A House Divided – Part 3 of 3

Here’s some old news with continued relevance.  According to a March 25, 2007 Chicago Tribune Article: The not-so-simple story of Barack Obama’s youth, by Tribune Correspondents Kirstan Scharnberg and Kim Barker; and reporter Ray Gibson,

 “…one word Obama learned quickly in his new home [Indonesia] was curang, which means “cheater.”

“When kids teased him, Obama yelled back, ‘Curang, curang!’ When a friend gave him shrimp paste instead of chocolate, he yelled, ‘Curang, curang!’”

It appears that very little has changed since those days.   How many speeches have we heard in which Obama blames Republicans for failures in foreign and domestic policy, immigration, gun control, climate change and probably for dirty restrooms in the Capitol Building!  Remember his first year as President and the constant repetition of complaints regarding the mess “I inherited”  from George Bush?  Remember his reports on alleged U.S. abuses  to the United Nations  Human Rights Council?

Our memory doesn’t have to be that good, because he’s still doing it!  As reported by Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart, on May 11, 2015, the Obama Administration has once again reported so-called U.S. Human Rights violations to the United Nations including:

  • “Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
  • Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
  • Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
  • Predatory lending in home mortgages
  • Suspension of black children in schools
  • Women earning ‘78 cents on the dollar’”

Was this his “Cheater” list for the year?  Close your eyes.  Can you just picture this guy running down the street, looking over his shoulder and shouting at Republicans: Curang, Curang?

Here’s some older ones.  In his book OBAMA:Promise of Power, David Mendell says

“…white people from the better neighborhoods nearby walk their dogs down our block to let the animals shit on our curbs.” 

Was that a simple observation, a misperception, bias?  What do you think?

Curang, Curang – those damn white people again!!!

In the same book, he also made these comments:

“…Security guards tailing me as I shop in Department stores…”

“…white couples who toss me their car keys as I stand outside a restaurant waiting for the valet…” 

See something familiar in Michelle’s Tuskegee speech?

In what alternate universe does Barack Obama present himself as a person who would either provoke security to follow him, or restaurant patrons to throw keys at him?

Curang, Curang, America!!!

How many times has Obama suggested that police are racists?   In bringing a negative spotlight on police and fostering racial tension between communities and the police who serve  them, Obama’s is once again worthy of the title “Agitator.”‘

I guess it’s a matter of Curang, curang police!!!

At an April, 2010, speech at the Ottumwa, Iowa Town Hall, Obama managed to incorporate  his view of police into the discussion of a proposed Arizona State Statute aimed at immigration enforcement.

“If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona – your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.  But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.”

Curang, Curang Arizona – Curang, Curang again Police!!!

And of the Republicans stressing the need for border security, President Obama declared:

“Those aren’t the kind of folks who represent our core American values.”

Curang, Curang Republicans!!!  Curang, Curang Senator McCain

Sadly, if we are indeed a “House Divided,” President and Mrs. Obama seem, to be without a strategy, or inclination to repair what they have so quickly and enthusiastically destroyed.

President Obama has had possibly,  the greatest opportunity of any Chief Executive who has ever occupied the White House to make a positive and profound difference in the black community and by extension, in America at large.

He could have worked to reduce black on black crime.  He could  have  championed  the right of black children to attend schools of their choice.   Instead, for those in Washington, DC at least, he killed their best shot: the voucher program.  He could have lobbied for programs to strengthen the traditional family unit.  He could have encouraged and supported initiatives to help people climb out of poverty and re-integrate with the larger community.  He could have increased job opportunities for African-Americans.  He could have lead the black community in turning the page from an inter-generational sense of victimization, to new levels of economic self sufficiency and achievement.

He could have done all of these things and divided nobody.  Instead, he did none of these things and divided everyone..

Perhaps it should really be:  Curang, Curang Mr. Obama – Curang, Curang.

###

A House Divided – Part 1 of 3

We’ve heard some pundits call Obama “Divisive.”  Why would they think so?   Well, let’s start with a  statement reportedly given  to Ryan Lizza of the New Republic, by Mike Kruglik, an early Obama mentor

“He [Obama] was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation….”   

