized for what he sees as our ‘mistakes’ in dealing with the Muslim world.  He mandated that the term ‘war on terror’ not be used by his administration.  He believes terrorists and enemy combatants should be given the same rights as lawful US citizens, including mandating that FBI agents mirandize captured enemy combatants in Afghanistan and inform them of their ‘rights’ as if they were US citizens arrested on US soil.  He has made the unpopular decision to try in New York city the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks and destruction of the World Trade Center, giving them all of the rights and benefits of US citizens, rather than trying them in a military tribunal as originally planned.

Now, Obama’s ‘golf as usual’ reaction to the failed terrorist attempt to blow up a US airliner combined with what appeared to be disinterest in his belated address to the American public, leaves Americans scratching their heads and wondering what it will take, how many people will have to die, before President Obama is willing to declare a war on terrorism.

Share/Bookmark

Over the weekend, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stuck with the Obama administration’s playbook, by insinuating that the blame for the failed airline bombing attempt should lay with the former administration.  Saying that because the Bush administration had put the focus on Iraq, the US had lost sight of the terrorists that mean to do the US harm.

Also on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made news when she declared that “the system worked” when discussing the terrorist attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet.  That ‘system’ allowed a man who had been reported to the US Embassy by his father, to board a plane with a bomb.  Only through his own incompetence or a technical malfunction, was the plane not destroyed and the passengers aboard it killed.

Then, yesterday, the President seemed disinterested, when after three days of security briefings, and press reports about the bomber confessing and saying that more bombers would follow him, the President referred to the subject ‘allegedly’ trying to ignite a bomb.

So, after three days of Presidential silence, which included blunders by his press secretary and Homeland Security Secretary, the President once again addressed the issue.  This time, the President referred to “the warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America,” Obama said. “A systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable.”  He went on to add that a mix of “human and systemic failures” contributed to what could have been a “catastrophic breach of security.”

The ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air has some addition commentary on the President’s damage control:

And so we finally reach Step 5 of The One’s damage-control protocol. There’s nothing interesting about this except the politics of it: He had to undo Napolitano’s moronic gaffe from Sunday and the perception that he wasn’t taking this as seriously as everyone who isn’t lounging on Waikiki this week, so here’s the obligatory two-birds-with-one-stone CYA. The choice of the words “systemic failure” is, needless to say, no accident.

Share/Bookmark

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home” said Obama on national TV.

Fast forward to today, and after taking three days to address the public about the attempted terror plot to blow up a US airliner, the President said:

Here’s what we know so far: On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit. As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.

Allegedly.  A decorated Cambridge police officer was tried and convicted on a national stage by President Obama when he didn’t have all the facts, but after days of being briefed by his national security staff, the Al Qaeda trained terrorist who attempted to blow up a US airliner is given the benefit of the doubt — allegedly.

Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Corner had this reaction:

If we know it, how “allegedly” can it be? And we do know it, right? I mean there are lots of witnesses, we have identified the device and the explosive and the guy has reportedly admitted what he was trying to do. And al Qaeda has admitted they were behind the plot (or at least an al Qaeda website says so). But the commander-in-chief still says “allegedly.”

Where does it end?  The President has declared that the phrase “war on terror” shall not be used by the administration.  He has conducted world-wide apology tours, decrying the mistakes and injustices the United States has committed against other nations.  He has made what at best can be termed a naive decision to have the terrorists that masterminded the 9/11 attacks put on trial in New York city, and given all the rights of US citizens.  He has mandated that prisoners captured in Afghanistan are mirandized by FBI agents before being questioned.  The list goes on and on.

The American people expect their President to begin standing up for them, the way he has for his friend Professor Gates, and the Muslim community at large.

Mr. President, sometimes words matter and after ‘allegedly’ being briefed for three days, we expected you to choose your words more wisely.

Share/Bookmark

The AP is reporting that Obama left his golf outing abruptly for ‘personal matter’ and that an ambulance sped to first family’s vacation residence.

More to follow…

Update: What is being reported is that the child of one of Obama’s friends was hurt (bumped head) while taking a surfing lesson.  The father was golfing with Obama, and they wanted to get back to check on the child.  The child was treated at the scene and not taken to a hospital.

Share/Bookmark

Multiple polls have shown the President is losing the middle and the left, as they slowly realize that he is not the agent of change they bargained for.

The Gateway Pundit reports on the latest example of the left lashing out at President Obama:

The kooks at Fire Dog Lake were looking for some sort of Churchillian “progressive” but wound up with a 21st century Chamberlain instead.

The times call for a leader of Churchillian or Rooseveltian magnitude; what we have instead is a cautious risk-averse manager. Bold progressives must fill the leadership vacuum in order to restore and support a vibrant US middle class…

BHO’s decision to embrace modest stimulus enraged libertarians and conservatives who wanted to let the Free Market reign and disappointed progressive liberals who identified the need for a momentous government employment initiative that would restart and sustain the nation’s economic engine while preparing our infrastructure for the next generation in a changing energy environment.

