Category Archives: Obama 2012

Democratic National Circus! Part Two

Posted on by
Reply

Only 59 Days Remaining!

Another Proud Moment for the Left

Yesterday, our conversation centered on omissions from the Democratic Presidential Platform, of “God” and of the affirmation that Jerusalem is and will always be the capital of Israel.  The narrative also described the inexplicable difficulty in returning both of these omissions to the Platform.  In all, three votes were required and still failed to produce the level of consensus required for approval of their return.  That did not stop the Chairman of the Convention, Antonio Villaraigosa, from dutifully reading his pre-scripted teleprompter and announcing that the Aye’s had achieved a 2/3 majority and the measure was passed.

There can be no question that this incident involved conscious decisions, lies and very nearly an open declaration of hostility towards Israel from Democratic Party Delegates.

But, this was not the only “ground ball” for finding lies among the Democrat hierarchy.  Earlier in the Circus, DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was questioned about a statement she had attributed to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren:

   “what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel,”[1]

Ambassador Oren quickly responded to the alleged quote, stating that:

“I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”[2]

When Wasserman-Schultz was asked about the quote and subsequent denial by the Ambassador, her response was not only that she had been misquoted, but that she had been deliberately misquoted. Her precise response – of a type becoming more and more typical of the Democratic Party:

“’I didn’t say he [Ambassador Oren] said that,’ Wasserman Schultz insisted. ‘And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me.’”[3]

Examiner Senior Editorial Writer Philip Klein, who made the initial report, then produced the audio proving that Wasserman-Schultz had made exactly the statement he quoted in his previous column. [4]  When later asked if she intended to offer Mr. Klein an apology, Wasserman-Schultz allegedly answered “with a slight laugh,”  “No, I definitely will not.”[5] 

Another “Class” moment for the Obama camp – another moment that marginalizes and ridicules their own base.

TO BE CONTINUED…


[1] Douglas Bloomfield, (Sep. 6, 2012), The Jewish Weekly web-site, The Jewish Week/Political Insider, Debbie Does Damage,” retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political-insider/debbie-does-damage

[2] Ibid.

[3] Philip Klein, Senior Editorial Writer, (Sep. 4, 2012), The Examiner web-site, Politics, Beltway Confidential, DWS Attacks Examiner for ‘Deliberately’ Misquoting her, but here’s the Audio, retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://washingtonexaminer.com/dws-attacks-examiner-for-deliberately-misquoting-her-but-heres-the-audio/article/2506980#.UEuST6OO6So

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ken Shepherd, (Sep. 5, 2012), Newsbusters web-site, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Refuses to Apologize to Reporter She Falsely Charged with Misquoting Her, retrieved Sep. 9, 2012 from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/09/05/debbie-wasserman-schultz-refuses-apologize-reporter-she-falsely-charge

 

Democratic National Circus! Part One

Posted on by
Reply

Only 60 Days Remaining!

Obama and Israel – Really???

For the past two weeks, voters have been treated to the rare opportunity to observe a microcosm of the ideologies that drive both the Republican and Democratic Parties today – ideologies that affect the lives of all Americans.

Predictably, the first of the two national conventions was “conservative” (no pun intended).  Speakers cited the reasons for supporting Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and they were not shy about enumerating the policy failures of the past four years.  The emphasis however, was not on the past, but on the future and on what a Romney presidency would mean to the country and to our economic recovery.  Noticeably absent from the narrative was an “Obama bash fest.”  With the exception of an imaginative skit by actor Clint Eastwood, references to the president were largely measured and respectful, albeit critical of his policies.

By comparison, last week was an entertaining, but disturbing circus.  Much like the Obama presidency itself, the Democratic National Convention  was a spectacle of questionable decisions, illusions and insults to the intellect of American voters.  Here, over the next few days, are just a few of what I sincerely hope most readers will see as additional “Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama.”  The future of our country depends on it.

Issue #1

Midway through the Convention, it was discovered that Obama had omitted “GOD” from the Party Platform.  It was also discovered that he had omitted any reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  These were not just absent from the Platform.  They were removed from the Party’s previous presidential Platform.  It was a conscious decision.  This was first exposed in an interview by FoxNews Anchor Bret Baier with Senator Dick Durban (D-IL).  When asked to explain the basis for these omissions, Durbin became visibly agitated and defensive, suggesting that Fox and Baier were attempting to paint the Democrats as “Godless.”  But, despite Durbin’s reaction, we soon saw  Convention Chair Antonio Villaraigosa calling for a voice vote from delegates, in order to return God and Jerusalem to the Platform.  Most Americans, I think, would suspect that such a voice vote would be a mere formality.

Not so.