O.k., but what does that have to do with divisiveness?

Saul Alinsky – author of Rules for Radicals and father of the school of Community Organizing practiced by Barack Obama – described the Agitator’s job as

“…first to bring folks to the ‘realization’ that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve.”

And what better way to evoke misery and divisiveness than by resurrecting  a historical tragedy that has long since passed its proper burial date.  As the Reichstag fire proved in 1933 Germany, creating a common enemy is a potent tool for consolidating political support and power – and is never intended to benefit the people whose lives will most likely be shattered by its effect.  Today’s common enemy is White?  Black?  Latin?  Police? How do you think President Obama answers that question?

Do you Remember when Obama said  that  the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly and then followed that comment by saying

“…what I think we know separate and apart from this incident (Cambridge Police) is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.  That’s just a fact.”  

A  fact?  And the credible source is…

While visiting Ferguson, MO during the Michael Brown protests, with riots, looting  and for the innocents – fear – filling the hours of darkness, Attorney General Eric Holder took advantage of the opportunity to address an audience of local college students regarding his own alleged experience with police officers.  According to an L.A. Times article posted August 20, 2014, Holder told students:

“I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over…. ‘Let me search your car.’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff….” 

As police officers and members of the National Guard were putting their lives on the line to protect people and property – while cars and buildings were burning – while looters were gutting businesses that others spent their lives building – was this really the time and place for Mr. Holder to be giving this type of speech – to this kind of audience?  And, if someone died, or had their business destroyed because of that speech, who would hold him accountable?  Would people call for his indictment, or demand he be fired?  Probably not, because his actions would have merely set things in motion for another citizen/police confrontation and perhaps another shooting, indictment, riot – but nothing that would attach to Holder or to others who gain power and notoriety by fanning the flames of racism.

I had an experience similar to Mr. Holder’s – mine in Louisiana while serving in the U.S. Navy in the 60’s.  I was not speeding, but I was reminded that I was in a city that operated under French law and he [the officer] could put me in the jail and throw away the key – nobody would ever find me.  Perhaps, a little scarier than searching my trunk.  Like Holder, I was stopped by a white police officer.  Unlike Holder though, I happen to be white.

You may also remember when Obama  said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.  Then, on Dec. 5, 2014, the President gave an interview to Jeff Johnson of the Black Entertainment Network, in which he further personalized the events in Ferguson and around the Country.

“When they described their own personal experiences of having been stopped for no reason, or having generated suspicion because they were in a community that supposedly they didn’t belong, my mind went back to what it was like for me when I was 17, 18, 20…”

He went on to say “It used to be, folks would say, “Well, maybe blacks are exaggerating, maybe some of these situations aren’t what they described.” What we’ve now seen on television, for everybody to see, gives us an opportunity, I think, to finally have the kind of conversation that’s been a long time coming.”(Emphasis added)

We should and must hold police officers to a very high standard and we should expect the best judgment, based on state-of-the-art psychological screening and the best training available.  Should we also hold politicians, judges and attorneys responsible?  Do teachers, social workers and parents also bear  responsibility for what ultimately explodes on our streets?  Should we also assign just a touch of responsibility to the criminals  themselves and to others whose behavior, while not criminal,  initiates the scenes we so often see played out with negative consequences.  Those who have read President Obama’s two books are aware of his provocative behaviors as a young man – behaviors that could easily have resulted in unfortunate confrontations.  Does his mind also go back to his own behavior and the potential consequences when he “…was 17, 18, 20…”?

Police officers are the uniformed representatives of government.  When police officers abuse their powers, or exercise poor judgment, citizens begin to distrust their government.  But, it also works in reverse.  When government is ineffective, corrupt, or abusive, the frustration and distrust of citizens is likely to find voice on the streets and in their attitudes and conduct towards police.  When President Obama and others talk about the need to improve relationships between police and the communities they serve, they should first also look to the actions of government and the relationship of those actions to the prosperity, freedom and satisfaction of the citizens they too are sworn to serve.