BHO’s demonstrated personal need to achieve consensus during crisis and his failure to assert bold leadership on economic recovery and employment set the stage for the health care debate. In order to avoid alienating big campaign donors he allowed the playing field to shift to a focus on major health insurers and pharmaceutical companies (with their incestuous big bank brothers and sisters cheering from the sidelines). They were able, with the complicity of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, to exploit BHO’s self-imposed Christmas 2009 deadline and his apparently congenital aversion to conflict (expressed as the goal of a “bipartisan” bill, which he did not achieve anyway!).

President Obama continues to do the ONE thing he has experience doing — campaigning.  Attempting to ‘convince’ voters with his words, rather than his actions.

Share/Bookmark

If there was any doubt, President Obama’s first year in office has proven that there is a big difference between the man and his campaign promises.  Fiscal responsibility, earmark reform, health care debate televised on C-SPAN, reaching across the aisle, etc., etc., etc.  The list of broken promises is long and growing.

As we’ve documented multiple times, Senator Barack Obama promised “absolutely, we need earmark reform,” he said in the first presidential debate. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”  A promise he has made no attempt to keep.

In fact, after the pork filled stimulus was passed shortly after Obama took office, an administration official was asked about the thousands of the earmarks it contained, and the response was, “it was the price of getting the bill passed” and that it’s how Washington works.   This from the campaign that told us they would change the way Washington does business.

The Hill documents President Obama’s failure to honor his campaign promise of earmark reform:

Earmarks are expected to total nearly $12 billion in fiscal 2010, according to fiscal watchdog groups. While that number is less than the $15 billion total in 2009, lawmakers from both parties said Obama hasn’t kept up the kind of pressure he showed during his first weeks in office or that he promised as a candidate.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said Obama made earmark reform “a very big part of [his] campaign” but still signed this month two massive spending measures that both included approximately $4 billion in earmarks.

Feingold, who broke with his party to oppose both the $447 billion 2010 omnibus spending bill and the $636 billion 2010 Pentagon spending bill, said the president could have used his veto pen to reject the measures and force lawmakers to cut earmark funding.

“We’ve got to have a fresh start next year, and I’ve signaled that if they want my vote, they’ve got to stop just signing onto huge numbers of earmarks,” Feingold said.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air discusses Obama’s inability to stand up to Reid and Pelosi:

If Feingold suddenly expects Obama to start demonstrating leadership in 2010, he’s as sunny an optimist as ever Washington DC has seen.  Obama has made himself into one of the weakest Presidents vis-a-vis Congress in the last century, mainly through his own lack of serious engagement.  Pelosi and Reid run the show, and Obama apparently contents himself with sitting around waiting for their instructions while busying himself with a speech here and a TV appearance there.  Empty suits do not issue vetoes and stand up to porkers.

Hope and change.  “I will change the way Washington works” said President Obama.

I’m sorry Mr. President, but I don’t think this is change we can believe in.

Share/Bookmark

The National Review explains Obama’s surprising move:

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).

The number one question that has to be asked is simply, “why?”  Why did Obama decide to grant a level of immunity and free reign to an international police force that our very own law enforcement agents don’t have?

Share/Bookmark

He railed against President Bush and his administration.  He talked about the inhumane conditions of Guantanamo Bay.  How its very existence  was a recruiting tool for terrorists around the world, and that closing it would be one of this top priorities.

In August of 2007, as part of his four year campaign for President, then Senator Barack Obama said, “as president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.”

Just days after taking the oath of office, President Obama signed an executive order that stated the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would be closed within one year:

The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention atGuantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

President Obama also promised during his campaign and announced with great fanfare that military tribunals would come to an end.  A promise he quietly backtracked on and instead has had many detainees continue to receive military tribunals. Even if the detainees are eventually moved to a US facility, he now intends to have military tribunals conducted in department of correction facilities where the terrorists are housed.

Add his “closed within one year” promise to the long list of promises that President Obama has failed to live up to.  With Congress balking at his funding request to buy an Illinois prison, the White House finds itself with its hands tied.

Obama administration officials have quietly been saying the closure of Gitmo and transfer of detainees could take another year or longer:

But in interviews this week, officials estimated that it could take 8 to 10 months to install new fencing, towers, cameras and other security upgrades before any transfers take place. Such construction cannot begin until the federal government buys the prison from the State of Illinois.

The federal Bureau of Prisons does not have enough money to pay Illinois for the center, which would cost about $150 million. Several weeks ago, the White House approached the House Appropriations Committee and floated the idea of adding about $200 million for the project to the military spending bill for the 2010 fiscal year, according to administration and Congressional officials.