The first call for “Yea” or “Nay” produced an indiscernable difference in shouting volume between the two camps.  A noticeably confused Villaraigosa called for a second vote – same result.  Villaraigosa, as if searching for advice, stopped and looked to staff members – one of whom told him

“You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re gonna do.”[1]

He again repeated the process.  Results?  Still the same.

Then, with amazing finality, Chairman Villaraigosa looked straight into the camera, announcing that:

                 “In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative.”[2]

The truth is that the difference between “Yea” and “Nay” votes was barely discernable, if at all.  The suggestion that either side won by a 2/3 majority is sheer fantasy.   As we later discovered, Chairman Villaraigosa’s “Opinion” had already been posted to his teleprompter.  He could have no other opinion.  The “Party” had spoken – he was just the face.  We have to wonder if this is the process that Obama has followed in his alleged efforts to reach compromise and bipartisan solutions in Washington.  No wonder Republican Governors want voter I.D.!!!

The bigger, far more troubling part of this saga however, is that rank and file members of the Democratic Party, in large numbers, voted against returning “God” and Jerusalem to the Party Platform.

At the close of the convention when Cardinal Dolan gave the Benediction, the “Amens” were plentiful and loud – as loud as the “Yea’s” and “Nays” of the earlier votes.  We can only surmise from this, that the controversial issue for rank and file Democrats was not “God,” but the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.  This of course, begs the question of 1) whether or not the Democratic Party has, under Obama, become hostile to Israel; and 2) Who, in the Democratic Party was “testing the waters,” by removing “God” from the Platform.  While all of his minions were racing around to certify that the omissions were made without Obama’s knowledge and that he was proactive and adamant in having them re-inserted in the Platform, the fact remains that it was Obama’s Platform.  Were its writers using accepted boilerplate language, both items would have been included, because they had been there in 2008.  It is far more likely that these omissions represented a conscious decision executed with Obama’s personal approval – or even more likely – at his direction.

In the opinion of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), DNC Chairperson, none of this amounted to more than a “Technical Correction.”

TO BE CONTINUED…

[1] LA Times, (September 6, 2012), La Times web-site, Awkward moments for Villaraigosa during God, Israel vote at DNC, retrieved Sept. 7, 2012 from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-dnc-vote.html

[2] Ibid.

Obama and Miracles of Logic!

Posted on by
Reply

Only 63 Days Remaining!

President Obama may be one of the most prolific speakers of  all the politicians in our history.  He is the speaking equivalent to literally thousands of windmills, albeit windmills designed for moving volumes of hot air.  Although he promised to be the most transparent president in history, he has proven one of the most opaque.  Indeed, it has been the frequency of his speeches that supports his claim of transparency – and their content that makes his presidency opaque.

How many speeches has Obama made about businessmen out to cheat the consumer?  How many speeches has he dedicated to the promise of protecting citizens from the evil clutches of big business?  Aside from signing the Dodd-Frank bill, he even created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  So, there’s transparency!  Right?

We’re no doubt in for a lot of Obama’s “Transparency” over the next few days of the DNC.  And convinced of the absolute truth and justice of every Obama utterance and action, the mainstream media is understandably reluctant to ask even a few mundane questions that might suggest reasonable doubt.  For example:

1)  If Dodd Frank is really designed to protect consumers, why does it expand the power of the Federal Reserve?  Is that a good thing?

2)  If  Obamacare has already caused a reduction of $716 billion dollars in Medicare funding, exactly how is it that Obama argues he is protecting Medicare and improving health care to seniors?

3)  The daughter of a 105 year old woman once explained to Obama that at 99, her mother needed a pacemaker and that nothing could be done for her without it.  In other words, she would die without it.  The doctor, after seeing the woman’s energy and love for life, o.k.d the operation and the woman lived at least 6 years longer.  When she asked Obama if this could happen under Obamacare, the answer was no and that sometimes it was better just to give them a pill.  How is it that Obama can take such a position while sneering at the suggestion that Obamacare contains a “Death Panel?”

4) Obama  claims  responsibility for 29 straight months of job growth  and the creation of millions of jobs.  WHO CARES?  If he created 50 billion jobs and the unemployment rate goes up (as it is) and workforce participation goes down (as it has), what do those jobs matter?  Does anybody get it?

5) If Obama can make people believe he’s saving Medicare, producing jobs, and looking  out for the middle class, why hasn’t he bypassed Congress as usual and issued an Executive Order removing himself from office?

Now that would be logical!

10,000 Dead – Entire Town Destroyed!!! – Reason #87

Posted on by
Reply

Only 68 Days Remaining!

10,000 Dead – Entire Town Destroyed

In a 2007 campaign speech in Virginia, then Senator Obama provided a glimpse of what he would show again and again in the coming years.  The tragedies, hopes and dreams of others are often merely lines on a teleprompter to “No drama Obama.”  So it was in this speech, where he boldly asserts:

“This week there was a tragedy in Kansas.  Ten thousand people died – an entire town destroyed.  I talked to somebody in the Governor’s office – Governor Sebelius, who I was going to be travelling with in New Orleans, had to fly back – found out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40% of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process in Kansas…”[i]

Obama used the opportunity to question how President Bush could have involved the U.S. in a trillion dollar war.