Recently, Mrs. Obama gave the commencement speech for the 2015 graduating class of Tuskegee University.  She warned the young graduates about the world they would soon face, saying in part:

To Be Continued…

Business as Usual at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

President Obama was back on the golf course Saturday – obviously, deeply concerned about the people still suffering in New York and New Jersey.  That bit of sarcasm would seem harsh and out of touch to most Democrats, but given Obama’s handling of Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans, it seems a more than fair appraisal of what moves the needle on this  president’s “urgency meter.”

Still, President Obama has ticked off a few of his “To Do’s” since last Tuesday’s election.  He admitted, for example, that one of our unmanned, unarmed drones had been attacked by Iranian jets on November 1st.  For those that pay attention to such trivia, that would be five days before the election.  One can only wonder why it took so long for that news to find daylight.  In still another in the long line of fortuitous coincidences that have guided Obama’s career, General David Petraeus, Director of the CIA, has stepped down.  Conveniently, his resignation, based on an alleged extramarital affair, came days after (with no hint before) the election and days before hearings on Benghazi.  The affair was reportedly part of an FBI investigation  – Strangely, and apparently in violation of established protocol, not reported prior to the election, to members of the congressional intelligence committees.

As they say, “Timing is Everything.”

Then there was Obama’s speech on Friday, in which he noted in part, that

“…the American people voted for action, not politics as usual.  You elected us to focus on your jobs – not ours.  And in that spirit, I’ve invited leaders of both parties to the White House next week so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together – and I also intend to bring in business and labor and civic leaders from all across the country, here, to Washington to get their ideas and input as well.  You know, at a time when our economy is still recovering from a great recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth.  That’s the focus of the plan that I talked about during the campaign.  It’s a plan that rewards small businesses and manufacturers that create jobs here – not overseas.  It’s a plan to give people the chance to get the education and training that businesses are looking for right now.  It’s a plan to make sure that this country is a global leader in research, in technology and clean energy, which will attract new companies and high wage jobs to America.  It’s a plan to put folks back to work – including our veterans – rebuilding our roads and our bridges and other infrastructure.  And, it’s a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.  Our work is made that much more urgent because at the end of this year we face a series of  deadlines that requires us to make major decisions about how to pay our deficit down – decisions that will have a major impact on the economy and on the middle class, both now and in the future.  Last year, I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars worth of spending that we just couldn’t afford.  I intend to work with both parties to do more and that includes making reforms that will bring down the cost of health care, so we can strengthen programs like Medicaid and Medicare for the long haul.  But, as I’ve said before, we just can’t cut our way to prosperity.  If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue…and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.  That’s how we did it in the 1990’s when Bill Clinton was president.  That’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.  That’s the only way we can still afford to train our workers, or help our kids pay for college, or make sure that good jobs, or clean energy, or high tech manufacturing don’t end up in countries like China.  Now, already I’ve put forth a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade.  I want to be clear.  I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan.  I’m open to compromise.  I’m open to new ideas.  I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenge.  BUT, I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced…”

I was once taught by a Psychologist friend that the word “BUT” cancels everything said up to that point.  You think?

I often find myself asking if it has occurred to others that this entire political conversation is a game that insults the intelligence of Americans.  On the one hand, we have conservatives saying that raising taxes on those making over $250,000 is raising taxes on small business and on investors who make small business possible.  I entirely agree with this premise insofar as those being targeted for tax increases are small business owners, or are investing in small businesses.  President Obama, on the other hand, seems to completely discount the argument and wants to increase taxes on everyone over that threshold income.  And as he does, he still claims that he will increase the number of jobs and attract new businesses.  This is counterintuitive and, I believe, totally false.  Additionally, it has been shown on several occasions that even if we taxed all of this target group at 100%, it would provide only enough revenue to run the country for a few weeks.  At the same time, it would necessarily eliminate business investment.

What seems to elude Harvard educated politicians, but easily passes the commonsense test, is that if this were a fiscal, rather than an ideological argument, they need only determine who, making more than $250,000 is actually engaged in a small business, who is employing others, and who is investing in the small businesses of others.  Extend the tax cuts for all of them and raise taxes, if you must, on the rest.  Make sense?