But Democratic leaders refused to include the politically charged measure in the legislation. When lawmakers approved the bill on Dec. 19, it contained no financing for Thomson.

The majority of Americans are against 9/11 and other Gitmo terrorists being tried in US courts, but instead state they prefer that they receive military tribunals.  In addition, Americans overwhelming oppose (more than 2-1) the transfer of Gitmo detainees to US soil.  These facts don’t appear to be lost on the Democrats in Congress that are afraid of a backlash in the 2010 mid-term elections.

ALLAHPUNDIT of Hot Air sums it up nicely:

What are the odds that Reid and Pelosi, staring at a GOP wipeout in November, are going to push funding for a signature national security issue opposed by 64 percent of the public mere months before the election? They’d have to be as stupid as, say, The One was when he promised to close Gitmo by January despite not knowing (a) how soon the case against each detainee could be prepared, (b) how willing other countries would be to take prisoners, and (c) whether any alternate facilities were available and, if not, how hard it would be politically to get one built in mainland America. I guess his plan, as always, was to say a few words, fire off some Hopenchange charisma starbursts, and trust that everything would fall into place. The result: Copenhagen, ObamaCare, and a 48 percent approval rating.

Just like with his decision to pull the public option from the Senate Obamacare bill and the troop increase in Afghanistan, Obama is dealing with an uprising from his far-left base.  Until the last couple months of the general election, Obama ran a very liberal campaign, pandering to the far left.  Now that he is in office, he is trying to talk his way past all of his broken promises, but for his ‘true believers’, they didn’t see them as campaign promises, but instead saw them as Obama’s promise to fundamentally change America.

The more time that passes, Americans are learning that Obama’s idea of change is not change we can believe in.

Share/Bookmark

Obama Speaks to Youngsters

The youth vote was a major piece of Barack Obama winning the 2008 Presidential primary and general election. Young, college-age voters, tend to have strong socialist views of the world. They believe the wealthy have too much money, that big companies steal from their consumers and should be punished, and they look up to tyrants like Fidel Castro.

Barack Obama pandered to these idealistic and socialistic views, and as a result took a vast majority of the young voters. However, the young voters expected President Obama to keep his campaign promises. They expected him to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to immediately close down Guantanamo Bay. They expected him to implement universal health care, preferably as a single payer system. They expected him to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The list of broken promises is growing daily and they are documented at Liberal Whoppers.

In return for the socialist dream President Barack Obama fed them, the young voters followed him with cult-like zeal. They blogged about him, created and uploaded YouTube videos, went to rallies and volunteered for him, and so much more.

Eleven months into his presidency and reality is setting in. President Obama isn’t changing how Washington does business for the better. He isn’t reaching across the aisle to foster bi-partisan debate. Three bills under his watch have contained a total of over 13,000 earmarks. The White House has been far from transparent as he promised. The lack of transparency is so bad that even the liberal press is calling him out. He sold young Americans hope and change, but they didn’t fully understand what the ‘change’ would really be..

Ed Lasky of American Thinker:

Obama owes his presidency to the ranks of 18-24 year olds who overwhelmingly supported him over John McCain (66-32 percent). He tapped into their idealistic yearnings with promises to heal the divisions of our nation, to end the rancor of partisanship, and to stop the rise of the oceans. He would restore our international popularity and bring health care to the masses (without adding a dime to the deficit). He was a celebrity they could enjoy listening to and hearing from. In contrast, John McCain was old and uncool, and by making him an avatar of George Bush, the Obama campaign tapped into a deep well of anger toward George Bush.

He made them promises symbolized by hope and change.

But those promises have been broken, and so has much of the enthusiasm of millions of voters who supported him. Even Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, bemoans the fact that the young have fallen by the wayside:

Only 41 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds, a key constituency for Democrats in both 2006 and 2008, are likely to vote, compared to 49 percent likely to sit things out.

Only time will tell whether or not President Obama can regain the youth movement for the 2012 election, which won him the 2008 election. it seems very unlikely that the young voters will turn out in great numbers for the 2010 mid-term elections, which will certainly hurt the Democratic Party. The huge gains in the House and Senate were due in large part to candidates riding the wave of excitement that Obama created for the Presidential election.

For many young voters, they now refuse to blindly follow President Obama, but instead are taking a wait and see approach — waiting to see if he lives up to his campaign promises of bringing the European style socialism to America.

Share/Bookmark

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

Share/Bookmark

Barack Obama

In eleven short months, President Obama’s approval rating has fallen so far that he now has the lowest approval rating ever for a President at this point in his term. How did President Obama fall so far, so fast?

