Category Archives: Obama vs Romney

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

Obama and his Constant Struggle for the Low Ground! – Reason #73

Posted on by
Reply

Only 82 Days Remaining!

When Convictions and Campaigns Conflict

During his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama startled America when he directed his displeasure directly at the black robed figures respectfully congregated a few yards in front of him and representing the Supreme Court of the United States and the third branch of government – the Judiciary.  Showing his ire, Obama placed the Justices on a “Hot seat” from which they were neither invited nor expected to respond:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Obama was addressing the issue of the so-called “Super PACs.”  Later, at a 2010 Campaign rally in  Philadelphia, Obama added to and clarified his State of the Union remarks, pronouncing:

“Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy.”[i]

Here was obviously a man of conviction.  Recall that in a 2007 campaign rally, candidate Obama excoriated John Edwards for saying he was against 527s (PACs), but, then having such a group, headed by his former campaign manager, purchase $750,000 in television time.  Obama righteously went on to say at that time:

“So, you can’t say yesterday, you don’t believe in them and today, you have ¾ of a million dollars being spent for you.  You can’t just talk the talk.  The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during an election time.  Everybody talks about change during election time.  You’ve got to look at how do they act when it’s not convenient – when it’s hard…”[ii]

Still apparently protecting Democracy and standing on his convictions – even in hard times – oops!  It seems a funny thing happened on the way to the 2012 election…Obama’s Campaign Manager – Jim Messina – stated in February, 2012, that:

“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.” [iii]

Unilateral disarmament in this administration, is apparently restricted to nuclear warheads and national defense – not for campaigns.  And with that, the Super PACs were alive and well in the Obama campaign.  Apparently, there was more at stake than walking the talk – more at stake than Democracy.  Apparently, President Obama’s principled stand is largely contingent upon his re-election prospects.

What a surprise.

[i] President Barack Obama, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

[ii] FoxNation, (Feb. 9, 2012), video provided by TheRightScoop.com, Right Scoop: Obama Will Do and Say Anything to Get Reelected, retrieved February 9, 2012 from http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/09/right-scoop-obama-will-do-and-say-anything-get-reelected

[iii] Jim Messina, quoted in My Fox Orlando web-site, (Feb. 7, 2012), Team Obama Wants Super PAC Spending… So Obama Can Stop Super PAC Spending; Romney Attacks Elevate, retrieved February 7, 2012 from http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/Team-Obama-Wants-Super-PAC-Spending-So-Obama-Can-Stop-Super-PAC-Spending-Romney-Attacks-Elevate-Santorum_67703630

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

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo? – Reason #66

Posted on by
Reply

Only 89 Days Remaining!

 

Did Obama Describe an American Gestapo?

On July 2, 2008, during a rally in Colorado Springs, then Senator Obama made one of the most startling statements ever heard from a Presidential candidate.  Obama told the American public:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a Civilian National Security Force that’s just as powerful – just as strong – just as well funded.” [i]

FactCheck.org soundly ridiculed Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), after Broun responded to Obama’s comment, saying “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s [Obama’s] the one who proposed this national security force. … That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.”[ii]

How does any person, news, or other organization of any kind justify ridiculing anyone questioning such a bizarre announcement from a sitting Senator and would-be President of the United States?  The ridiculing of Rep. Broun was no less dangerous than the Obama statement itself.

            [i] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

            [ii] Brooks Jackson, (November 11, 2008), FactCheck.org website, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like “civilian national security force”? retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html