The truth, as any breathing person should realize by now, is that tax increases will make no positive difference on the deficit, or debt.  Whatever additional funds are brought into the treasury will be “invested” by Obama before they even arrive.  They will not be used to reduce the deficit, or the debt.  We should not forget that this president hasn’t even been able to pass a budget in his first term.  By definition, this means that there is no plan, because plans are funded and executed through the budget process.  He has increased the National Debt by more than five trillion dollars in less than four years – the most outrageous increase in the history of America.

If Barack Obama was a financial consultant, rather than president  – If he had the same record in his business finances as he has had in Washington – If the financial rating of his company had fallen as that of America has – If you knew he had been operating his company for the past four years, without so much as a budget – if his company was deeply in debt and still borrowing to stay afloat – And if you were searching for someone to handle your hard earned retirement savings – would you put your entire financial future in his hands?

We have.

 

 

Democratic National Circus! Part Three

Only 58 Days Remaining!

Does Obama Think You’re Stupid?

During the Democratic National Circus, you heard Obama say:

                “I’m no longer just a candidate.  I’m the President.”[1]

That statement says so much about Obama.  How many times since this man was elected President has he reminded us that he is the President, that he is the Commander-in-Chief and that “elections have consequences?”

Collectively, these phrases serve far better, as reminders of his unbridled arrogance and perhaps, if we’re honest, of his insecurity in a role he occupies through mere rhetoric rather than accomplishments of any kind.

To check myself, I searched the White House web-site, finding 43,300 results for “Commander-in-Chief,” only one for “Elections have consequences,” (although it produced 486,000 results on Google), and 30,800 results on White House.gov for the corresponding phrase, “I Won.”  Perhaps that makes up for what now seems a modest 174 results for “I am President.”

The constant repetition of these self-serving, condescending and arrogant reminders of power go well with Valerie Jarrett’s one time statement that:

                 “He [Obama] is prepared to really take power and begin to rule Day One.”[2]

Now, having said all these things about the number one person in his life and his assessment of his own power as president, Obama surely must realize that being president is a serious matter.  He has the ability to order young men and women into combat and he now presides over an American economy with a workforce at its lowest point in 31 years – its lowest point in history for men.  As he stood on the podium, accepting the nomination of his Party for president – giving still another in a long line of teleprompter lead speeches – approximately 12.5 million Americans remained unemployed;”[3]  millions more only marginally attached to the workforce, or underemployed.   As he stood on that podium, bragging about 29 straight months of job growth, the new unemployment level was at 8.1%, three tenths of a percent higher than when he took office.  The National Debt was above $16 trillion and salaries for the average middle-class family had dropped by $4,000.  As he has incessantly campaigned, calling jobs his number one priority, he has failed to meet with his Jobs Council even once since January, 2012.  Joe Biden ridiculed a Mitt Romney suggestion for a Territorial Tax, apparently not even realizing that the president’s own Jobs Council had made the same unheeded recommendation.

So what did this very serious, able and thoughtful President say to the American people at the Democratic National Circus???

                “Have a surplus?  Try a tax cut.  Deficit too high?  Try another.  Feel a cold coming on?  Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations and call us in the morning.”[4]     

Are these the words of a man holding one of the most powerful offices in the world?  Do they make you a better informed citizen?  Do they factually explain our problems in an adult fashion and offer solutions for your evaluation?  Or are these the words of someone who views his followers as morons eager to laugh at his jokes while their families starve?  You decide.

Decide quick – only 58 days to decide the future of America.

TO BE CONTINUED…

———————————————————

[1] President Barack Obama, (Sept. 6, 2012), White House web-site, Briefing Room, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, retrieved Sept. 9, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention 

[2] Valerie Jarrett, quoted in WND article (Nov. 10, 2008), WND web-site, Obama will be ready to ‘rule’ on Day 1, retrieved Sept. 9, 2012 from http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80645/ 

[3] BLS News Release (Sept. 7, 2012), Bureau of Labor Statistics web-site, THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION —AUGUST 2012, retrieved Sept. 9, 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[4] President Barack Obama, (Sept. 6, 2012), White House web-site, Briefing Room, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President at the Democratic National Convention, retrieved Sept. 9, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/07/remarks-president-democratic-national-convention

Democratic National Circus! Part Two

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

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!

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!