In his first four months in office, President Obama enjoyed an approval rating approaching 70%. In recent weeks, his approval rating has dipped below 50%. This massive drop in approval rating cannot come from Republicans alone, but indicates that both independents and Democrats have become disenfranchised with President Obama. In fact, recent polls have shown him falling as much as 12% among Democrats alone.

Through his first eleven months, President Obama has managed to alienate both the left and the right — not an easy task. To understand why more and more Americans are becoming unhappy with his leadership, we first need to look at some of the promises that President Obama made during the campaign and in the early months of his Presidency.

Some of Barack Obama’s promises are:

• Change the way Washington works
• Bring transparency to the White House
• Fiscal responsibility — restore ‘pay as you go’ and tell Congress they can only spend a dollar if they save a dollar
• Have all health care negotiations televised on C-SPAN
• Work in a bi-partisan fashion not seen before
• Not allow federal dollars to fund abortion
• Require a strong public option in the health care bill

Liberal democrats feel that President Obama has turned his back on them, his greatest supporters. They see his decision to increase the troop level in Afghanistan as nearly unforgiveable. They don’t like the fact that he hasn’t told congress that any health care bill without a public option is a non-starter, because liberals view the public option as the stepping stone to the ultimate goal, which is a single payer system.

Independents and moderate Democrats believed President Obama’s promise of transparency and changing how Washington works. They believed him when he said he would be fiscally responsible and when during the first presidential debate he promised that “absolutely, we need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

Instead of transparency and bi-partisanship, the President joked, “I won” when asked why Republicans weren’t involved in authoring the stimulus bill. Instead of bipartisan negotiations on health care reform televised on C-SPAN, Democratic Senators and Congressmen held closed door meetings and negotiations that Republicans were not allowed to attend. President Obama was not only aware of these negotiations, but attended some of the sessions.

His promise of fiscal responsibility and fighting earmarks now rings hollow. The two budget bills and stimulus bill contain over 15,000 earmarks. The US Government is set to run at least a $1.9 trillion budget deficit, and the White House has asked Congress to pass a bill increasing the national debt ceiling by almost $2 trillion, bringing it to $14 trillion. When President Bush left office, the national debt was $10.8 trillion.

It is much easier to understand why conservatives are unhappy with President Obama. In short, they view him as the fiscally irresponsible, partisan president that they feared prior to the election.

When left-wing sites like the Huffington Post start to call out President Obama, it isn’t good news for the President. David Sirota writes about the demoralized Democratic base, “destroying a political base often isn’t only about one single issue… it’s about a set of issues and, even further, an overall feeling of demoralization — one that can’t be turned around a few weeks before an election with some cynical press releases and inspiring speeches.”

It is time for President Obama to stop campaigning, and start being the Commander in Chief, the leader of both our country and the free world. On the campaign trail, you can get away with changing your position and promises, based on the group you are addressing. As President, you are held to a much higher standard.

Many critics of President Obama said that the only real experience he had was campaigning. His first eleven months in office are making those claims ring true.

Share/Bookmark

It is only three months since Barack Obama’s last failure in Copenhagen.  In September, the President traveled to the International Olympic Committee meeting in Copenhagen to try and sell Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics.   President Obama was betting on the fact that his presence would sway the committee in his favor.  His unprecedented move ended in failure, as the committee chose crime-riddled Rio de Janeiro over Obama’s home town.

Since that time, things have gone from bad to worse for the President.  His approval rating has plummeted to a level never seen before for a President at this point in his first term.  Polls show that most Americans do not have faith in his handling of the economy or health care reform.  He has lost the support of his far left base, due to his compromises on the health care bill and his decision to increase troops in Afghanistan.

Now, Obama who just 12 months ago was the darling of the international community, is now taking sharp criticism abroad.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air reports on the negative reactions to Obama’s speech in Copenhagen:

Obama feted Singh just this month, saying that they should be impressed that India got first crack at Obama’s state dinner agenda.  Apparently, Singh was less impressed than Obama presumed.

Meanwhile, Obama is getting some pretty bad reviews for his intervention in Copenhagen … from his once-adoring admirers.  Since this comes from the Left’s major newspaper in the UK, where political biases are openly acknowledged in the media, this may seem like good news for those worried that Barack Obama would give away the store in Copenhagen.  We needn’t have worried; Obama turned out to be just as effective on the world stage as he has been at home in finding compromises here at home.  The Right has no illusions about Obama, but the disillusionment from the Left is rather amusing.

Frustrated with the lack of progress and Obama’s failure to make the promises they expected, the Chinese and Indian delegations walked out of Copenhagen talks:

India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail.

Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility must be adhered to and developed countries must honour their commitments, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said at the climate meet.