Recognizing that the actual death toll from the Kansas Tornado was 12 – not 10,000 – not an entire town – Obama told the audience he was tired.[ii]  He may have been.  Nonetheless, this error, his error as to the number of states, his error as to Medicine Joe Crow being a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, his error as to Sgt. Monti having been a living recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor – all of these errors scream of belonging to a man with little attachment to America, to the acts of American heroism, service and excellence – or to the tragedies impacting the lives of our fellow citizens every day.

But hey…he looks good, has a good speaking voice and reads a teleprompter with reasonable accuracy.

[i] Senator Barack Obama, (2007), YouTube web-site, video from FoxNews posted by SalemNNPA, (May 9, 2007), Obama: 10,000 dead from tornado in Kansas, give or take 9,98, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjO8Qc5s1fY&feature=related

[ii] Associated Press, (May 9, 2007), FoxNews web-site, Obama: ‘10,000 People Died’ in Kansas Tornado, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270852,00.html

Obama and a Nation Divided

Fund Raiser or Memorial? What to do? An Obama Dilemma – Reason #83

Posted on by
Reply

Only 72 Days Remaining!

Fund Raiser or Memorial?  Decisions – Decisions

It was nearly two months before the President met with the families of the 11 oil rig workers killed in  the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010.   Worse, he did not attend a May 25, 2010 memorial service for the dead.  When asked why, his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, reportedly said “I’d have to look at the schedule. I don’t know the answer.” [i]

Coincidentally perhaps, the President did find time in his schedule that day, to appear at a California fund raiser for Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA).[ii]

[i] Abby Livingston, (June 11, 2010), CNN Political Ticker Blog, President Attended Fundraiser During Gulf Memorial Service, retrieved June 4, 2011 from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/president-headed-to-fundraiser-during-gulf-memorial-service/?fbid=1X3uo6JsabL

[ii] Ibid

How does a President Forget the Recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor? – Reason #82

Posted on by
Reply

Only 73 Days Remaining!

Medal of Honor Recipient Forgotten

On June 23, 2011, speaking to members of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, President Obama – Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s armed forces – reminded the soldiers that:

“…First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to, who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[i]

This could have been a fine moment for a President remembering an American hero….except for one flaw in his speech.  President Obama presented Staff Sergeant Jared Monti’s Medal of Honor, posthumously, to his parents at a White House ceremony conducted on September 17, 2009. [ii]  Sgt. Monti was killed in action on June 21, 2006.[iii]

These should be moments indelibly etched on the mind of a caring person – let alone a caring President…unless, of course, they don’t care.

[i] President Barack Obama, (June 23, 2011), White House.gov Speeches & Remarks, Remarks of the President to Soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York retrieved November 15, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/23/remarks-president-soldiers-10th-mountain-division-fort-drum-new-york

[ii] Ibid

[iii] United States Army, (2011), Medal of Honor Official Citation for actions of Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti, Operation Enduring Freedom, retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/monti/citation.html

Astronaut: “…We just backed down and quit…” – Reason #80

Posted on by
Reply

Only 75 Days Remaining!!

Astronaut:  “…We just backed down and quit…”

Former Astronaut Gene Cernan – the last American to walk on the Moon – noted in an interview with FoxNews’ Megyn Kelly, that China’s interest in maintaining a “consistent space program as they look to the future, really surprises no one.

“What is a surprise and what hurts…is we’ve just abdicated our future leadership in space, and I think that’s significantly important – both from a civilian point of view, military point of view and certainly, it’s going to have a tremendous economic impact and make us vulnerable in the future…I think this has got long, long term implications…the country that controls outer space in one way or another – the country that controls the high ground…if they destroy the capability to destroy satellites…to interrupt communications.  Look what it would do to our banking system.  Look at our navigation system.  They’re going to put up a whole…GPS system of satellites, which is going to challenge those that we’ve already got up there.

“…we won’t be able to put an American on an American piece of hardware until the end of the decade.  That’s unacceptable…we just backed down and quit quite frankly…The whole nation hasn’t yet fully grasped the situation that we’re being put in by the present Administration…We’re cheating future generations…”[i]

[i] Gene Cernan, (Dec. 30, 2011), Fox Nation web-site, Interview with Megyn Kelly, Last American to Walk on Moon Tears Obama Apart Over Weak U.S. Space Program, retrieved December 31, 2011 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/30/last-american-walk-moon-tears-obama-apart-over-weak-us-space-program

Does Obama Trust Russians more than Congress? – Reason #77

Posted on by
Reply

Only 78 Days Remaining!