The UK Guardian, a decidedly liberal paper,  had little good to say about Obama’s speech:

[Obama's] speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

The Guardian also reports that there was much criticism of Obama following his speech:

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

Health care and climate change were two of President Obama’s major agendas during the campaign.  He has clearly failed to live up to the promises that he made to his liberal base in America.  While he was able to get Pelosi to rush through a cap and trade bill so quickly that no members of the House had time to read it, the Senate has refused to simply rubber stamp his cap and trade agenda.  The failure to get any commitment from the Senate left President Obama in a position of not being able to make concrete promises in Copenhagen, which resulted in a backlash from the international community.

Now, President Obama will travel back to Washington to try and force a health care bill through the Senate, even though NO senator other than Harry Reid has seen or read it.  Time will tell whether Obama will have better success forcing through a health care bill than he had with the cap and trade bill.

To date, Obama has been relying on ‘star power’ to sell his policy positions, but clearly he is a fading star.

Share/Bookmark

In recent weeks, polls have shown large approval rating drops among Democratic voters; that he has lost the support of most independents and middle-class voters; that two ‘large turnout’ groups (young voters and African American voters) from the 2008 elections that helped put him in office have become disenfranchised and have indicated most will not vote in 2010 and possibly 2012; multiple polls show President Obama’s approval rating in the mid 40′s and not only his lowest, but the lowest of any president at this point in a Presidential term; and,  a poll released yesterday showing that only 32% of Americans feel that Obama’s health care plan is a ‘good idea’.

Every day, it seems a new body blow is delivered in terms of backlash from American voters to the Obama administration.

Now, a Gallup poll shows that 64% of Americans oppose the closing of Guantanamo Bay and moving the terrorists to US soil:

Americans remain opposed to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and moving some of the terrorist suspects being held there to U.S. prisons: 30% favor such actions, while 64% do not. These attitudes could present a significant roadblock for President Obama at a time when he seeks congressional approval to move terrorist suspects from Guantanamo to a converted state prison in northwestern Illinois

Bruce McQuain from QandO has this take on this newest poll:

I think perhaps the promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – a supposed symbol of American shame – and the subsequent inability to do so is symbolic of how inept, to this point, this administration has been.  President Obama, while a candidate, had a guaranteed applause line each time he promised to close the facility.  The left had so thoroughly demonized it that it was prime red-meat for every campaign rally.  And, in fact, Obama signed an executive order on his first day in office ordering it closed.

And here we are, a year later, with the facility still open and the administration still dithering about what to do with the inmates.  In the meantime, the American public has come to realize that it is the inmates that are the problem, not where the inmates are incarcerated.  Closing Gitmo doesn’t solve a thing.   In fact, the public realizes, it forces some very unappetizing choices – like housing those we deem to dangerous to our country to release not in some isolated prison on a island far away, but in the heartland of America.

All of the recent polls and public backlash lead us to this question:  Is President Obama and the Democrats in Congress that out of touch with America, or do they realize and except that what they are doing is a ‘suicide mission’?

Share/Bookmark

Here’s a taste of the polling data from Hotair.com:

They [Democratic health-care bill] never cracked 40 percent and now they’re so far gone that it’s essentially become a suicide mission. In fact, for the second day in a row, the only real bright spot on health care is the number that would have supported the now-dead Medicare buy-in. 58 percent say thumbs up, 32 percent say thumbs down. Let me know if and when someone dares to poll that question while listing potential adverse consequences or trade-offs.

As for the tea-party numbers, we already knew they were more popular than the GOP, but now, thanks to O-Care, they’ve lapped the Democrats too. Ironclad proof of a surge in fiscally conservative populism across the nation? Sure, to some extent. But this helps explain it too.

Head over to Hot Air to read the rest of the commentary and view the charts.

Share/Bookmark

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has more on the base closure threat:

How desperate has the White House become to get anything passed under the name of health-care reform?  According to Michael Goldfarb’s source on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration has targeted the last remaining Democratic holdout, at least among moderates — and they’re willing to damage national security to extort his support.  The White House has threatened Ben Nelson (D-NE) with the closure of Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska if he opposes Reid’s latest version, despite its status as the headquarters of US Strategic Command:

According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

If this story turns out to be accurate, then President Obama’s critics are right, and we have brought Chicago style politics and tactics to the White House.  Threatening to close down the base where STRATCOM is located, in order to force a Senator to vote against his conscious, is well, unconscionable.  This is a base that is vital to national security and should not be a chip in President Obama’s personal high-stakes poker game.

This process should be about open debate where Senators vote for what they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and the United States.  There is no place for threats and blackmail in the legislative process, as there should be no place for ‘buying off’ Senators for their votes.

Most Americans didn’t approve of how Washington worked before Barack Obama took office, but they will have very little patience for his bringing Chicago style political tactics to the White House.

Does anyone have any questions left on Obama’s “we will change the way Washington works”?

Share/Bookmark

If you look at on 09 return you will see that the making work pay credit appears separately as a 400 or 800 dollar credit. It isn’t meant to be in the tax tables. So, actually you are getting the usual adjustment for inflation credit of 156 or 210 plus the 400 or 800 making work pay credit.

Here was the original story that now appear incorrect.

While there were many jokes about the $400 tax cut that President Obama announced with great fanfare, it looks like the White House has quietly halved what they titled the Making Work Pay Tax Credit Program.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has found:

As we can see, we’re solidly in the middle class, well above the national average income of $50,000, and the tax cut only comes to $156 — less than half of what Obama promised. However, some may claim that Obama promised that tax cut to middle-class families, which means we should be looking at the Head of Household columns instead.  Of course, the withholding got reduced on an individual basis, which means single filers will have more taxes to pay at the end of the year, but it’s a fair point.

This time, let’s look at the family tax rate difference between 2008 and 2009, all the way through to $88,000 per year.  That’s four times the poverty level, and it’s where the federal government would cut off health-insurance subsidies in ObamaCare if it passes.

While it was a running joke that the highly promoted tax cut would only pay for a couple cups of Starbucks a week, the fact that it appears to be even less than announced will raise some eyebrows.

Share/Bookmark

The Washington Examiner reports this sobering news:

Today’s report from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a sobering read:

Over the past year alone, the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038.However, before the debt reached such high levels, the United States would almost certainly experience a debt-driven crisis — something previously viewed as almost unfathomable in the world’s largest economy.
“Public debt” refers to the portion of the debt not held by the government in its various trust funds

The solution, the report states, must revolve around reforms to “programs that are growing faster than the economy — notably Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and certain tax policies.” (The latter is identified elsewhere as the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.) These cheery-eyed suggestions are the most frightening part of the report. They are so obvious, and they have so little chance of being put into effect.

The spending by President Obama and the Democrats in Washington simply can’t be sustained.

Share/Bookmark

Foxnews reports that an official announcement will be made on Tuesday:

Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo.

Administration officials as well as Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will make an official announcement at the White House.

Officials from both the White House and Durbin’s office confirmed that President Barack Obama had directed the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a sleepy town near the Mississippi River about 150 miles from Chicago.

A Durbin spokesman said the facility would house federal inmates and no more than 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

President Obama feels a great sense of urgency in making this move quickly, as support among the left has slowly eroded, and took a major blow when he announced the Afghanistan troop increase.  Liberal sites like the Huffington Post and Daily KOS are reporting that President Obama’s broken campaign promises are demoralizing his far-left base.  Closing Gitmo was one of his major campaign promises that played well with far-left liberals.

While this move plays well with his liberal base, much of America is not happy with Obama’s plan to try the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks in New York, or this move of Gitmo terrorists to US soil.

We will report on this further as the story develops.

Share/Bookmark

Yet another liberal whopper.

Valley News had this report, MN among states to cut cancer screenings:

As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn’t known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers. “I cried and I panicked,” said Erin LaBarge, 47. This would have been her third straight year receiving a free mammogram through the screening program in St. Lawrence County. But the Norwood, N.Y., resident was told she couldn’t get her free mammogram this year because there isn’t enough money and she’s not old enough.

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50. “It’s a scary thought. It really is,” said LaBarge, who fears she’s at a higher risk because her grandmother died of breast cancer.

The Say Anything Blog summarizes the situation very well in their post 20 States Have Now Cut Funding For Mammograms After Government Task Force Recommendations:

Now we can argue about whether or not the taxpayers should be footing the bill for free cancer screenings in the first place (they shouldn’t).  We can argue about whether or not these are prudent cuts from overburdened state budgets (they probably are).  But the point here is that when the government provides you with health care they tend to ration it.  They make decisions for you, and those decisions aren’t usually so much made with your best interests in mind but theirs.

The fact is that this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.  This is exactly what the Democrats in Washington mean when they talk about bending the cost curve.  When they talk about the large percentage of lifetime medical costs that occur in the last year of life.  The ONLY way you reduce the end of life costs, is to deny treatment or ration treatment.  The way the Democrats plan to ‘bend the cost curve’ is to ration treatments.

This is what is done in other countries.  This year, in a cost cutting measure, the UK’s National Health Service changed their policy on giving steroid injections.  They changed the rules so that only people that had backpain for one year or had a definitive diagnosis, could receive steroid injections.  This despite the fact that doctors said that this change would leave tens of thousands of patients in severe pain, with no remedy available.  Why was this done?  It was a cost cutting measure that was expected to save the UK over $50 million annually.

Welcome to a glimpse into our future.