Obama: Ready to Share with Russians – Not Congress

According to the Washington Times, “President Obama signaled Congress during the week of Jan 2, 2012, that he was prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.”  This revelation was consistent with information previously published, indicating that Obama was “planning to provide Moscow with Standard Missile-3 (SM3) data.”  Such data sharing could, according to security officials, allow the Russians to counter our defensive missiles. [i]

As this argument wages, Obama signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), on December 31, 2011.  The NDAA, in part, restricts the ability of the President to share classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia without reporting to Congress 60 days in advance, the specific information to be shared.  While Obama signed the law, he indicated in his signing statement, that he would interpret its provisions in a manner that gives him maximum “flexibility” (remember that word and his open mic moment with Dimitri Medvedev).  With regard to one section of the law, Obama said:

“…While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets.”[ii]

The President seems to be saying that his right to share national security secrets with a foreign power should not be subjected to restrictions that would cause him to disclose to our own Congress, sensitive diplomatic communications, or the same national security secrets.  In other words, classified national security documents warrant less protection than diplomatic communications with a foreign government.  Revealing our secrets to a foreign power – according to this line of thinking – is less threatening than releasing them to members of Congress.

[i] Bill Gertz (Jan. 4, 2012), Washington Times web-site, Inside the Ring, Pentagon Shifts East, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=all#pagebreak

[ii] President Barack Obama (December 31, 2011), White House web-site, Statements & Releases,  Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Obama Keeping Promise? – Reason #70

Posted on by
Reply

Only 85 Days Remaining!

Obama Keeps Promise to Circumvent Congress

President Obama, a man who taught the Constitution for ten years and who has clearly articulated the systems of checks and balances designed by our nation’s Founders, seems to have expanded his own view of Presidential power since taking that office.  His new line of reasoning says:

“But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. (Applause.) I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.”[i]

Citing this “obligation,” President Obama effected the so-called “Recess Appointment” of Richard Cordray on January 4, 2012, as the first Director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The reality however – according to the Heritage Foundation – was that the Senate was not in “Recess,” but in a “Pro Forma” session, as proven by the fact that during the “Pro Forma” session, they had successfully passed the President’s two month extension of the payroll tax cut.[ii]   In effect, Obama was usurping the authority of the legislative branch in order to avoid the requirement of Cordray’s Senate confirmation.

Is this activity consistent with our image of American Democracy?

[i] President Barack Obama, (Jan. 4, 2012), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President on the Economy, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/04/remarks-president-economy

[ii] Andrew Grossman (Jan. 5, 2012), Heritage web-site, The Foundry, Even Obama Agrees that the Senate was not in Recess, retrieved January 7, 2012 from http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/05/even-obama-agrees-that-the-senate-was-not-in-recess/

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law – Reason #68

Posted on by
Reply

Only 87 Days Remaining!

Obama – Promises to Disregard Law

During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, then Senator Obama was asked by a member of the audience:  “When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use Presidential Signage to get your way?”  His one word answer was “Yes.”  His follow-up explanation however, drove the point home, that this was an unconstitutional and reprehensible act for any President.  In his own words:

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there would be checks and balances.  You don’t want a President that’s too powerful, or a Congress that’s too powerful, or Courts that are too powerful.  Everybody’s got their own role.  Congress’ job is to pass legislation.  The President can veto it, or he can sign it.  But, what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed, by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part.  I’m going to choose to interpret it this way, or that way.’  That’s not part of his power.  But, this is part of the whole theory of George Bush – that he can make laws as he’s going along.  I disagree with that.  I taught the Constitution for ten years.  I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.  We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.  All right?”[i]

Very strong language indeed for a President who boasts an ability and intention to go around Congress, and who noted in signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act, that he disagreed with 14 sections of the bill, saying:

“…should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.”[ii]

In still another of the 19 signing statements issued by President Obama thru the end of 2011, Obama blocked the defunding of four of his “Czar” positions, stating that:

“Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Therefore, the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”[iii]

Which of the campaign promises Obama makes in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election will be as solid as his assurances against “Signing Statements”?  Which other Constitutional principles will he defend with equal respect and passion?

[i] Senator Barack Obama, (2008), Doug Powers (Oct. 28, 2011), Michelle Malkin web-site, Charles Rangel: Obama Working Around Congress is Okay Because of the Gridlock, video in article posted by “brianamburgey”, Obama on Presidential Signing Statements, retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://michellemalkin.com/2011/10/28/charles-rangel-gridlock/

[ii] President Barack Obama, (Dec. 31, 2011) White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

[iii] President Barack Obama, (April 15, 2011), White House web-site, Statements & Releases, Statement by the President on H.R. 1473, retrieved January 6, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/15/statement-president-hr-1473