Share/Bookmark

The American people clearly don’t agree, as his approval ratings keep hitting new lows.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air details how President Obama’s approval rating has plummeted in two key groups: independents and middle class voters:

The flight of independents continues, in other words.  They’re more disillusioned than the electorate as a whole, with a -28 on the index and more than a 2-1 showing for strongly disapproving to strongly approving.  Among seniors, it’s -29, and even the under-30 crowd has him at a -2.  According to Rasmussen, Obama has also lost the middle class, noting that his weakest income demographics come from earners between $40K – $100K per year.

We have already documented how the youth vote has abandoned Obama and now we see he has lost the middle class and independents.  Combine this with liberal sites like the Huffington post reporting on the demoralized liberal base, and President Obama is digging himself a very large hole he must dig out of before the 2012 election.

There is still almost three years left to the 2012 elections, so he has time to recover, but the first step will be to stop making the ‘promise of the moment’, where he changes his position and makes promises, based on the group he is talking to. Of course, even if he can right the ship by 2012, that will do little to help the Democratic Party in the quickly approaching 2010 mid-term elections.

Barack Obama is no longer on the campaign trail, he is now the President of the United States, and must realize that there is a difference between campaigning and governing.

Share/Bookmark

The reason young Americans have these views is for another article, but in the 2008 election, Barack Obama fed on those ‘ideals’ that so many young Americans had.  They expected him to pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  They expected him to implement universal health care, preferably a single payer system.  They expected him to raise the tax on the rich and corporations.  The list of far-left, liberal views is long, but also acts as the roadmap he sold to young Americans.

In return for the socialist dream he gave them, the young voters got out and campaigned for him. They created blogs, posted Youtube videos, went door to door, created Facebook pages, and so much more.

Fast forward a year, and reality is hitting home.  President Barack Obama isn’t changing how Washington works.  He isn’t practicing the transparency he promised — even the liberal press is calling him out on his lack of transparency.  The American youth had a much different view of hope and change then he has given to America.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker:

Obama owes his presidency to the ranks of 18-24 year olds who overwhelmingly supported him over John McCain (66-32 percent). He tapped into their idealistic yearnings with promises to heal the divisions of our nation, to end the rancor of partisanship, and to stop the rise of the oceans. He would restore our international popularity and bring health care to the masses (without adding a dime to the deficit). He was a celebrity they could enjoy listening to and hearing from.  In contrast, John McCain was old and uncool, and by making him an avatar of George Bush, the Obama campaign tapped into a deep well of anger toward George Bush.

He made them promises symbolized by hope and change.

But those promises have been broken, and so has much of the enthusiasm of millions of voters who supported him. Even Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, bemoans the fact that the young have fallen by the wayside:

Only 41 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds, a key constituency for Democrats in both 2006 and 2008, are likely to vote, compared to 49 percent likely to sit things out.

While there is still time to re-energize his base, only time will tell whether Barack Obama can sell the socialist dream to young Americans again in 2012.

Share/Bookmark

In his interview with Oprah Winfrey on ABC’s Christmas special, President Obama said:

Obama said the only thing that stands in the way of giving himself a better grade is the fact that some elements of his agenda — health care reform and putting more Americans to work — remain undone.

“The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened,” Obama told Winfrey on the ABC special.

On the plus side, Obama said, “We are on our way out of Iraq.” And, he added, “I think we’ve got the best possible plan for Afghanistan.”

Share/Bookmark

In that same speech, President Obama talked about fiscal responsibility, and how the US government could no longer spend as if the deficit didn’t matter:

But one of the pillars of this foundation is fiscal responsibility.  We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter and waste is not our problem.  We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation

…
One important step is restoring the “pay as you go” rule — and I’ve called on Congress to do exactly that.  This rule says, very simply, that Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.  This is the principle that guides responsible families managing a budget.  This is the principle that helped transform large deficits into surpluses in the 1990s.

In 2006, then Senator Obama lashed out at President Bush, when the White House sought an increase in the debt ceiling:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Now, the White House is urging congress to increase the debt ceiling by a whopping $1.8-1.9 trillion, because both the White House and Congress fear hitting the debt ceiling and having a backlash in the 2010 elections if the ceiling isn’t raised now.

Share/Bookmark

So sure, the politics of the Afghanistan War are still fluid. But when you put the escalation next to Obama’s wavering on the public option; next to his broken promises of transparency; next to his stances on the Patriot Act and Gitmo; next to his full-on abandonment of his NAFTA pledges — well, you get the kind of demoralization that Kos’s new poll shows.

A poll reported on The Hill, asked “will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely or definitely will not vote.”  The results:

Among Republican respondents, 81 percent said they were definitely or probably going to vote, versus only 14 percent who were definitely or not likely to do so. Among independent voters, it was 65-23. Among Democrats? A woeful 56-40: Two out of every five Democrats are currently unlikely to vote.

Share/Bookmark

“Absolutely, we need earmark reform,” Obama said in the first presidential debate. “And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

And while President Obama, with great fanfare, forbade earmarks from his stimulus package, he did not “go line by line” through the $410 billion spending bill that Congress passed this week and that includes roughly 8,500 earmarks costing $7.7 billion. Republicans, convinced that what Americans yearn for in these troubled economic times is a balanced federal budget, have seized upon the bill, insisting that Obama should veto it or be exposed as a rank hypocrite.

Fast forward to December and now Congress has passed a massive $1.1 Trillion Spending Package:

Despite a massive budget deficit, House Democrats pressed ahead Thursday with a huge spending measure combining major spending boosts for domestic agencies and foreign aid with more than 5,000 back-home projects sought by lawmakers.

The 1,088-page, $1.1 trillion measure would provide $447 billion in operating budgets for 10 Cabinet departments, with increases averaging almost 10 percent. There would be more than $600 billion in payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

The generosity comes on top of an infusion of cash to domestic agencies in February’s economic stimulus bill and a $410 billion measure in March that also bestowed budget increases well above inflation.

While this Bills still has to pass the Senate before going to the President’s desk, we have decided to go ahead and point out the Whopper, as there is no indication he will go “line by line” through any spending bill, not veto bills loaded with pork.

Share/Bookmark

On the campaign trail, President Obama made this pledge in regards to health care reform:

“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table,” Obama said. “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we’ll do is we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies or the insurance companies.”

Like with most liberal whoppers, this was a big one that I am sure a lot of people believed.  The reality of the health care debates have been far different than then candidate Obama promised.

The health care debates have been one of the greatest examples of partisan politics ever seen.  Not only have the democrats voted down hundreds of Republican amendments, they have conducted almost all discussion and debate behind closed doors without allowing any Republican involvment, OR transparency for the American citizens.

You might argue that the President has no control over what Harry Reid does in the Senate.  While that might be partially true, the fact is that there is no evidence that he has tried to encourage Pelosi or Reid to honor his pledge and televise the health care debates, but as further proof of his complicity, on Sunday President Obama attended one of these closed door meetings with the Democratic caucus to rally support for Reid’s bill.

We heard a lot about hope and change, about transparency, we just didn’t realize that the change that would take place would be a total lack of transparency.

Share/Bookmark

Let me also address the issue of Iraq.  Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.  Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

In contrast, he said the following about Afghanistan:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together.  Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support.  We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11.  But let us be clear:  Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.  The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody.  And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.  They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.  These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake:  We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan.  We see no military — we seek no military bases there.  It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women.  It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.  We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.  But that is not yet the case.

Now, clearly it is still “not yet the case” that Afghanistan and Pakistan is free of extremists intent on killing Americans.  General McChrystal told the President that he needed more troops.  When he received no response, the General was forced to go public with his request.  Then, after 3 months, the President agreed to give General McChrytal 75% of the troops he requested, but with a catch.

Not only did he delay for three months, to show his ‘control’ of the situation, and reduced the number of troops to appease his constituents, but he also but at the same time he orders 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, he announces the date that we will begin pulling troops out.  This pull out date isn’t much further out than the projected date to finish the troop buildup.

President Obama’s decision has been universally denounced by military experts who know that declaring a pull out date at the same time as a force buildup, will undermine the effort of the forces on the ground.  The locals that the military is struggling to convince that America will support them, if they turn their back on their Taliban, now know that is a lie.  If they side with the Americans today, the Taliban will have free reign in 18-24 months to exact their vengence.

President Obama has to decide if he is campaigning and must appease the left, or if he is in fact the Commander in Chief.  He cannot wear both hats.

Share/Bookmark

The NY Times in a FACT CHECK piece state that Obama likes both sides of an argument:

THE FACTS: Obama’s partisan swipe glosses over some of the circumstances before he took office. First, he and his fellow Democrats presided over some of the decision-making that led up to the crisis, because they controlled Congress for two years before Obama became president. Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner also had a hand, as chief of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the Bush administration.

Moreover, the $700 bailout fund was initiated under the Bush administration by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. It was endorsed at the time by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and by Geithner. As Illinois senator during the presidential campaign, Obama backed that package.

Check out the full NY Times FACT CHECK on President Obama’s economic speech.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

“If a family care physician works with his or her patient, to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.”

“But, if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40-50,000 immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.”

This is yet another Whopper in the long line of Whoppers intended to scare people.  Just like when he claimed that the pediatrition will remove your kids tonsils, rather than sending them for an allergy test, because they make more money removing the tonsils.

The fact is that a surgeon does NOT make $30,000-$50,000 for amputating a foot, but instead make something on the order of $500-$2000.  This wasn’t simply a “oops, I meant the total cost could be $50,000″, since he also clearly stated “immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.

When the truth isn’t enough, tell a Whopper!!

Share/Bookmark